Hudson's questions answered.

 Here Gary Hudson has 50 questions for King James Bible believers. His questions in red. (my answers below his questions)

(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in order to call it “the word of God”? If so, how do we know “it” is perfect? If not, why do some limit “the word of God” to only one 17th Century English translation? Where was “the word of God” prior to 1611?
ANSWER #1 : Yes. If our Bible is not perfectly flawless than it would be blasphemous to give it the title "the word of God" IF it had any errors in it because the word of God is PURE. Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

I know my Bible is perfect by faith. I did not see Paul when he wrote the book of Romans and even if I had seen him write it I wouldn't be able to prove that the Holy Spirit guided him in the writing. It is by faith that I believe the Bible is inspired and it is by faith I believe that it is preserved exactly how God wrote it. 

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 

1 Peter 1:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 

Proofs that the Bible is perfect is that it was written over the course of a few thousand years by 40 different authors and not one time does the Bible contradict. Also there are the detailed prophecies that are in the Bible, they have come to pass just like it said. 

I limit the title "the word of God" to only one 17th Century English translation because it is the only copy of the exact words of God compiled into one volume as far as I know. There are some contradictions in other translations and other translations don't seem to give God as much glory as the King James Bible does. Many modern versions refer to Joseph as Christ's "father" in Luke 2:33 where as the KJB says "Joseph". Many modern translations change "God was manifest in the flesh" (KJB 1 Tim. 3:16) to "he appeared in a body". Many modern versions change the references to Christ as God's "holy child" (KJB Acts 4:27, 30) to "holy servant". There are scores of other errors in modern versions, many of these are attacks on scripture, the blood atonement, the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, pro-catholic readings inserted, and other problems. 

See these for more information on problems in modern versions:
New King James Version Corruption.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-king-james-version-corruption.html 

The corrupt NIV  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-corrupt-niv.html

As for the question "where was the word of God prior to 1611", the first page of the KJB answers that question. 

"         THE HOLY BIBLE
containing the old and new testaments
1611 Authorized King James Version
Translated out of the original tongues 
and with former translations 
diligently compared and revised 
by his magesty's special command         "

The word of God (prior to 1611) was in the former translations and the Hebrew and Greek languages. The KJB is a compilation of the correct (inspired) readings from those sources.

(2) Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the meanest translation” is
still “the word of God”?
ANSWER #2 : They were not lying, but they were incorrect. It is true that a version other than the KJB can have "the word of God" in some places in it as long as it is in agreement with the KJB. A NKJV may CONTAIN some of "the word of God", but as the NKJV stands, it is NOT "the word of God". 

(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are the word of God?
ANSWER #3 : The Hebrew and Greek behind the KJV may CONTAIN some of "the word of God", but as they stand (alone), they are NOT "the word of God". 

(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can “correct” the English?
ANSWER #4 : The text of the King James Bible cannot be improved upon or corrected by anything.

(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV “corrects” its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
ANSWER #5 : When the Hebrew and Greek are wrong the KJB can correct them.

(6) Is any translation “inspired”? Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?
ANSWER #6 : Here is a list of some of the inspired translations that were in the original autographs.
Genesis 42:18-20, 42:23, Ezra 4:7-11, Ps. 110:1 with Luke 20:42-43, Mark 5:54, Acts 22, Acts 26:14, and Matthew 27:46 with Mark 15:34. Also, anytime a NT writer quotes OT scripture, you then have an inspired translation. The NT quotes OT (Hebrew) into Greek. Yes, the KJB is the inspired word of God. (1 Pet. 1:23-25)

(7) Is the KJV “scripture?” Is it “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16)?
ANSWER #7 : Yes and yes. All the scripture we have is given by inspiration of God. Paul told Timothy that he had the "holy scriptures" in 2 Timothy 3:15 and what Timothy had was either translations or copies. 

(8) When was the KJV “given by inspiration of God”? – 1611 … or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
ANSWER #8 : All scripture is given by inspiration of God, the scripture I have in my hand right now was given by inspiration of God. So no matter what EDITION of the KJB you have, it is given by inspiration of God. 

