Do you see A Difference between Inerrancy/Infallibility?

[Logos1560]

Exactly. I believe the KJB is inerrant BY FAITH. I believe God desires that we know his word and would preserve it for us.

Can I prove it? NOPE. I believe it by faith.

Assuming or believing your own subjective opinions by faith is not showing Biblically sound faith. The type faith you suggest would seem to be like the blind leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox.

A modern, man-made KJV-only theory has not been demonstrated to be stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

The Scriptures do not teach that translations made by scholars are inerrant.

 

[Yeshua1]

Assuming or believing your own subjective opinions by faith is not showing Biblically sound faith. The type faith you suggest would seem to be like the blind leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox.

A modern, man-made KJV-only theory has not been demonstrated to be stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

The Scriptures do not teach that translations made by scholars are inerrant.

Yes, for ONLY the originals can make that claim, but we do have infallible bibles today to us in Kjv/nasb/Esv etc!

And IF the KJVO claim inerrancy for it, the translators MUST have had Aposto;ic authority as paul/peter/John all did!

which NONE of them claimed to be!

 

[jbh28]

I'll repeat:
I do not believe that God thought it so important as to INSPIRE the writers of Scripture to put down EXACTLY what He wanted us to know, and then, after He was that precise about what He wanted written, just turn His back, and let it become corrupted!!

Yet that's what many of you claim, so I have to ask you then, why in the world did He even bother in the first place?

What are you saying we claim? Are you saying we don't believe God has preserved His word? No one here says that. Are you saying that we claim that there are variants in the manuscripts? Then we do claim that and no one can deny that we have variants(corruptions) in the copying of the Scriptures. God promised to preserve His word, not to keep every person copying the bible from error.

Even the KJV translators recognized corruptions in the manuscripts. Luke 17:36 the KJV translators recognized that the verse was lacking in many manuscripts.

 

[Winman]

Assuming or believing your own subjective opinions by faith is not showing Biblically sound faith. The type faith you suggest would seem to be like the blind leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox.

A modern, man-made KJV-only theory has not been demonstrated to be stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

The Scriptures do not teach that translations made by scholars are inerrant.

This is not correct, Jesus quoted several translations of scripture and said they could not be broken.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm

Did Jesus recognize a specific text form of scripture? It does not appear so, for his usage of scripture is allusive, paraphrastic, and-so far as it can be ascertained-eclectic. We find agreement with the proto-Masoretic text, with the Hebrew under-lying the Septuagint (perhaps even the Septuagint itself), and with the Aramaic para-phrase. Several examples from each category will illustrate the phenomena. The examples that are chosen are the most obvious, in that they stand over against the readings in the other versions.

Jesus himself quoted translations, just as the King James is a translation. Jesus never doubted these scriptures and said they could not be broken.

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

So, the record of scripture itself is that Jesus often quoted translations. Jesus gave these scriptures the full authority and weight of the original texts, though they were translations.

You fellas simply lack faith, it is that simple.

 

[jbh28]

Exactly. I believe the KJB is inerrant BY FAITH. I believe God desires that we know his word and would preserve it for us. There are basically two texts, the Received Text and the Critical Text. I believe the KJB translated from the Received Text is the preserved text.

Can I prove it? NOPE. I believe it by faith.

Faith in what? Faith in what God said(he would preserve His word)? Or faith in something made up(an English translation would be perfectly translated)? If the latter, it's not faith in what God said. You can't make stuff up and call it faith to make yourself sound spiritual. God never promised any translation of the Bible would be free from error.

 

[jbh28]

A person can see for themselves that they were almost all typos. Writing "he" instead of "ye" is a typo. It was spotted and corrected which argues the translation is inerrant.

The burden of proof lies with you. Sure, it could be a printing error, but "he" and "ye" are two different words. You are begging the question to assume it's just a typo.

I disagree, I do not believe the translators made mistakes.

Well, I believe that the sky is green and superman is real, but that doesn't make it true.

It is certain there were errors in the 1611 and many printings afterwards. The fact that they were spotted and corrected shows the translation inerrant. You cannot seem to grasp this.

Not at all. fixing an error shows there was an error.

Go back to murderers in Jude 16. That is a typo. It was known that the correct translation was "murmurers" as the KJB reads today. Knowing the correct translation allows you to spot and correct errors. You cannot see this because you do not want to see it.

I never said that there were no printing errors. What I said is that not all of them were printing errors. You have not proven that they were all printing errors.

Adding text such as changing "Son" to "Son of God" is not an error. The translators had to add words so that we can read the translation in English, all translations MUST do this. "Son" was not an error, but "Son of God" is simply a clarification, it makes the translation even more precise and concise. But simply writing "Son" was no error.

