These questions are taken from the the website:http://www.kjvonly.com/kjvoques.html. The writer of this thoughtful work remains unknown. The questions are edited by me to be less confrontational, and to be more sincere in opening a very honest discussion about a view I once held near and dear.
Since I've become interested in the “KJV-only” debate, I have been involved in many discussions with those supporting the “KJV-only” position - a position I once held. I have started to ask questions and they rarely or never get a response, or when they do, the answers don't make sense in light of “KJV-only.” These are simple questions. An essay does not need to be written in response for any of them. If you are “KJV-only” try your hand at answering the following questions. The worst that can happen is you will either become a stronger supporter of truth or you will discard an error. If you are not “KJV-only,” try asking some of these questions to “KJV-only” supporters to begin an in-depth honest dialogue.
Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been, and in fact the first English Bible was translated from the Vulgate).
Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of God").
Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God?" Why or why not?
Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)
Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambridge, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture?
When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a word which has had a change of meaning (the word “let” used in 2 Thes.2:7 for example), why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the “KJV-only” position?
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE "BIG 2" QUESTIONS:
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority," the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.
If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of “KJV-only?” Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of “KJV-only,” is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?