Do you see A Difference between Inerrancy/Infallibility?

[Yeshua1]

i was taught that Inerrancy ONLY applied to the originals, and that versions today of the bible such as KJV/Nasb/Niv etc would be infallible!

Do the KJVO group confuse the two terms?

 

[go2church]

Inerrancy is always confused. Whenever someone uses the term I always ask that they define it before the conversation continues. Don't even use the term any more.

 

[Winman]

i was taught that Inerrancy ONLY applied to the originals, and that versions today of the bible such as KJV/Nasb/Niv etc would be infallible!

Do the KJVO group confuse the two terms?

You answer your own question. You say "I was taught that inerrancy only applied to the originals".

That is how YOU were taught. Not everyone is taught the same. Those of us who are King James only believe it is inerrant.

King James Only inerrantists

A faction of those in the "King James Only movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts, largely as a result of work in the field of textual criticism. Upholders of the KJV-only position nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King James Only movement asserts that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.[edit]

Textus Receptus

Similar to the King James Only view is the view that translations must be derived from the Textus Receptus in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the Reina-Valera 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960). It should also be noted that the New King James Version was also translated from the Textus Receptus.
[edit]Justifications

A number of reasons are offered by Christian theologians to justify Biblical inerrancy.

Norman Geisler and William Nix (1986) claim that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:[13]

The historical accuracy of the Bible

The Bible's claims of its own inerrancy

Church history and tradition

One's individual experience with God

Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, divides the various evidences into two approaches - deductive and inductive approaches.[25]

Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

I personally believe that the Bible declares itself to be inerrant. You may disagree, and that is your right. It is my right to believe it was preserved inerrant.

 

[franklinmonroe]

i was taught that Inerrancy ONLY applied to the originals, and that versions today of the bible such as KJV/Nasb/Niv etc would be infallible! ...

Inerrancy means "without error"; infallible means "incapable of being fallible". This is simply how I define these terms.

INFALLIBILITY: It is possible that a book could have an error and yet still be infallible. Error does not cause fallibility. That is, a technical error may not necessarily cause any or all true teachings to become false; of course, a very simple error (such as an absent "not") could indeed cause a serious falsehood. Casual mistakes (say, printer's error) do not really falsify true doctrine, but only delay it's communication. No human book of significant length and substance is infallible; only a book of divine origin could positively be infallible. It is also possible that a book could be completely fallible and yet contain no errors of fact or mistakes of publication; think of improper interpretations or erroneous conclusions drawn from pure sources.

A book with an error may or may not be considered inerrant depending what is considered a legitimate "error".

 

[Yeshua1]

Inerrancy means "without error"; infallible means "incapable of being fallible". This is simply how I define these terms.

INFALLIBILITY: It is possible that a book could have an error and yet still be infallible. Error does not cause fallibility. That is, a technical error may not necessarily cause any or all true teachings to become false; of course, a very simple error (such as an absent "not") could indeed cause a serious falsehood. Casual mistakes (say, printer's error) do not really falsify true doctrine, but only delay it's communication. No human book of significant length and substance is infallible; only a book of divine origin could positively be infallible. It is also possible that a book could be completely fallible and yet contain no errors of fact or mistakes of publication; think of improper interpretations or erroneous conclusions drawn from pure sources.

A book with an error may or may not be considered inerrant depending what is considered a legitimate "error".

yes, for ANY translation of the bible today, even ole kjv, has some 'errors" in it, due to scribal mistakes, inserting notes, corrupted numbers in OT texts etc!

So still infallible, but originals alone inerrant!

 

[Winman]

yes, for ANY translation of the bible today, even ole kjv, has some 'errors" in it, due to scribal mistakes, inserting notes, corrupted numbers in OT texts etc!

So still infallible, but originals alone inerrant!

Where are there errors in the King James Bible? Please show them to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

You answer your own question. You say "I was taught that inerrancy only applied to the originals".

That is how YOU were taught. Not everyone is taught the same. Those of us who are King James only believe it is inerrant.



Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

I personally believe that the Bible declares itself to be inerrant. You may disagree, and that is your right. It is my right to believe it was preserved inerrant.

Yes, the ORIGINALS were fully inerrant, but versions today are infallible, some minor errors in them due to scribal inserts/copying notes, problems in OT numbering etc!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Where are there errors in the King James Bible? Please show them to me.