If the original language had "of God" and the KJV translators didn't put it in, then later realized they should have, it's an error. There's no way at all to deny this. They fixed the error.

 

[Winman]

Yes, for ONLY the originals can make that claim, but we do have infallible bibles today to us in Kjv/nasb/Esv etc!

And IF the KJVO claim inerrancy for it, the translators MUST have had Aposto;ic authority as paul/peter/John all did!

which NONE of them claimed to be!

The originals no longer exist!

Now, you know that, but you act like the originals are still around somewhere. Saying only the originals were inerrant is actually saying nothing at all, because they vanished long ago. Neither you, nor I, nor any person on earth knows what they said.

The fact is, there has never been a "Bible" that was not made of copies. The scriptures that Jesus read in his day were copies, and many times they were translations, yet Jesus considered them inerrant and infallible. When Jesus read from Isaiah in Nazareth, he was not reading the actual words penned by Isaiah, he was reading a copy.

So, it is pure nonsense to say only the originals are inerrant. What you are actually saying is that the word of God has not been preserved and what we have today are nothing but corruptions that cannot be trusted. Of course, you would not literally say that, but that is exactly what you and others are REALLY teaching. You want folks to doubt the word of God.

You guys really don't believe in the word of God at all.

 

[franklinmonroe]

After you read the thread below (it concludes in just 10 posts) let me know what you think.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=62236

Winman, did you miss this? You asked.

 

[Winman]

The burden of proof lies with you. Sure, it could be a printing error, but "he" and "ye" are two different words. You are begging the question to assume it's just a typo.

You are silly, the fact that they corrected "he" to "ye" shows they recognized it as a typo and corrected it.

Well, I believe that the sky is green and superman is real, but that doesn't make it true.

But God is real and made many promises to preserve his word in scripture.

Not at all. fixing an error shows there was an error.
I never said that there were no printing errors. What I said is that not all of them were printing errors. You have not proven that they were all printing errors.

Most were printing errors. A textual change does not necessarily mean an error. Adding "of God" to "Son" does not show that "Son" was a error, it just makes the correct meaning more clear. Jesus also called himself "Son of Man". So, while "Son" is not wrong, it is made more clear by inserting "of God" to the text. You are smart enough to understand what I am saying.

If the original language had "of God" and the KJV translators didn't put it in, then later realized they should have, it's an error. There's no way at all to deny this. They fixed the error.

No, it was not an error when it said only "Son" as I have just explained, but it is more clear when it says "Son of God". But simply writing "Son" is no error whatsoever. You KNOW what I am saying is a valid argument, unlike most here, you have the ability to think. Too bad you let others think for you much of the time.

 

[Winman]

Winman, did you miss this? You asked.

OK, I don't read Hebrew, so I have no idea how accurate this is or not. I would suggest you contact a King James Only scholar who knows the original languages and present your argument to him.

This is what some "scholars" do not understand, knowing the original languages is not necessarily helpful to the average person because we have no way to verify what you are teaching. You may very well be correct, or you could be wrong. I cannot tell because I do not know Hebrew or Greek.

Of course it is very helpful when you are speaking to other scholars who know these languages like you do.

But I have noticed that often times scholars who know these original languages do not agree either. Oh well. :laugh:

 

[franklinmonroe]

OK, I don't read Hebrew, so I have no idea how accurate this is or not. ...

So, in which post were you being disingenuine, Winman? When you wrote you believe the KJV to be mistake-free by faith, or when you asked for someone to show you a mistake?

 

[Winman]

So, in which post were you being disingenuine, Winman? When you wrote you believe the KJV to be mistake-free by faith, or when you asked for someone to show you a mistake?

I wasn't being disingenuous at all. Now, it may be circular reasoning, but it is impossible to prove to me that the King James contains errors, because I believe it is inerrant.

Now, I admit, that looks like all the world circular reasoning. I am completely aware of this.

Nevertheless, my conviction is built on faith in God. As Baptist4life pointed out, why would God go to so much trouble to make sure his prophets revealed his word EXACTLY and then just let it be corrupted? That doesn't make one bit of sense.

My whole conviction was formed many years ago when I read Mat 4:4.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

You see that Jesus said God expects us to live by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God. Well, I believe God is fair, he would not expect us to live by every word unless he has provided every word. And I don't believe God would hide it in a cave somewhere, he would put his word out in the open where every man could find it.

So, I believe God's preserved word exists in the world today, I just need to determine where it is. There are two major lines of scripture, the KJB translated from the Received Text, and the MVs taken from the Critical Text. I examined these, and I believe the King James is the preserved text that God promised many times in scripture.

