Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

:applause: :wavey: :thumbsup: :jesus: (That's sign language for AMEN!)

 

Absolutely. :thumbsup:

 

So those of us who believe in God's preservation of his word, but do not believe that the KJV is the best representation of that are not sensible?

 

The less sensible among us believe that God only preserves His Word in one particular form of ancient English.

 

Larry's 66 books of whatever they might say or not

Quote:
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions.

The KJB follows the Hebrew texts in every instance. Versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman are all over the board, reject the Hebrew texts, sometimes go with the ficticious LXX or the Syriac, or just plain make up the numbers. But they are among your 66 books whatevers, so I guess from your point of view they're just fine.

The long winded posts are in response to specific allegations of errors in the KJB. Two or three sentences is not going to explain why the KJB is right. If you don't like them, just skip them. They are not doing much for you anyway, so just ignore them.

Now you ask me to tell you where God identified the KJB as the only word of God. Larry, have you ever tried to really examine what you believe about those 66 books of whatever that you claim are the inerrant words of God that totally disagree with each in thousand of places? Where in any Bible or any one of those unidentified 66 books you talk about does God ever speak about preserving His words in The Bible, or the 66 books, or the Hebrew or the Greek, or the originals or anything of the kind?

You try to make my view look ridiculous but have you ever thought of applying the same standards to your opinions to see how they match up with anything found in those diverse bible versions out there? I trow not.

Will K

 

Every Man For Himself Bible versionists in action

No DHK, since you have no final written authority save your imaginary originals only, then you are free to make up your own peculiar bible version as you go along.

You are another example of the Every Man For Himself Bible Versionist who makes himself the final authority for what God should have said or not.

Of course not everyone agrees with you. Some here are Critical text, others are Textus Receptus as being the closest to the "originals" they have never seen a day in their lives. Others are "any reliable version will do" and others are those unidentified as far as content goes 66 books, and some are originals onlyists.

All we see from the non King James Bible onlyies is confusion, disarray, self contradiction, uncertainty, and some really mindless statements like 5 or 6 "reliable versions" are all the inspired and inerrant words of God even though they differ radically from one another in hundreds of verses or non verses.

Whether you believe the polls or not, the reported fact is that fewer and fewer Christians believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God and they read these modern "updated" watered down versions less and less.


This is happening right before your eyes. If you choose not to see it or hope it will just go away, that is on your head.

Then you launch off into more alleged errors in the greatest Bible ever made. You ignorantly assume that Easter is "definitely wrong" yet I'll bet (figure of speech, get over it) that you have never even considered the other side of things and why the word Easter is absolutely correct.

For those who have ears to hear, here is why the word Easter in Acts 12:4 is absolutely correct.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

By His grace believing the Book,

Will K

 

Was there a perfect Bible before 1611?

Hi Thermo. You actually have a very good question here, but to answer it I will have to give another long winded post, but it is a good one that addresses this "unanswerable" objection to the King James Bible only view.

First let me say that God's putting together His perfect Bible in the KJB most certainly relies upon the correct Hebrew and Greek texts. God's pure words were there before 1611, and most bibles were far closer to the truth than are the ones we see today since Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were looked upon with favor and promoted with great confusion and hypocrisy from the Revised Version in 1881 to the present day of even more confusion as seen in versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman stuff.

Let me give you a couple of thoughts and then address the central issue of whether or not a perfect Bible existed before 1611. I do not believe there was one, but let me explain why.

Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

Will K

 

What about before 1611?

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics
It appears from your statments that you do not really believe God preserved His Word between c. AD 95 and AD 1611.

Hi Thermo. Thanks for the very good question. This is critical and I definitely believe it has a very good answer. I recently wrote this article in response to just this same question.

Does the KJV only position “blow up”?

“Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read” - Isaiah 34:16

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” - 1 Corinthians 1:19

The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?”

Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn't write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated?" The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don't say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God" were located.”

Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and inerrant Bible in ANY language (including their Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the inerrant words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an inerrant Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do.

There are only three options open to them.

#1. “Only the originals were inspired and inerrant.” It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these “originals” a day in their lives. At one Bible club I belong to there was one guy who objected to my King James Bible only position saying that he was against any form of "onlyism" because it was unblilical and elitist. I then pointed out to him that if he bothered to check almost any Baptist or other Christians site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; no translation is inerrant." This most certainly is itself a form of "onlyism" and it is far worse than believing that the King James Bible is the only pure and perfect Book of the LORD. The "originals only" position leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW, and it is a profession of faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is THAT?!?.

#2. “All reliable bible versions (NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, KJV, Spanish, German etc.) are the inerrant words of God.” How someone with the discernment of lime jello can say such a thing is beyond me, but I do run into this type of nonsense. In order to hold to view #2 they need to give new meanings to old words. "Inerrant" no longer means "without errors"; it now must means something like "ballpark close enough to be divinely useful" or something like that. These modern versions differ among themselves by omitting or adding literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament alone, and the modern versions change the meanings of hundreds of verses and often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places as the others. Not one of them agrees textually with any other in scores if not thousands of places. Try arguing that they are all “the inerrant words of God” before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room.