Here's a pretty good one:

2Kings 24:8 ¶ Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2Chr. 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where are there errors in the King James Bible? Please show them to me.

In Acts, wasn't the feast called easter?

 

[Winman]

Here's a pretty good one:

2Kings 24:8 ¶ Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2Chr. 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

How do you know this is an error? I acknowledge there are many "supposed" errors or contradictions in the scriptures, but that does not prove they are errors at all. It may simply be that we do not know all the facts. I will admit that I believe by faith that the KJB does not contain any errors.

That said, there have been scholars who have studied all the so-called "errors" or contradictions in scripture and have provided possible answers. Here is the answer I found concerning these scriptures.

(1). The first solution is quite simple. During a monarchy a king would make a son co-regent with him while he was still alive. This practice would assure the king's favored son (usually the first-born of the favored wife) as being the next king. Some of the kings had more than one wife, and thus several sons from these wives. To prevent civil war and fighting among the family, he would appoint the selected son as co-regent, so when he died, the co-regent son would be in place to take over completely. An example of this is seen in the life of David. In 1 Kings 1 and 2, David in his dying days called Solomon and had the high priest, as well as the prophet Nathan, anoint him before the people. David, though he was still king, made his son Solomon co-regent. Coming to 2 Kings 24:8, the biblical record is giving the age of Jehoiachin as 18. The cross-reference of “8 years old” in 2 Chronicles 36:9 could be his age when he was made the co-regent with his father.

(2). A second solution involves the king's mother. When Jehoiachin was 8 years old, his father, Jehoiakim, was deported (2 Chron. 36:6). The young king ruled jointly with his mother, the queen, until he too was led away captive. The reasoning behind this view is that women were not necessarily listed in the historical record. Even though the king was young and the queen was probably making decisions, the official record would name Jehoiachin as the king. The one difficulty with this view, however, is that the biblical narrative would more than likely be more specific about such a situation. The one place that names a queen is 2 Kings 11 with Athaliah. If there were a joint rulership between Jehoiachin and his mother, such a deviation from the norm would have been discussed in the scripture. Some writers point out 2 Kings 24:12 where the text describes the king going to Babylon with his mother. They say this implies she ruled jointly with him, but nothing in the text remotely suggests such a conclusion. The phrase “his mother” does not mean she ruled with him anymore than the servants, princes, and officers also listed in the deportation recorded in the verse. Another passage is Jeremiah 13:8, where it speaks of the coming deportation of the king and queen. It is argued the queen is Jehoiachin’s mother, but the text is not specific. This queen could be his wife for all we know.

(3). The third solution, and the one that appears to be more biblical, hinges on the phrase 8 years old from 2 Chronicles 36:9. The 8 years does not refer to the actual age of Jehoiachin but is a time marker pointing to an event: the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. In 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded the Mediterranean countries including Judah. It was during this first invasion when Daniel and many others were taken to Babylon in what was to be the first of 3 deportations. The second was in 598-597 B.C. with the taking of Jehoiachin’s father Jehoiakim. The Babylonians left Jehoiachin in power as a sort of puppet regent, but only for 3 months (2 Chron. 36:9 gives the exact figure of 3 months, 10 days). Like his father, Jehoiachin rebelled and the Babylonians returned to have him removed. They took him back to Babylon, and left his brother Zedekiah as king. Jehoiachin's appointment as king was 8 years after Nebuchadnezzar came to power and invaded Judah. This is the reason 2 Chronicles 36:9 has “8 years old.” Second Kings 24:12 affirms this solution where it states, “and the king of Babylon took him (Jehoiachin) in the 8th year of his (Nebuchadnezzar) reign.”

It is quite possible that one of these explanations is correct. It is also possible that some other explanation is the answer.

But I believe by faith that God has preserved his words without errors. You may disagree, but I believe Psalm 12 promises this.

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

I believe the word "pure" is synonymous with inerrant. I am completely aware that many folks do not agree with my interpretation of these scriptures, but that is what I believe.

But just because there are scriptures that are difficult to reconcile with others does not mean they are error. There are many possible answers to these apparent problems.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Winman,

Your first solution requires the abandonment of the plain meaning of words and grammar, and in fact we can never be sure of the beginning of any king's reign according to the biblical authors. The second solution contradicts itself, since the time of reign is the same in both accounts. The third solution is inadmissible, since the grammar of both is the same, and if the same grammar has completely opposite meanings then words don't mean anything.