It is that simple, I believe by faith. If I were to listen to all the "scholars", I would have no faith in ANY version, you guys cast doubt on EVERYTHING.

I feel sorry for you folks, you have no solid rock for your foundation, your house is built on sand.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

You guys need to put away all your scholarship and simply BELIEVE.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Assuming or believing your own subjective opinions by faith is not showing Biblically sound faith. The type faith you suggest would seem to be like the blind leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox.

A modern, man-made KJV-only theory has not been demonstrated to be stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

The Scriptures do not teach that translations made by scholars are inerrant.

This is not correct, Jesus quoted several translations of scripture and said they could not be broken.

Jesus himself quoted translations, just as the King James is a translation. Jesus never doubted these scriptures and said they could not be broken.

So, the record of scripture itself is that Jesus often quoted translations. Jesus gave these scriptures the full authority and weight of the original texts, though they were translations.

Perhaps you or others incorrectly assume that Jesus quoted a translation when he could have quoted a different form of the Hebrew text which may have been the basis for the Greek LXX [a Hebrew text that differed in some places from the later Hebrew Masoretic Text on which the KJV was based]. Because some of the quotations are claimed to agree with the later edition of the Greek LXX does not prove that Jesus actually quoted from it since He could have quoted from the original language text on which the Greek LXX was based.

Winman, you fail to see that you make an invalid comparison since the words of that claimed translation were part of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

Any claimed translated by God whether the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit that was part of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as the process involved in the making of the KJV.

The words of the New Testament proceeded directly from God by the miracle of inspiration.

Winman, you have not demonstrated that the words of a translation such as the KJV proceed directly from God by that same process.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... it is impossible to prove to me that the King James contains errors, because I believe it is inerrant. ...

It is dishonest to ask for something (like evidence) when you really don't want it (have no intention of considering responders' efforts).

 

[Winman]

[/I]



Perhaps you or others incorrectly assume that Jesus quoted a translation when he could have quoted a different form of the Hebrew text which may have been the basis for the Greek LXX [a Hebrew text that differed in some places from the later Hebrew Masoretic Text on which the KJV was based]. Because some of the quotations are claimed to agree with the later edition of the Greek LXX does not prove that Jesus actually quoted from it since He could have quoted from the original language text on which the Greek LXX was based.

Winman, you fail to see that you make an invalid comparison since the words of that claimed translation were part of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

Any claimed translated by God whether the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit that was part of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as the process involved in the making of the KJV.

The words of the New Testament proceeded directly from God by the miracle of inspiration.

Winman, you have not demonstrated that the words of a translation such as the KJV proceed directly from God by that same process.

Logos, you need to quit looking for proof and simply believe. You just don't get it, God desires that you BELIEVE HIM. Haven't you figured that out yet? That is what the whole Bible is about. You are saved by faith, not proof.

You guys are something. What are you bragging about? You have NOTHING. You doubt everything, you have nothing to lean or depend upon.

Your problem is that you are afraid to trust. Just let go and trust. You will never find satisfaction in scholarship, folks have not been able to answer your questions in thousands of years by scholarship, and YOU are not going to do any better.

Just trust. Give God a chance, and he will prove himself to you.

 

[Logos1560]

the proper foundation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages

I feel sorry for you folks, you have no solid rock for your foundation, your house is built on sand.

Your assertion or accusation is actually false. Your assertion evidently depends upon divers measures in contradiction to what the Scriptures teach.

All translations including the KJV are built on the same foundation--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

It is an established fact that there were copying errors in the original language manuscripts on which the printed original language texts were based and from which the KJV was translated. There were also some printing errors in those printed original language texts. The KJV was based on varying, imperfect original language texts. The KJV was also a revision of varying pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops].

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the KJV translators. In agreement with the KJV translators and what the Scriptures teach, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.

The Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, and the NKJV were translated from the same original language texts as the KJV. They were not translated from the Critical Text.

How are the 200 varying editions of the KJV with over 2,000 changes from 1611 to the 20 or so varying editions in print today which do not match any printed original language texts 100% and any original language manuscripts 100% supposedly a "solid rock"?

Since the actual solid rock or final authority existed before 1611, how can it supposedly have been created in 1611?

Your incorrect, modern, man-made KJV-only view implies that the Scriptures did not exist perfectly before 1611 since now of the actual original language texts from which the KJV was made agree with the KJV 100%. If the Scriptures were not properly preserved before 1611 according to faulty KJV-only reasoning, the foundation on which the KJV depends is undermined.

 

[jbh28]

You are silly, the fact that they corrected "he" to "ye" shows they recognized it as a typo and corrected it.