#3 There really is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible and history and the internal evidence points to the Authorized King James Bible as being the Final Written Authority and the true words of the living God. You only have these three options. There is no other alternative.

There is a huge difference between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Far as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

And again God says in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthly process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, but I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. However there was no perfect and inerrant Bible until God brought forth His finished product in the King James Bible.

“God calls those things that be not as though they were”

I believe that those who say there must have been a perfect Bible before the King James Bible or our position falls to the ground as being inconsistent are guilty of using the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God, and their thinking is decidedly unbiblical.

Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550.

Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

There was no formal church agreement on the present day Protestant Bible consisting of 66 books until 1563. The Catholics still do not agree with the Protestants and include several other books called the Apocrypha.

In the wisdom of God something can be in the process or even non-existent and yet God calls it done. This is totally contrary to the wisdom and ways of men. God refers to “the book of the LORD” before it is even finished and certainly before it was gathered into one single volume.

Read through the 34th chapter of the prophet Isaiah. Here God records the coming judgments upon all nations when the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll. We find similar reference to these future events in the book of the Revelation. Though none of these things had actually happened at the time Isaiah wrote them, yet God sometimes referred to these events as having already happened. - “he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.”; “my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:2, 16)

So too in this chapter we read about “the book of the LORD”. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” (Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this “book of the LORD” at Isaiah’s time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that’s not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it “the book of the LORD” and commands us to read it.

God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality.

 

What about before 1611?

Let’s look at some other Biblical examples of where God calls something that is not as though it were. In Genesis 17:5 God tells Abraham: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; FOR A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE.”

The Bible critic using human logic and wisdom can easily say: “Hey, wait a minute. Abraham didn’t have any children at this time. There was no Isaac nor Ishmael; no Esau nor Jacob, and certainly not the nation of Israel much less other nations (plural). God must be wrong. The Bible can’t be true and inerrant.”

Yet the verse is repeated again in the New Testament were we read in Romans 4:17 “(As it is written, I HAVE MADE THEE a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”

What we see here is God naming something as real and yet it wasn’t fulfilled in history till some 2000 years later. God was in a long process of gradually bringing about the fulfillment of His promises, yet He referred to them as something He had already accomplished.

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

I believe that these verses, like many other Scriptures, have a double fulfillment. It can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

Even at the time of the writing of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time. Are all the rest of the O.T. books that were written after David penned Psalm 12 part of the words of the Lord? Yes, we believe so. How about the whole New Testament, are they also part of the pure words of the Lord? Again, we affirm that they are. If God was going to keep them from this generation for ever, then He must have included what He knew would be written in the future as a present reality - the words of the LORD. Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.

We see the same Biblical principle in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 17:4 where He says: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I HAVE FINISHED THE WORK which thou gavest me to do.” Again, the Bible critic will protest. “Now just hold on here a minute. Jesus hadn’t gone to the garden where He prayed with great drops of blood. He hadn’t yet been betrayed nor handed over to the Roman authorities. He certainly hadn’t yet died on the cross for our sins nor risen from the grave three days later. How can He then truthfully say that He had finished the work God gave Him to do? He must have been mistaken.”

Yet in the wisdom of God the thing was so sure that He refered to it as a present reality - a finished work - even though in human terms His redemptive sacrifice was not accomplished till some time after these words were spoken by our Saviour.

A third Biblical example that shows the principle of how God can refer to something as already existing (the book of the Lord) when from our point of view it doesn’t at all, is found in Ephesians 2:4-6. Here we read: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

God speaks of this glorious redemption and new life from the dead as being a present reality which has already been accomplished - “quickened together with Christ, raised up and seated in the heavenly places” - Yet multiplied millions of us all over the world had not even been born yet, let alone had made some kind of a “decision for Christ”! Yet God refers to them as already done. We are seated together in the heavenly places.

In the same way, the King James Bible believer does not need to somehow trace all the way back in history to try to find any perfect and inerrant Bible that existed before God brought the finished product of the King James Bible on the scene in 1611. The Sovereign God of history sees the end from the beginning and He can refer to the true “book of the LORD” even when, from our point of view, it wasn’t yet complete nor perfected.

As the King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistenly, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

Remember, God says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ...even God who calleth those things which be not as though they were.” (1 Cor. 1:19-20; Romans 4:17

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

Why didn't God prevent typos?

Hi again, Thermo. Good question, but I believe I addressed it in the article.

Here are the pertinent sections

The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen and is not a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best texts", "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible." They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. The alleged "revisions" and "hundreds of printing errors" is a non-issue of no real significance.


God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.

I think God has allowed the issue of "printing errors" to act as a stumbling block to blatant hypocrites. It is hypocritical to claim a Bible or text of any kind needs to be free of all scribal or printing errors in order to meet the Standard of being "inerrant and inspired". This man-made Standard then turns on the one who makes it, because it then invalidates his own claim to any Bible or any version as being the infallible word of God. His own favorite bible version(s) also fail to meet the Standard he has set up. By bringing up the issue of "printing errors" the Bible critic cuts his own throat.