(9) In what language did Jesus Christ (not Peter Ruckman and others) teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matt 5:18?
ANSWER #9 : Christ didn't tell us that the word of God was bound to any language in particular. The words of God are the words of God no matter what language is being used. One of the attributes of the word of God is that it "is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9). Here is the verse you referenced, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.". That verse does not even hint that the scriptures are bound to one language. There are inspired translations and copies (see answers to #6-7).

(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one 17th Century English translation?
ANSWER #10 : The Bible teaches that God will preserve His exact words (Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Isa. 55:9-11, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17). The word of God is not bound to any ONE place (2 Tim. 2:9). So "17th Century English translation" is irrelevant.

(11) Did God lose the words of the originals when the “autographs” were destroyed?
ANSWER #11 : No, the words were preserved through copies and translations. The original pieces of paper with the ink on them were lost, but the word of God endureth forever.

(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was “translated out of the original Greek?” Were they “liars” for claiming to have “the original Greek” to translate from?
ANSWER #12 : You are the one who is misleading. The KJV said "original TONGUES", not "languages".

(13) Was the “original Greek” lost after 1611?
ANSWER #13 : Oh it was lost WAY before 1611.

(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without “the word of God”?
ANSWER #14 : Actually it took place while GETTING the word of God. The catholics had up to that point had a monopoly on bibles and only allowed corrupt versions. The protestant reformation took place while believers were ditching the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Douay Rheims, and Jerome's Vulgate readings and switching rather to the pure line of Greek manuscripts from Antioch/Syria (instead of the Alexandria, Egypt local text). But yes, it took place without the pure word of God compiled into one volume, the KJB. 

(15) What translation of “the word of God,” used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant?
ANSWER #15 : Without a KJB they had none (to my knowledge). 

(16) If the KJV is “God’s infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people,” did the “English-speaking people” have “the word of God” from 1525-1604?
ANSWER #16 : Some of it, though not compiled into one volume.

(17) Was Tyndale’s (1525), or Coverdale’s (1535), or Matthew’s (1537), or the Great (1539), or Geneva (1560) … English Bibles absolutely infallible?
ANSWER #17 : No. 

(18) If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be “born again” by the “incorruptible word of God” (1 Pet 1:23)?
ANSWER #18 : You misquoted the verse.

1 Peter 1:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The seed was what was said to be incorruptible. Obviously the word of God is corruptible because the Watchtower Society (NWT) has corrupted the word of God (ditto NIV, LB, NEB, NASB, ESV, etc.).

A person can get saved of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ no matter where they read that gospel from. You could write the gospel message out on a role of toilet paper.  

(19) If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” need correction or improvement?
ANSWER #19 : I do not know anyone who says that the original autographs needed correcting (though they sometimes can, Jer. 36:32). KJB believers teach that the KJB is a completely accurate preservation of the original autographs in English. 

(20) Since most “KJV-Onlyites” believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired “scripture” (2 Pet 1:20), and 2 Pet 1:21 says that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” would you not therefore reason thus—“For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”?
ANSWER #20 : God is the one who guides the copyist and translator during preservation....

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

So the KJV translators were guided by the Spirit. However, their work (KJB) was a bringing forth of already inspired words.....not what some would consider a "re-inspiration". The KJV was a compilation of the already inspired words of God making it an inspired Book.   

(21) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture—“whom ye” (Cambridge KJV’s) or “whom he” (Oxford KJV’s) at Jer 34:16?
ANSWER #21 : See this excerpt from my critique of The King James Only Controversy
"Cambridge AV
Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Oxford AV
Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

1611 AV
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.  

1769 Cambridge Edition AV
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city.  As you can see the variants do not contradict and all are true. However, Jeremiah 34:16 was a printers error where the printer had an upside down "h" making it "y". A printers error is not an error in the text of what the AV translators translated though. For James White to say that both editions of the AV must match is unbiblical, for God often changes His word when a NT writer quotes an OT scripture. God's word is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9) and He does what He wants with it. White is also using a double standard. Back in chapter 3 he talked about how there were so many differences and variants among the manuscripts in the original languages but he still accepts them, why can't AV believers do the same with the AV? James White and Scholarship Onlysim are the kings of double standard rationale."