Far better to account for the extraneous "ten days" as an ancient scribal assimilation of the "teen" at the end of a line into the "ten days" of the next line where it stands in that account. This single solution accounts for both discrepancies and is thus to be preferred.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Where are there errors in the King James Bible? Please show them to me.

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

 

[Logos1560]

errors in 1611 KJV

Where are there errors in the King James Bible? Please show them to me.

The first rule for the making of the translation printed in 1611 stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

How is it possible that those errors in the 1602 Bishops' Bible were not noticed by the translators of the KJV and evidently were not corrected since they are also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Here are examples of those uncorrected errors that are found in the 1611 KJV, kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.


1 Kings 8:61 [Lord our God--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Lord your God--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 8:59]
LORD your God {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London} (1843 AFBS)
LORD our God (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

The Hebrew word at 1 Kings 11:5 is the Hebrew word translated "Ammorities" in the 1611 Holy Bible [KJV] in all other places, and it is not the same Hebrew word that is translated "Amorites" in the 1611 KJV in other verses.

2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634 London} (1843 AFBS)
the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1644, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)
the temple of the Lord {1795 London} (1897 Mackail)
the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

At 2 Kings 11:10, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages have the Hebrew word that is translated "Jehovah" or "LORD" at other places in the 1611 KJV. That name is omitted in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and the 1611 edition of the KJV.

2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
Jehoiackin (1813, 1815 Carey)
Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640, 1644 London} (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)
Jehoiakim (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 translated "Jehoiachin" in the 1602 Bishops' and the 1611 KJV is not the Hebrew name translated "Jehoiachin" in other verses in the KJV. The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 is the same Hebrew name translated "Jehoiakim" at other verses in the 1611 KJV.

Genesis 47:6 [men--1560 Geneva; man--1602 Bishops]
any man (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1843 AFBS)
any man [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
any men (1768, 1968 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795 London} (1769 Edinburgh) (1810, 1832, 1835 Scott) (EB) (2006 PENG) (2011 PJB) (NCE)
any men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1747, 1768, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

At Genesis 47:6, the Hebrew word translated "man" in the 1611 is plural in number. The singular form "man" would also not agree with the later plural pronoun "them" that follows and refers back to it.

2 Samuel 12:22 [see Gen. 6:5, 2 Chron. 28:11, Isaiah 49:13] [God--1602 Bishops]
God (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1830 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1795, 1813, 1817, 1824, 1825 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1808, 1828 MH) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1954 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1853 Butler) (1859 RTS) (1897 Mackail) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (CSB) (WMCRB) (VB) (1987 Dugan) (1989, 2003 TN) (1991, 2008 AMG) (KJVCB) (Life) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BRO) (APB) (HMSB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
GOD (1829 Oxford, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [CCR, CSTE, DKJB]

Genesis 6:5 [1611 kept “God” from 1602 Bishops; see also 2 Samuel 12:22, 2 Chronicles 28:11, Isaiah 49:13] [the Lord--1560 Geneva] [the LORD--NKJV]
JEHOVAH (1842 Bernard)
God (1679, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1810, 1812, 1928 Oxford, 1952 PE, SSB Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 2005 Cambridge, 2011 Transetto Text] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1684, 1750, 1795, 1824 London} (1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1858 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1828 Boston) (1810, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1833 MH) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1859 RTS) (1876 Porter) (1895, 1997 NPC) (1897 Mackail) (1923 NIB) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1954 ABS) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1972, 1976, 1987, 1989 TN) (1973 REG) (1975, 1985, 1990 Open) (1976 BH) (1975, 1978 GID) (CSB) (Nave’s) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1984 AMG) (VB) (JVIPB) (EB) (RSB) (SFCB) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (APB) (2011 PJB) (2012 F-S) (HKJVSB) (1833 WEB)
GOD (1715, 1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1629, 1637, 1638 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1672, 1711, 1760, 1763, 1817 London}

 

[Winman]

The first rule for the making of the translation printed in 1611 stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

How is it possible that those errors in the 1602 Bishops' Bible were not noticed by the translators of the KJV and evidently were not corrected since they are also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Here are examples of those uncorrected errors that are found in the 1611 KJV, kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.


