Below is an exchange between a defender of the King James Bible and a hater of the King James Bible. It is indeed not surprising to see so much hatred from those who defend an invisible Bible and their words pretty well demonstrate their fury which is motivated by none other than our arch enemy, the Devil, who first began to question the words of the living God back in the Garden of Eden. So these crowd lie like their father and will not abide in the truth that our Almighty God has preserved His pure, inspired and infallible words for the English Speaking world in the Authorized King James Bible.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)


When one posts an article by another individual on a board such as this it is my understanding that that person has thoroughly read the article and by posting the article under your name is adopting the authors ideas and comments as your own. With this in mind I would like to make a few comments about your article and ask you some questions that I hope you will answer.

I draw the following quote from the ‘Conclusion’ of your article I reproduce it in light of the following: “And their message will spread like cancer”


The time has come for those of us who know and believe the truth to stand up to KJO and determine that we just will not tolerate or coddle it in any way shape or form. Every “cell” of this “cancer” needs to be traced down and obliterated so that it no longer reproduces itself in our ranks.

This is a most interesting comment here, Greg. I found it disturbing coming from two men who profess to be Christians and who proclaim to love the Lord Jesus Christ. As I read this statement a similar Biblical account came to my mind. When a certain village would not receive our Lord Jesus, James and John desired permission to call fire down from heaven to consume them as Elijah did. To this Jesus responded in a most interesting way, “But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

What kind of “spirit” do you think Jesus was talking about there Greg? What kind of “spirit” would so stir a person that they would want to “trace(ed) down and obliterate(ed)” a group of people just because they hold to a Bible as the inspired words of God? Additionally, this Bible is a Bible that both you and Gary profess to believe is the ‘word of God’.

It is certain that this “spirit” that lies behind such statements as yours Greg is not of Christ. Perhaps the reason you and Gary see nothing wrong with this type of reasoning is because the above story has been taken out of your bibles. Luke 9:55-56 has all but been removed from your bible. Perhaps this is why you have little trouble accepting such a “spirit” as this—–you have not the truth in your bible.


Reason #1: Ignorance on the true nature and history of the Biblical manuscripts, ancient versions, and translations. Such ignorance is usually a result of pastors and Christian workers who have not given themselves to an accurate study of the facts or have not properly completed their academic training for the ministry.

I found your first reason rather interesting, Greg. Especially considering the posts you have made over the last year or so. I quit counting the times you posted inaccurate information or had no idea what you were talking about only to later admit that you were wrong. I will also not list instances of where Mr. Hudson has given false information but can if pressed. Some of these instances are outlined on this board for all to read.

You have no doubt read most of my posts and hopefully have visited my website, could you please point out my “ignorance on the true nature and history of the Biblical manuscripts, ancient versions, and translations.” Since I am so ‘ignorant’ I’m sure you will have little trouble demonstrating your #1 reason. Your arrogance (see Reason 4 – #2) in such statements is rather unbecoming to one who professes to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 18:4; 23:12; James 4:6, 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5-6).

Your final statement rings of Catholicism. We as God’s children are not permitted in your system of thinking to learn on our own by the leading of the Holy Ghost but must be ‘taught’ by you and others of like mind what to believe. We cannot simply read our Bible and comprehend it because we have not ‘properly completed our academic training’. And no matter how much studying we have done unless we see it the way you elite ‘doctors’, preachers and teachers see it then our studying has been in vain; a mere waste of our time because we have not “given [ourselves] to an accurate study of the facts”—at least according to your belief system. This is precisely how the papacy works, viz. the people are ignorant and unless we teach them they will remain ignorant.


