From the Mailbag, Volume 1

by Brandon Staggs, editor

This website generates an enormous volume of email. I am unable to respond to much of the mail I receive, but I thought it would be a good idea to give a sampling of the email and my responses. To that end, here is volume one of From the Mailbag. To protect privacy, names and email address are not included.


p..@a.c writes:

Do you believe... that the King James Bible itself is literally inspired, in such a way as to be even superior to its underlying Texts?

If it's not inspired, it's not Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I believe that the KJV is inspired Scripture simply because it is an accurate translation of God's word from Greek and Hebrew. I don't believe it is "more" God's word than the manuscripts it was translated from; neither is it "less."

j.m..@y.c writes:

How do you, as a person who at least seems to be fairly close to my age (I'm 26), combat the idea among folks of our age the those of us who insist in the KJB are "fuddy duddies"? Thanks a bunch!

I don't, really. I don't think our age has any relevance to the truth. Me being 32 (or you being 26) doesn't alter the facts of textual criticism, corrupt manuscripts, dynamic equivalence, etc. Someone accusing you of being a "fuddy duddy" is not particularly interested in Scriptural support for their beliefs, I would say.

First, realize that looking to others for confirmation is the wrong place to look:

Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Proverbs 29:25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.

All of your trust needs to be in God and by extension, his revealed word.

How? Make it a habit to go to the Bible for answers instead of other people. Pray about where your trust is.

Seeking help from others is not wrong, but looking to other people for validation of what you believe is. We all need correction from time to time, but that correction needs to be consistent with Scripture. To bring this back to your original question: does God care if using the KJV makes you appear as a "fuddy duddy," or does God want you to read his words?

Hope this helps.

c..@a.c asks about the book God's Secretaries.

This book is interesting. It's not written by a believer, so it is riddled with problems due to his lack of belief in the authority of Scripture to begin with. I doubt it is completely accurate factually as well, but it does do a good job of painting a vivid picture of the times during which the KJV was translated.

j..@y.c writes:

Hi I am a fellow KJV only, born again Bible believer as well. So I'll get right to the point. My question is what do you say when a Christian or non-Christian ask you how did God preserve every word like He said He would that we are to live by since there is no word for word translation from Hebrew/Greek to English?

There are translations of Old Testament verses in the New Testament. If someone believes the New Testament is God's word, they must extend that to those translations of Hebrew text into Greek text. That alone proves that God is capable of seeing his words translated from one language to another.

h2..@a.c asks about the apparent contradiction between 2nd Chronicles 9:25 and 1st Kings 4:26.

2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

One verse refers to "stalls for horses and chariots," the other to "stalls of horses for his chariots." It may simply be that these verses detail two different facts. Since they do not number exactly the same thing, there isn't sufficient cause to claim there is a contradiction. More likely, we simply don't understand what exactly is being said. I think it may mean that he had different stables, one with horses for chariots, and another with horses and chariots. Since chariots are likely to outlast the horses in battle (and were much more easily repaired!), that makes sense to me.