1 Kings 8:61 [Lord our God--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Lord your God--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 8:59]
LORD your God {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London} (1843 AFBS)
LORD our God (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

The Hebrew word at 1 Kings 11:5 is the Hebrew word translated "Ammorities" in the 1611 Holy Bible [KJV] in all other places, and it is not the same Hebrew word that is translated "Amorites" in the 1611 KJV in other verses.

2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634 London} (1843 AFBS)
the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1644, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)
the temple of the Lord {1795 London} (1897 Mackail)
the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

At 2 Kings 11:10, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages have the Hebrew word that is translated "Jehovah" or "LORD" at other places in the 1611 KJV. That name is omitted in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and the 1611 edition of the KJV.

2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
Jehoiackin (1813, 1815 Carey)
Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640, 1644 London} (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)
Jehoiakim (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 translated "Jehoiachin" in the 1602 Bishops' and the 1611 KJV is not the Hebrew name translated "Jehoiachin" in other verses in the KJV. The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 is the same Hebrew name translated "Jehoiakim" at other verses in the 1611 KJV.

Genesis 47:6 [men--1560 Geneva; man--1602 Bishops]
any man (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1843 AFBS)
any man [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
any men (1768, 1968 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795 London} (1769 Edinburgh) (1810, 1832, 1835 Scott) (EB) (2006 PENG) (2011 PJB) (NCE)
any men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1747, 1768, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

At Genesis 47:6, the Hebrew word translated "man" in the 1611 is plural in number. The singular form "man" would also not agree with the later plural pronoun "them" that follows and refers back to it.

2 Samuel 12:22 [see Gen. 6:5, 2 Chron. 28:11, Isaiah 49:13] [God--1602 Bishops]
God (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1830 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1795, 1813, 1817, 1824, 1825 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1808, 1828 MH) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1954 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1853 Butler) (1859 RTS) (1897 Mackail) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (CSB) (WMCRB) (VB) (1987 Dugan) (1989, 2003 TN) (1991, 2008 AMG) (KJVCB) (Life) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BRO) (APB) (HMSB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
GOD (1829 Oxford, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [CCR, CSTE, DKJB]

Genesis 6:5 [1611 kept “God” from 1602 Bishops; see also 2 Samuel 12:22, 2 Chronicles 28:11, Isaiah 49:13] [the Lord--1560 Geneva] [the LORD--NKJV]
JEHOVAH (1842 Bernard)
God (1679, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1810, 1812, 1928 Oxford, 1952 PE, SSB Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 2005 Cambridge, 2011 Transetto Text] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1684, 1750, 1795, 1824 London} (1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1858 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1828 Boston) (1810, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1833 MH) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1859 RTS) (1876 Porter) (1895, 1997 NPC) (1897 Mackail) (1923 NIB) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1954 ABS) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1972, 1976, 1987, 1989 TN) (1973 REG) (1975, 1985, 1990 Open) (1976 BH) (1975, 1978 GID) (CSB) (Nave’s) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1984 AMG) (VB) (JVIPB) (EB) (RSB) (SFCB) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (APB) (2011 PJB) (2012 F-S) (HKJVSB) (1833 WEB)
GOD (1715, 1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1629, 1637, 1638 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1672, 1711, 1760, 1763, 1817 London}

First, showing multiple dates does nothing to convince anybody, in fact, it robs from your argument. Remember KISS (keep it simple STUPID).

Simply explain how these are errors (without all the dates). The fact that certain printings of the KJB (or any version) contain errors does not prove the translation is an error. In fact, the fact that errors are spotted and corrected shows that the correct translation was known. You are going to get all sorts of errors over time with hundreds of printings being done that are spotted and corrected, this does not prove the KJB is not inerrant at all, in fact, it supports that it is. That may not make sense to you, but think about it awhile.

 

[jbh28]

First, showing multiple dates does nothing to convince anybody, in fact, it robs from your argument. Remember KISS (keep it simple STUPID).

Simply explain how these are errors (without all the dates). The fact that certain printings of the KJB (or any version) contain errors does not prove the translation is an error. In fact, the fact that errors are spotted and corrected shows that the correct translation was known. You are going to get all sorts of errors over time with hundreds of printings being done that are spotted and corrected, this does not prove the KJB is not inerrant at all, in fact, it supports that it is. That may not make sense to you, but think about it awhile.

