Errors in the Bible

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
[QB]The KJV of God's Word is without error, no matter what men may say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe God's word is without error. However, I have already demonstrated several places where the KJV is clearly without Greek textual support and therefore has an error of either translation or transmission. I could list more. I do not understand why this is hard to grasp. Are you claiming that God added to his word in 1611? If you think the KJV is without error than you have to claim that becuase part of Acts 9:6 was added (as well as other verses). I don't think God added to his word in 1611. I think Erasmus erred by including something that he had no MSS support for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is the only English version that is preseved without error from the Textus Receptus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KJV does not even accurately reflect the TR. In Heb 11:24, it contradicts the TR.

In Rev 17:8, I have just shown you a place where the TR has a reading that has no, absolutely no, support from the Greek manuscripts. I have further shown you where it came from: A scribe trying to reconstruct the text that was embedded in a commentary took the letters "kaiperesti" and read "kaiper estiv" instead of "kai perestai." The letters were wrongly divided by someone without access to a Greek manuscript. Now are you saying that a 16th century scribe copying an embedded text from a commentary got it right when no Greek manuscript before did? Surely you cannot truly believe that. Like it or not, Alex, the TR got it wrong here. There is no Greek manuscript support for it. Even Thomas agreed with that (I think). Your assertion simply is not true. YOu are failing to deal with the actual evidence. You have ignored it in favor of a closely held belief.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seems hard for some to believe that the God who "breathed' us into existence would want us to have his perfect word and to "know" that we have it, but it is true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree and I will join you in showing them from Scripture that God has given us his word and that it is without error in the original writings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is also true because He promised he would preserve it for us. (Psalms 12: 6 - 7).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that you again bring this verse up. If you read the context of the Psalm and the Hebrew text, you will see that there is ample evidence that the verse is referring to the godly man not the words. If the preservation refers to the words, it is a very uncommon way for the Hebrew to say that. There would be pronoun disagreement or a defective writing of the pronominal suffix. The plain reading of the Hebrew is that God preserved the godly man.

Furthermore, think about the word "from" ("min" in the Hebrew). Does it mean away from (I will keep it away from this generation forever). Does it mean "from the time of this generation" thereby implying that it was not kept up until that time. Does it appply only to the word that was written at that time? Does it apply to all that has ever been written? Now I don't think that passage is that hard to understand. The Psalmist is concerned that the godly man is ceasing to exist. He appeals to the promise of God that he will preserve his godly man and the psalmist takes comfort in that. A promise to preserve the word does not even fit the context of the Psalm.

Furthermore, this verse is found in the NASB, NIV, and all other translations. Therefore, to which translation does it refer? You have asserted that it refers the the KJV but there is no textual evidence for that assertion. It is pure conjecture on your part. You have bought an oft repeated argument without thinking about the consequences of it. If I declare that it means that the NASB is the perfectly preserved word and you cannot, on the basis of the text, disagree. The point is that all versions have that and supposing for the moment that it does apply to the word (which I grant only for the sake of argument), it equally applies to all versions that contain the verse.

Let me ask you this Howard. Compare a Cambridge "1611" with an Oxford "1611" in Jeremiah 34:16 and tell me which one is actually the inspired and inerrant one. They both cannot be. I am curious as to your decision making process for things like these.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Compare a Cambridge "1611" with an Oxford "1611" in Jeremiah 34:16 and tell me which one is actually the inspired and inerrant one. They both cannot be. I am curious as to your decision making process for things like these.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, actually, there is no such thing as a "Cambridge 1611" or an "Oxford 1611." The 1611 edition was printed by Robert Barker. The Cambridge edition we now use is the 1762 edition and the Oxford edition we now use is the 1769 edition. The Cambridge edition reads, in the passage in question "ye" and the Oxford reads "he." The Cambridge is correct, for the Hebrew is plural. This is merely a typo which was introduced into the Oxford edition by the type setter. I am sure you have heard the old saying, "Watch your "p"s and "q"s." That was told to apprentice type setters so they would take care to look carefully at the slug to make sure it was a "p" and not a "q" for they are identical except for one being the reverse (side to side) of the other. I am also sure you are aware that type is laid backward so the "p" would appear as a "q" and vice versa. Well, in the late 18th century a "y" slug looked just like an "h" slug except for being reversed top to bottom. This printers error has gone uncorrected in most Oxford editions since 1769. However, there are some Oxford type bibles not printed in the United Kingdom which have corrected the error.