Reason #2: It is an “easy” way out. Doug Kutilek has suggested, “It’s easy; you don’t have to THINK or study much. By opting for KJVO, there is no need to learn Hebrew or Greek, to learn anything about manuscripts, or the history of the English Bible or about textual criticism or anything else. Hence–it is the lazy man’s way out of having to seriously think and consider on these issues”

This is a really funny statement in light of the men who frequent this and other clubs. I would dare say the men of this club are “lazy” men who don’t give themselves to ‘studying much’ and/or ‘THINKING’. Over the years I have been involved in these clubs I have been well impressed with the amount of knowledge these men have regarding the Biblical issue and certainly the Bible itself. Ironically, I find just the opposite of what you are asserting to be true. Those that simply accept any ol’ bible know very little (if anything) about the history of the Bible itself. It is quite frankly very hard for me to talk to the average Christian about this matter because they have no clue what a manuscript is. They really do think that “the original Greek” actually exists. They have never heard of a codex much less what and where Sinaiticus or Vaticanus came from. They have no idea who Irenaeus or Chrysostom are. They don’t know what the “Textus Receptus” is nor do they have any inkling that all Bibles are not translated from the exact same Greek text (known to them only as “the original Greek”). However, interestingly enough nearly every ‘ignorant’ KJVO person I come into contact with easily knows these facts. Why do you suppose that is Greg?

I also know many KJVOs who do know Hebrew and Greek. While I don’t know much Hebrew I do consider myself pretty proficient in Greek. I read Greek nearly everyday and am always trying to better my understanding of it.

Question #1— Do you know Hebrew?

Question #2— Do you know Greek?

Question #3— What do you know about textual criticism and exactly where did you learn about textual criticism?

As far as I know Mr. Hudson doesn’t know Greek either. I could be wrong but I was told by another source that he doesn’t know Greek. I would have to admit that from reading his articles it certainly doesn’t seem as though he knows Greek. Oh sure, he seems to be able to use a lexicon and Strong’s concordance but I am doubtful that he actually knows Greek (or Hebrew for that matter).


Reason #3: It seems to appeal to Biblical fundamentalism. KJO presents itself as doing “honor to God’s Word” by emphasizing “final authority,” “preservation,” and even Scripture itself.

Greg, can you demonstrate that your statement is contrary to what the Bible (any Bible) teaches?

Does not the Bible teach that it is the “final authority”? Does not the Bible teach that God has promised to “preserve” His words? Does not the Bible teach that we are to “honor” God’s word?

If these things are true then why do you criticize them and label them as a “cancer” that must be “obliterated”? Are we not advocating what the Bible says when we promote such things?


These carefully worded ultimatums are hidden under the false and impractical demand for an absolutely infallible text or translation

“false and impractical demand” While giving no evidence to support this statement you contradict the Lord Jesus Christ and the very Bible you claim to be defending.

I think it is time we addressed the idea of whether it is essential that Christendom have “an absolutely infallible text or translation”. Without exception (Greg & Hudson being in this group) every true believer wholly believes that the ‘originals’ were given infallible and without error. Why was it necessary that God give His words in this form? There exists a couple of reasons: 1) To demonstrate that they were His words and not merely the words of men. 2) So that the church would have a sure word from God to guide it.

God is very serious about men writing or speaking on His behalf. Those prophets that spoke words and attributed them to God but spoke only of themselves and not words from God were commanded by God to be put to death (cf. Deut. 18:20). Therefore, His words (whether written or spoken) have to be 100% accurate or they cannot be proclaimed to be the ‘words of God’. God placed this standard upon His words not me. So, those versions with obvious blunders, according to God’s own standard, cannot be considered as His words. Is it an “impractical demand” for God to require perfection when communicating His words to us?

If we do not have an “absolutely infallible text” then on what are we to base our beliefs? If we are without a ‘final authority’ then on what ‘authority’ does the church of Jesus Christ have to appeal? Are we to appeal, as do the Catholics, to the Pope as our ‘final authority’? The whole Reformation was based upon the concept that we are to appeal to the Bible as our ‘final authority’ and not some religious leader (e.g. the Pope) or some religious system (e.g. Catholicism) as our ‘final authority’. However, Greg and Mr. Hudson seek to bring us back under their papal authority by suggesting that we no longer need “an absolutely infallible text” and that we must depend on them for our understanding of the facts.