No, it shows they found the mistake and fixed it. You have yet to prove it was a typo. So as I said, you are begging the question.

But God is real and made many promises to preserve his word in scripture.

of course, and no one here has denied this. So how is this relevant to what I said? It isn't. God made promises to preserve his word. God said that. So I believe it. God NEVER said that the translators would be free from error. You said, " I do not believe the translators made mistakes." God never said that the translators would not make mistakes, so you reply doesn't apply to this.

Most were printing errors. A textual change does not necessarily mean an error. Adding "of God" to "Son" does not show that "Son" was a error, it just makes the correct meaning more clear. Jesus also called himself "Son of Man". So, while "Son" is not wrong, it is made more clear by inserting "of God" to the text. You are smart enough to understand what I am saying.

If they didn't write it, it's a mistake. If they fixed it later, it was a mistake originally and they found it and fixed it. You have yet to provide any evidence that they were printing errors.

No, it was not an error when it said only "Son" as I have just explained, but it is more clear when it says "Son of God". But simply writing "Son" is no error whatsoever. You KNOW what I am saying is a valid argument, unlike most here, you have the ability to think. Too bad you let others think for you much of the time.

If God wrote, Son of God and they just wrote Son, it's an error. Now, if the translation was "Son of God" and they added the "of God" to make it more clear, you would have a point. But if God wrote "Son of God" and they just wrote Son, then they made a mistake. Plain and simple.

there's nothing wrong with the KJV translators having errors. God never promised that a translation would be perfect. Never. so putting your faith in this is not having your faith in anything God said. Remember your statement above? You said, "God is real and made many promises to preserve his word in scripture." This we both agree. Why? Because God said it. We can go to the Bible and show where God said he would preserve His word. However, you cannot go to the Bible and show where God ever said a translation, much less and English translation would be kept from error.

So where you are running into a problem is that you have made something up that God never said and believe it. Then, despite the evidence in front of you, continue to believe in something God never said.

Now, it may be circular reasoning, but it is impossible to prove to me that the King James contains errors, because I believe it is inerrant.

Now, I admit, that looks like all the world circular reasoning. I am completely aware of this.

Nevertheless, my conviction is built on faith in God.

No, your conviction is over something made up, not on faith in God, for God never said that a translation, much less and English translation would be free from error. Your believe that the KJV is inerrant is without evidence, including biblical evidence.

 

[Winman]

Your assertion or accusation is actually false. Your assertion evidently depends upon divers measures in contradiction to what the Scriptures teach.

All translations including the KJV are built on the same foundation--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

It is an established fact that there were copying errors in the original language manuscripts on which the printed original language texts were based and from which the KJV was translated. There were also some printing errors in those printed original language texts. The KJV was based on varying, imperfect original language texts. The KJV was also a revision of varying pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops].

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the KJV translators. In agreement with the KJV translators and what the Scriptures teach, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.

The Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, and the NKJV were translated from the same original language texts as the KJV. They were not translated from the Critical Text.

How are the 200 varying editions of the KJV with over 2,000 changes from 1611 to the 20 or so varying editions in print today which do not match any printed original language texts 100% and any original language manuscripts 100% supposedly a "solid rock"?

Since the actual solid rock or final authority existed before 1611, how can it supposedly have been created in 1611?

Your incorrect, modern, man-made KJV-only view implies that the Scriptures did not exist perfectly before 1611 since now of the actual original language texts from which the KJV was made agree with the KJV 100%. If the Scriptures were not properly preserved before 1611 according to faulty KJV-only reasoning, the foundation on which the KJV depends is undermined.

Blah, blah, blah, WHATEVER. I am not going to keep arguing with you.

I hope you find your proof someday.

 

[Logos1560]

God desires that you BELIEVE HIM. .

I believe God and I believe what the Scriptures teach.

The fact that I disagree with the opinions of men such as yours does not suggest at all that I do not believe God.

Are you supposedly God or a "pope" so that you are entitled to suggest that any believer who disagrees with your opinions does not believe God?

 

[Winman]

I believe God and I believe what the Scriptures teach.

The fact that I disagree with the opinions of men such as yours does not suggest at all that I do not believe God.

Are you supposedly God or a "pope" so that you are entitled to suggest that any believer who disagrees with your opinions does not believe God?

What do you believe? Like Yeshua1 that only the originals were inerrant?

Where are the originals? How do they help you?

The originals are LONG gone. If you are correct the word of God no longer exists. How can you believe in what does not exist?

All you guys do is spread doubt. You doubt, and you want everybody else to be miserable like you are. Your long lists of dates aren't going to help you.