(22) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture—“sin” (Cambridge KJV’s) or “sins” (Oxford KJV’s) at 2 Chron 33:19?
ANSWER #22 : As Dr. Herb Evans states, "Both readings are correct. One uses a plural, the other uses a singular plural as was common in English at one time. Even one of our Christian songs uses "all my sin." "


Bible correctors are obsessed with VARIANTS and ORIGINALS.

(23) Who publishes the infallible “inerrant KJV”?
ANSWER #23 : I assume all of the publishers do, though some make an attempt to Americanize some spellings.

(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 [sic] made … many hundreds of changes [sic] … would you say the KJV was “verbally inerrant” in 1611 … or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850 [sic]?
ANSWER #24 : I would hardly call the changes in font, spellings, and the removal of printers errors "revisions". They are all good.

(25) Would you contend that God waited until a king named “James” sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well … if the historical fact was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all his life?
ANSWER #25 : No I would not contend that. Meanwhile there are no proofs of King James being a queer, that was a rumor started by one of  King James's enemies YEARS AFTER the death of James.

(26) Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was “led by God in translating” even though he was an alcoholic that “drank his fill daily” throughout the work? (Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind the KJV, 40, 69).
ANSWER #26 : Why not? David was a murderer and committed adultery, Peter denied Christ three times, etc. etc. and God still used them.

(27) Is it possible that the rendition “gay clothing,” in the KJV at Jas 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
ANSWER #27 : It is very possible, that is if the modern reader does not know what "gay" means. Similar to the word "ass" in the Bible. One who studies the Bible would find our that an "ass" is a donkey, "gay" means goodly, and that "shittim" is a type of wood. 

(28) Did dead people “wake up” in the morning according to Isa 37:36 in the KJV?
ANSWER #28 : Yes, if you misread the verse. Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

(29) Was “Baptist” John’s last name according to Matt 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
ANSWER #29 : Yes, if you are an idiot. ;) Meanwhile is "Christ" the last name of Jesus? John was called "Baptist" because he was a baptizer.  

(30) Does 2 Cor 6:11-13 in the KJV make any sense to the modern English KJV reader as compared to the NIV?
ANSWER #30 :  Yes it does make sense to anyone reading the chapter and is paying attention.

(31) Does the singular “oath’s” occurring in every KJV at Matt 14:9 and Mark 6:26 “correct” every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural “oaths”?
ANSWER #31 : Yes, though I am not sure it matters which way it is said.

(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be “worshipped” according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? (Remember—you may not go to the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
ANSWER #32 : I wasn't going to consider going to the Greek. I read English much better, Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. 

Where did it say to "worship men"? I missed your point. 

(33) Is the Holy Spirit an “it” according to John 1:32; Rom 8:16, 26; and 1 Pet 1:11 in the KJV? (Again—you may not go to the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
ANSWER 33: Yes, and Christ is a "it" according to Genesis 3:15. 

Here is a quote from Dr. Herb Evans. 
"What if I already know that "itself" is the Greek "AUTO" and is neuter. Like auto-matic is selfo-matic.

I am beginning to think that you are afraid of the Greek. Now, let me see if I understand this. You have made a rule that the Holy Spirit cannot be called an "it" or "itself" and you want everyone to obey your theological rule. If that correct, what is the basis for your rule?

Do you also have a rule for MAN being called an "it" or "itself," for the KJB and both the NKJB and NIV all use the word itself for the creature (creation in the NIV and NKJV). The KJb says, "Because the creature ITSELF also shall be delivered . . . Romans 8:20 When I knock on your door, and you ask, Who is IT? I might reply, "IT is I." Merely a nuance of our language.

The NIV and NKJV with the KJB call Jesus an IT in Rev. 12:4. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he may to devour her child the moment IT was born.