This most assuredly was not Jesus’ understanding of the matter. Though He was the Son of God, and “God manifest in the flesh”, He always made His appeals to Scripture. He never appealed to those of ‘higher learning’ and never proclaimed that to know Him you must have “completed your academic training”. No, Jesus simple appealed to the written word. He never criticized it proclaiming error nor did He constantly ‘correct’ it by giving a “better translation”. The Scriptures were Jesus’ ‘final authority’ and they should be ours. Jesus proclaimed on one occasion that “thy word is truth”. On another occasion He advised to “search the scriptures”. Why would Jesus command to “search the scriptures” if these ‘scriptures’ cannot be trusted and are not to be “absolutely infallible”? Was Jesus also placing an “impractical demand” on the scriptures by appealing to them as His ‘final authority’?

It is unreasonable to think that God gave us His words perfectly only to have them crumble to dust and be replaced by a book that proclaims to be His words but is merely man’s fallible attempt at reproducing God’s words. If this is your belief then you have absolutely nothing to base your beliefs or life upon. If you do not believe the Bible is the perfectly inspired, preserved words of God then how can you trust anything it says? Further, why do refer to it as “the word of God” when you believe it is the words of men? Why do you make such appeals as “this I know because the Bible says so”? Why should anyone take thought for what your Bible says since you believe it is the words of men? In short, why do you make any appeal at all to a book that you don’t believe is the very words of God? Using your belief system, how do you know that “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son” was not just the figment of some first century scribe? In your belief system this is highly possible—-after all it is “false and impractical” to demand “an absolutely infallible text”!

It is my contention that when we believe as Christians that we can survive without “an absolutely infallible text” then, as one wise author wrote, “Satan is just around the corner”! Selah!

For without the sure words of God we will never be able to stand against the “wiles of the devil”. If Satan in fact is ‘just around the corner’ how will be defend ourselves against him if we do not have “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”? If all we have is a fallible translation that is little more than the words of men wherewithal shall we fight against our adversary? In Jesus’ struggle with Satan himself His only appeal was to the scriptures—-shouldn’t it be ours as well?


Reason #4: “It soothes and consoles the spiritual insecurity of weak believers” (Doug Kutilek, ibid.). KJO advocates, particularly pastors, know they are playing-up to the minds of the insecure by presenting it as an “all or nothing” axiom: “Unless every word of my Bible (KJV) is infallible, I can’t trust any of it!”

How delightfully degrading, Greg. So we are a bunch of ‘spiritual insecure weak believers’ because we believe our Bible is infallible? Please tell us who is more ‘insecure’ the saint that believes he has the very words of God to guide him or the saint who doubts his Bible and is uncertain as to what is and what is not the authentic words of God? Who is more ‘insecure’ the saint who reads his Bible and acts upon it because he is certain that it is the very words of God or the saint that reads his Bible, consults several scholars (sic), only to find that they all disagree as to the authenticity of the words, then goes away full of doubt and unbelief as to what he just read? Tell us, Greg, who is the more ‘insecure’?

Also, please demonstrate to us by scripture that what you stated that we believe is not correct. In other words, on what basis do you have for such a claim? Where in the Bible do you find this notion that God’s words can be both fallible and infallible at the same time? Where does it say that we should wholly trust a Bible that sometimes is accurate but at other times is in error? Where do you find God speaking words that are both fallible and infallible? A cruel God He would be indeed if He communicated to us after this fashion! How could we ever trust such a God as this? And how could we ever know what was truth for all truth comes from God. And how could we know truth without the words of God——- Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.!


Reason #5: The strong appeal to human emotion. The emotional aspect of King James Onlyism makes its appeal in three areas: (1) fear, (2) pride, and (3) sensationalism.

“1. Fear. There is a false fear of “snowballing into apostasy” if any other translation is used except the KJV.”