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Thomas,

That is why I put "1611" in quotes. I was pointing out to Alex exactly what you have pointed out ... that there was an error in subsequent editions of the KJV(since “things that are different are not the same&#8221 , however slight it may have been. I figured that you would have known the difference and the answer.

On the previous issue, one last comment. I agree with you that there is not a great difference on the issue. For those who claim that the KJV is inerrant and based on an inerrant text, however, this is a significant issue. It can hardly be inerrant when there is a “new reading” that is not attested in the Greek. It seems that both the internal and external evidence argue against the TR. The MajT even disagrees with the TR. I found the fact that it was missing from other versional evidence especially instructive. That does not seem to be a great issue between you and I since we both seem to agree that the TR has an incorrect or at least unattested reading. It must be of great concern for Alex however.

However, on JFB, I did not necessarily understand them to be agreeing with you or for that matter disputing you. I pulled my old copy off the shelf to look at it for myself. It seemed to me they were fairly ambivalent about it, not really leaning one way or the other. That is why I asked for sources that agreed with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
For those who claim that the KJV is inerrant and based on an inerrant text, however, this is a significant issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is where I disagree. I believe both the traditional text and the KJV are inerrant. However, the problem seems to be that we have a different definition of "inerrant." The popular definition of "inerrant" is, in my oppinion, faulty. Inerrancy, as it applies to the apographs/versions simply means "without proven error of fact." The minor variants which have so far been offered as proof of error (errancy) in the TR/KJV do not produce an error of fact. And it is just this kind of nit picking which I am doing battle against. And, again, if the BRAPPs (I love that new acronym!) can nit pick the TR/KJV then it is only fair that the KJVOs can nit pick the Critical Texts and the versions translated from them.

Dr. Cassidy:

I have not seen you answer these "errors" yet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
“The KJV properly renders qebher as 'the grace' 34 times, but also, without justification, translates Sheol as the grave 31 times and as 'hell' 31 times. In all ten uses of Hades, it is translated 'hell'. The distinction between the intermediate state of the dead in Sheol or Hades and the final state of the wicked in gehenna, 'hell', (used 11 times) was introduced into English religious language through the RV (ASV). These changes have doctrinal implications. The reader of the KJV has no knowledge of what Hades really is unless he knows Greek or is acquainted with later English translations. He thinks of the final place of punishment when he reads 'hell' (Mt 11:23; 16:18; Lk 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13; 14) when he should think of the intermediate state of the dead.” Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, Baker books, 1991. p. 64.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
I have not seen you answer these "errors" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's to answer? Mr. Lewis makes an assertion regarding the translation of "sheol" "hades" "gebher" and "gehenna." It is obvious that all of them refer to some aspect of the afterlife and are often context driven. To slavishy translate any Hebrew word the same every time it is used is to greatly misunderstand the fluidity of the Hebrew language! This is just another example of the silly nit picking that is used by both side of the versions argument in an attempt to discredit the other side. It is laughable when used by either side. Not to mention the criticisim of the KJV (as well as other versions) is often based on doctrinal presuppositions rather than translational or textual considerations.

[ May 10, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

So you are saying hades, gehenna, sheol and hell are all the same place?

No, Chris, I am saying exactly what I said! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is obvious that all of them refer to some aspect of the afterlife and are often context driven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Casidy
Thank you for your comment:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
And, again, if the BRAPPs (I love that new acronym!) can nit pick the TR/KJV then it is only fair that the KJVOs can nit pick the Critical Texts and the versions translated from them.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
I'm glad to see you like the new acronym!

Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"
Larry, your post was:"Rev 16:5 – “shalt be” should be “holy one.” Beza guessed at this one. All previous translations (Matthews, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, etc) all translate read "holy one" and all Greek MSS read “osios” (holy one). Hills says it is an error. Do you agree?"
The Greek text Beza used said kai esomenos, and shalt be. We no longer have this Greek manuscript, as we no longer have the vast majority of manuscripts copied throughout the centuries. Of all that were, we have only a fraction, and no originals.
Beza stated in his Latin commentary of this verse in 1589 that the text he was using was worn at this place, but in view of the trinitarian phraseology used in Rev. 1:4,8; 4:8, and 11:17 he said: "And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, shall be."
The KJB translators did not use only one Greek text, Erasmus, Stephanus or Beza, but thought prayerfully and discussed the various readings. I believe they were guided by God. You do not.
This reading is also found in a Latin commentary by Beatus of Liebana in 786 AD, when he was discussing a commentary on the passage by Tyconius in 380 AD. Beza did not use this, but it further corrpborates the reading.
The texts here are somewhat confused. The oldest we have is P 47 which is different than Sinaticus, and Sinaticus is different yet from A and C. None of these agree perfectly.
The KJB reading is still retained in the NKJV, Webster's 1833 translation, the 21st Cent. KJB, the Third Millenium Bible and Youngs.
Your nasb and niv do not always follow the same texts either in Revelation. In Rev. 15:3 the KJB reads "king of SAINTS", the nasb follows A with "king of the NATIONS" while the niv follows different texts with "king of the AGES".
In Rev. 21:3 "and shall be their God" in in the ASV, KJB, and NIV, but the nasb follows a different text and omits it.
In Rev. 22:21 the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL" of the KJB, is replace in the nasb with ALL, following only A, and forsaking Sinaticus, while the niv follows Sinaticus in a paraphrase of "with GODS PEOPLE." I can show other examples in the book of Revelation where the niv follows one text and the nasb another.
How about Rev. 13:1 where the KJB says "and I stood upon the sand" while the nasb 1972 says HE stood, but the 1995 says the DRAGON stood. There is no text anywhere that says "dragon" in your 95 update.
The difference between you and me is I believe God has given us in the English language all of His pure words, you do not believe they exist in their purity anywhere on this earth.

I know I'm joining late, so maybe I'm repeating others, as I don't have time, nor do I want to take the time to read every word written about errors...however The Bible has no errors, whereas man's versions, including the AV1611 has it's share as it's been well written by the above already.Personally, I prefer the NKJV based on the Majority Text, and yes, it has man's errors in it! What's good for the goose...those who say the NIV attacks the deity of Christ haven't read enough, or at least they haven't been fair,why? because the NIV in many places makes the deity of Christ plain, whereas the KJV in the exact same place obscures His deity.Why are these people silent about this? No,I am no fan of that version, but the fact remains, the question is not comparing translations, in chosen verses to prove points,but what does the Textual evidence say? Although there are no originals, we have scores of reliable MSS,and they are in substantial agreement..

Will,

You say that Beza faithfully restored what was certainly there. Did you read what I said? No Greek manuscript reads what Beza “faithfully restored.” I am not sure what the problem here is because that is pretty clear. “And shalt be” is found only in the TR; nowhere else. Even the most staunch of KJV defenders, Edward Hills, admits there is an error at this point and I can assure you he knows much more than you do. Are you suggesting that God added to his word something that never before was there? You are forced to suggest that it existed in manuscripts that we no longer have. Yet that is very tenuous at best, ridiculous at worst. You cannot argue for the existence of something based on the fact that it doesn’t exist. That would be like me saying that you had a hundred dollar bill in your pocket this morning and the way that I know it is because it is no longer there. It is absurd to argue in such a manner.

You say that the KJV translators considered thoughtfully and prayerfully various readings. What readings did they have? History records for us that they had very few. The vast majority of manuscripts have been discovered since then I believe. Erasmus used less than a dozen. Where are the various readings they considered?

Then you comment on the difference between the NASB and the NIV. I will join you in discussing them. I am not arguing for perfection. Where they differ, either one is wrong or both is wrong. They must be considered on an individual basis.

The difference between you and me is that you believe something that you have no Scriptural support for and which you hold in spite of the evidence of providential history that refutes you. I believe that Scripture says that God perfectly inspired his word without error and has apparently chosen to preserve it through providential means rather than miraculous means. You fail to understand some basic principles of textual transmission and criticism and are thus making some very strange statements and arguments.