You might note that the in Matthew 14:26, the NKJV and NIV say, about the disciples quote, "IT is a GHOST " (SPIRIT in the KJB). What does Jesus say, "IT is I" (verse 27). What do the disciples say, "If IT is you" (verse 28). So Jesus is an IT! "

(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a “Friday” crucifixion in the KJV (no “day” here in Greek).
ANSWER #34 : No. What kind of sabbath was it?

(35) Did Jesus command for a girl to be given “meat” to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? (or, “of them that sit at meat with thee” at Luke 14:10).
ANSWER #35 : There is nothing wrong with eating meat (1 Tim. 4). But also "meat" in the Bible is sometimes used to mean food. I don't really care.

(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a “Bible-corrector” for saying that Rom 8:24 should be rendered “saved in hope,” instead of the KJV’s “saved by hope”?
ANSWER #36 : You bet!

(37) Was J Frank Norris a “Bible-corrector” for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be “born of water and the spirit,” and for saying that “repent and turn” in Acts 26:20 should be “repent, even turn”? (Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pp108, 116). Also, is Norman Pickering an “Alexandrian Apostate” for stating, “The nature of language does not permit a ‘perfect’ translation—the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap”?
ANSWER #37 : You bet!

(38) Was R A Torrey “lying” when he said the following in 1907—“No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given”? (Difficulties in the Bible, p17).
ANSWER #38 : Maybe not lying, but misinformed for sure. I have in my hand a compilation of quotes pre-1900 where people believed that the English Bible (KJB) was without error. 

(39) Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing “in favor of canonizing our KJV,” thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? (The Flaming Torch, June 1989, p6).
ANSWER #39 : I am not sure what you are talking about.

(40) Did God supernaturally “move His Word from the original languages to English” in 1611?
ANSWER #40 : He supernaturally preserves His word through any kind of language or copy. Going from one language to the next is not some outstanding miracle. God supernaturally PRESERVED His word as I have already shown (Psalms 12:6-7, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

(41) If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, how is it that they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and imperfections as Bible translators?
ANSWER #41 : Not even all the NT writers claimed inspiration. You do not have to know that your work is inspired.

(42) When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, why do you prefer the Textus Receptus?
ANSWER #42 : It makes no difference to me, I prefer the English text myself.

(43) Did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote from the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was certainly not a perfect translation?
ANSWER #43 : They did not quote the septuagint. 

(44) Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly mirrors the original?
ANSWER #44 : Find an original and do the comparison. 

(45) Why does the KJV differ from the Textus Receptus in certain places like Acts 19:20 where the Greek has “Lord” and the KJV has “God”?
ANSWER #45 : I suppose it is because the TR is not perfect. Tyndale has God as well, "So myghtely grewe ye worde of god and prevayled."

(46) Has any Bible to date proved to be that hoped for improvement of the KJV?
ANSWER #46 : The KJB needs no improvement and a modern version certainly is not an improvement on the KJB.

(47) Why did the KJV translators translate the Apocrypha and include these books in the original 1611 edition?
ANSWER #47 : In act of rebellion against the Catholic church. The catholics believed that the apocrupha was part of the Old Testament scripture, therefore the protestants started putting it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament and didn't acknowledge it is as scripture. The KJB translators ended the OT and said "end of the prophets" and then put the apocrypha between OT and NT. 

Meanwhile Vaticanus and Siniatics have the apocrypha in the OT (siniaticus has NT apocrypha) NOT between the testaments.

(48) Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23?
 ANSWER #48 : I suppose it is because it was not in the TR. However, it has since been found in X and B. 

(49) Why are there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? (Examples: Matt 26:26, “Many Greek copies have …,” Luke 10:22, “Many ancient copies add these words …,” Luke 17:36, “These verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies,” Acts 25:6, “Or as some copies read, …”.
ANSWER #49 : I suppose it was because the KJB translators were scholars that were obsessed with ORIGINALS and VARIANTS similar to modern scholarship. 

(50) Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect Bible?
ANSWER #50 : Like I said, the changes are in spelling, font, and printers errors. Such as "sonne" to "son" etc. etc.