Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 2

• 1:05 - We should mention here the use of the term "King James Version."  While it is common today for us to use the term, from our research, we find that this term was not widely used until the modern versions came upon the scene.  We have looked at books by old-time preachers and scholars including Billy Sunday, Dean Burgeon, etc. and it seems the King James is mostly referred to simply as the Bible or the Authorised Version.  Only on occasion have we found the term "King James" used.  While we have no problem with the use of the title today, it is important to understand why this may have popped up into the mainstream.  In Acts 11:26 we are first called Christians.  This term was labeled to these believers as a negative, because they were following some man named Christ.  One of the most common things of liberals in a debate they are losing is create a man for your position to follow.  By painting this as the King James Onlyism, that allows them to attack King James' Version because it is merely a man-made version.  As we also know these modern versions have big marketing budgets behind them from major publishers.  But think about it for a second; how hard would it be to sell your "bible" in the marketplace against something called the Authorized Version?  Immediately calling it the King James Version lowers its level down to the others and makes unsuspecting believers gullible to the lies.  This gives rise to more old recirculated lies about King James being a sodomite, an Anglican or a Freemason.  Anyway, just recognize the marketing and liberal bait-and-switch tactics.
• 1:47 - Here the woman gives the assertion of that Bible believers believes the King James is the ONLY holy word of God.  She does not explain herself as to whether she means the only English Bible or the only Bible in the whole world.  Personally, I don't know any Bible believer that believes a French speaking person or Spanish speaking person should not have a Bible in their own language.  In fact, they had Bible's from the pure text before the King James.  She also fails to give any proof of her assertion which is common for most of her arguments in this video.
• 2:08 - Here she says that people that subscribe to the KJV Only position generally condemn anybody that uses any other translation.  I assume she means English translations.  She also does not really define what she means by condemn: does she mean simply disagree and rebuke their use of modern perversions, or does she mean announce a popish-style anathema?  She goes on to say that pastors and teachers that instruct their people to be KJV Only are wrong because it causes division in the Body of Christ.  Another common argument and common debate tactic.  But their are two problems with this thinking: 1)The AV was around before the modern versions so if anyone caused a division who was it? 2)Given the responsibility of a bishop or pastor, if he believes that the AV is the best translation, for whatever reason, why would he tell his congregation to use something when the best can be had?  But that's what this video is for; to straighten out your pastor and usurp authority over the man (1 Tim 2:12).