Is this in fact a “false fear” as you suggest, Greg? Are we to believe that by doubting and questioning every Bible and by adamantly proclaiming that no Bible is “infallible” and that ALL Bibles are full of errors we are actually growing closer to God? If doubting the very words of God are not the first steps of “apostasy” I don’t know what is.

“2. Pride. KJOnlyism appeals to a form of exclusiveness and superiority that is found among members of non-Christian cults. It gives its adherents the feeling of having something greater than the average believer, an “edge” on “final authority” that makes them feel “above.’”

You must be joking with this one, Greg! After all your talk about needing to be taught accurate information and how ignorant and unlearned we are this one was a real laugh. Who really teaches “exclusiveness and superiority”—-the one that proclaims you must: 1) have finished your academic training (whatever that is!); 2) be able to read both Hebrew and Greek; 3) have a full knowledge of ancient versions, Fathers and manuscripts; 4) know and understand all about textual criticism; 5) have an ‘accurate understanding of the facts’ (of course, that’s the ‘facts’ according to you); and last but certainly not the least 6) have graduated from some seminary (where all belief in the infallible words of God could’ve been removed from your mind)—-OR the one that simply teaches that we all have access to the very words of God? No special training is needed! You don’t have to know Greek or Hebrew in order to read them! You don’t have to know anything about ancient versions, Fathers or manuscripts! You do not have to have a seminary degree either!

Now which group seems to be preaching “exclusiveness and superiority”? The one that boasts about how smart and intellectual it is because of its ‘higher learning’ and ‘academic training’ or the one who humbly offers nothing more than the inspired words of God? They can be read by the king who sits in his palace and by the prisoner who sits in his jail cell.

“3. Sensationalism. This “hype” usually finds its performance in the style of “sermon delivery” that preaches King James Onlyism.”

Interesting statements coming from a guy with a, need I say, ‘sensational’ looking website. One has to wonder where all the “hype” is really coming from. After browsing around his site for a bit I saw quite a bit of “hype” and “sensationalism” on his site. In fact, this very article I’m responding to is little more than “hype” and “sensationalism”. Most of the claims made in this article are not based upon facts but upon “hype” and “sensationalism”. Mr. Hudson is hoping to dazzle us by his “twenty-two years of research” and his sensational tactics. The whole article is little more than “hype” designed to play on the emotions of his readers.


Reason #6: Ignorance of our Baptist heritage.

Once again we are told just how “ignorant” we are. Now we are ignorant for not knowing our “Baptist heritage”. And as usual this is the “Baptist heritage” according to Mr. Hudson and Mr. Kutilek (whom Hudson likes to quote).

We are again told that no Bible is inspired and inerrant and that “the original language text alone and no translation thereof” can be inspired and inerrant. Hudson then makes an appeal to past church leaders and their view on this matter. Interesting it is that Hudson would appeal to these men and promote their view as his own. I am certain that if I were to list other viewpoints by these men Mr. Hudson would not agree on every point with them. So why are we to believe that they were infallible when it came to their belief on the “original language text(s)” yet this infallibility didn’t extend to other doctrines? And what about those churchmen who didn’t share Mr. Hudson’s “original text” Only idea? Are we to presume they were “ignorant” men? The argument Mr. Hudson seeks to make is nothing more than a straw man argument.


Reason #7: It is a political football ($$$).

At least you saved your most ridiculous argument for #7! This is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard—colleges profiting from becoming KJVO! What colleges are you referring to? Please give us the names of these “several traditionally orthodox Bible colleges”.

If there is any profiting being done in this matter it is by those that keep producing a ‘new’ bible every other month. It is by those that keep telling us in order to have the ‘words of God’ we must buy this version only to inform us 6 months later that ‘due to new discoveries’ a “new, more accurate” version has been published and that now we mu$t buy this version. Or by those that keep telling us that our language is changing so fast that new, more up-to-date language bibles need to be published.

I have no doubt spent way too much time on this article but I found it necessary to answer these ridiculous claims.