If one adopts the view that the correction of printing errors in the history of any Bible version or Hebrew or Greek text disqualifies it from being the word of God, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Guess who wants you to think this way?

Without exception, every person I have encountered who raises this objection about "printing errors and revisions" in the King James Bible's history, himself has no Bible and no text that he considers to be the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God. If he insists on raising this petty and hypocritical objection to the King James Bible as being the perfect word of God, then God will allow him to stumble over this pebble by the roadside. He will reap the bitter fruits of his own unbelief in the promises and ways of God who covenanted to preserve His words in a Book till heaven and earth pass away.

Will K

 

Strain at a gnat

Brother Thermo, I think you totally misread the quotes of several men. The phrase "strain AT a gnat" was a well known phrase used many times BEFORE 1611. There are even published dictionaries that tell us this was so. Look carefully at the dates on these quotes.

'Strain at' was in common English usage at the time immediately before the King James Bible was published, thus proving that this phrase is an accurate translation of the Greek text and not a mere printing error as the anti-KJB folks claim. One quote is from a translation of John Calvin to English and another is from one of the King James Bible translators himself.

John Whitgift - A godlie sermon preched before the Queenes Maiestie... (1574) "...ye straine AT a Gnat, & swallow..."

John Calvin translated by Arthur Golding - The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin... (1577) "...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne AT a gnat, and swallowe..."

John King - Lectures vpon Ionas deliuered at Yorke... (1599) "...wonders of nature, wheen we straine AT gnats, & cannot conceiue..." "They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning AT gnats and swallowing downe camells."

George Abbot (1562–1633) - ***translator Second Oxford committee - assigned the Gospels An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600) "...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel."

Roger Fenton - ***translator - 2nd Westminster company An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599) "...Let vs then leaue to straine AT gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..."

John Whitgift (c. 1530–1604) Archbishop of Canterbury 1583-1604 (Works of John Whitgift) "...ye straine AT a Gnat, & swallow up a camel" (p. 581) Sermon 1574 " and strain AT a gnat swallowing down a camel" (p. 523) Sermon 1583 - "..of whom Christ speaketh : ' They strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel.' "(p. 595)

Henry Barrow and John Greenwood to Puritan compromisers (1587) "strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel; and are close hypocrites, and walk in a left-handed policy"

Rudolf Gwalther An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572) "...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne AT a Gnat..."

Edward Topsell The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610) "...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine AT Gnats, and swallow Camels ... "

Thomas Gainsford - The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610) "...and seeke extremities, They straine AT Gnats..."

GREENE Mamillia II. B3b, 1583 - Most vniustly straining AT a gnat, and letting passe an elephant.

 

marginal notes?

Hi brother. Another reasonable question. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in history and all eternity. God put together the book of the LORD ( I without shame equate this with the KJB) and we defend THE TEXT, not the marginal notes nor the Preface nor the Anglican church or Puritans who were the instruments God used to put together His book.

We see the human element of occasional uncertainty in the margins, and the TEXT God wanted in the Bible right where it should be. The text is always superiour to the margin.

Good question though.

God bless,
Will K

 

And all the multitudes of other King James Bible believers here said Amen! ;-)

Will K

 

God's preserved words = the KJB

And all the multitudes of other King James Bible believers here said Amen!:thumbsup:

Will K

 

what is more sensible

Larry, think about it. You keep telling us that God's preserved and infallible words are in the remarkably vague, nebulous and undefined "the 66 books of the Christian Scriptures". Anybody who has a minimal awareness of just how very different the CONTENT is of these 66 books among the multi-choice, contradictory, textually diverse (thousands of words) and hundreds of radically different meanings in as many verses, and yet claims they are all the inspired and inerrant words of God, really does not seem to be holding a very reasonable, sensible nor logical position at all.


Will K

 

the ficticious LXX

Quote:
ficticious LXX

Hi Thermo. That is a whole other topic and I do not want to get into it now.

If curiosity gets the best of you and you want to know what I and others think about the supposed Pre-Christian LXX used by Christ and the apostles. then you can begin reading here.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

It is a 5 part series with a lot of good info and quotes by some pretty well known Christians. But at this time the topic will only detract from the issue of what the true and infallible is or not, and alleged errors in the KJB.

God bless,
Will K

 

God's 100% true Holy Bible

Hi Thermo. I like your questions. They are very reasonable and apply directly to the discussion at hand. I do believe the King James Bible is the final product of the purification process God used to give the world a perfect Bible. It is the Standard by which all other versions are to be measured in both underlying texts and meaning.

The Great and Geneva bibles were part of this purification process, but they were not the finished product. The Geneva bible is inferiour to the KJB is several ways, but it was far superiour textually to such present day versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Holman stuff.

However I do not believe the KJB is the only Bible in any language God intends for us to read. Spanish speaking people or Russians or Germans or Hutus should be able to read a bible in their own language, but the Standard for that Bible is the KJB. Foreign language bibles should follow the texts and meaning found in the KJB as closely as possible. But they certainly do not have to learn English and read the KJB in order to get saved and learn about God and Christ's salvation.

God knew English would be the last days universal language, but not everybody has to learn English.


Will K