Logos, you went over Winmans head here. or actually winman didn't like fact being presented, so he just said it was too complex.

Winman, writing the wrong word is an incorrect translation. Fixing it later shows that they spotted the error. But it was an error. No where in the Bible does it say that English translators would be kept from error.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Logos, you went over Winmans head here. or actually winman didn't like fact being presented, so he just said it was too complex.

Winman, writing the wrong word is an incorrect translation. Fixing it later shows that they spotted the error. But it was an error. No where in the Bible does it say that English translators would be kept from error.

:laugh:Well young man.....you are back & with moxie! VERY GOOD! Welcome back. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Logos, you went over Winmans head here. or actually winman didn't like fact being presented, so he just said it was too complex.

Winman, writing the wrong word is an incorrect translation. Fixing it later shows that they spotted the error. But it was an error. No where in the Bible does it say that English translators would be kept from error.

Not so. There have been famous versions of the King James with mistakes in it such as the "Murderers Bible" that misspelled "murmurers" in Jude 16 to say "murderers". This error was spotted and corrected, because it was known that the correct word is murmurers.

It's not that the translators made a mistake in the translation, it is that the printers made a typographical error. Because the correct word was known, the error was spotted and corrected.

You cannot distinguish between an error made by the translators versus a mistake made by the printers. There have been numerous mistakes and errors made by printers of all versions of the Bible. That has nothing to do with whether the translation is correct or not. This type of argument is a fallacy, only naive people would be fooled by it.

Now, if you can't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. And this is the kind of mistake Logos is trying to point out. Printing "yours" instead of "ours" is a typo mistake made by the printers, not the translators.

 

[Logos1560]

It's not that the translators made a mistake in the translation, it is that the printers made a typographical error. Because the correct word was known, the error was spotted and corrected.

You cannot distinguish between an error made by the translators versus a mistake made by the printers.

Are you in effect contradicting yourself as you say that you cannot distinguish between an error made by the translatorrs versus an error made by the printers while trying to blame all the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV on the printers? According to your own statement, you do not know that the errors in the 1611 edition were not the responsibility of the translators. Are you merely speculating that the KJV translators could not have made the errors? Are you trying to make the printers the scapegoats for all the errors in the 1611 edition?

One reason I picked the examples that I do was the fact that they were found in the earlier 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. Since these errors were in the earlier 1602 Bishops' Bible, the 1611 printers did not introduce them, and it can reasonably be expected that the KJV translators should have made sure that they were corrected. Therefore, it would have been the responsibility of the KJV translators to make sure that the printers corrected them if the translators had spotted or noticed them. Archbishop Richard Bancroft, overseer of the making of the KJV, and some of the KJV translators in their positions of authority in the Church of England had control over printing and power of censorship so that they could demand that printers follow their instructions.

If those errors in the 1602 Bishops' Bible had been spotted and corrected by the KJV translators and the printers failed to follow the correction, the KJV translators would have been expected to make sure that they were corrected in the very next edition in 1613 [they weren't].

One of the example errors I listed was not corrected until 1743 (Gen. 47:6), and another was not corrected until 1829 (2 Sam. 12:22).

 

[Logos1560]

It's not that the translators made a mistake in the translation, it is that the printers made a typographical error.

And this is the kind of mistake Logos is trying to point out.

You did not and have not proven that the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV that I pointed out were definitely the fault of the 1611 printers.

Therefore, you did not prove any mistake in what I pointed out.

 

[Winman]

You did not and have not proven that the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV that I pointed out were definitely the fault of the 1611 printers.

Therefore, you did not prove any mistake in what I pointed out.

You are the one claiming they are mistakes, I do not believe the KJB has any mistakes. It is your duty to prove that the translators made a mistake.

The fact that these errors were spotted and corrected argues that the correct translation was known.

Printing was very primitive when the 1611 was first printed, and the Bible is a monumental work. It sometimes took years before typos were spotted and corrected, and sometimes many printings contained an error. But in time these errors were spotted and corrected. This does not reflect upon the translation whatsoever, and I think you KNOW that. It is a false, even dishonest form of argument.