Do you see A Difference between Inerrancy/Infallibility?

[franklinmonroe]

... Of the 3000 + extant Greek manuscripts, only 1800 contained Mark 16. So, around 1200 were not complete. This doesn't mean they weren't inerrant, but they weren't complete. Of those that did include Mark 16, all but 3 included the last 12 verses. So, most of these texts were inerrant, but a few weren't. Nevertheless, the translators were able to determine that the last 12 verses should be there, also having much support from other documents (ECF, etc...). ...

You said you just accept the KJV as inerrant by faith, but it sounds like your faith is actually placed in facts and reasoning, and by the translators that "determined" what was Scripture and what was not Scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe God preserved his word by faith. Don't tell me you have faith in the word of God, YOU DO NOT. You are a skeptic and a doubter plain and simple.

You spend all your time attacking the word of God, if you loved it you wouldn't do that. It is that simple. Actions speak louder than words.

According to your faulty reasoning, are you claiming that Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon was a "skeptic" that was "attacking the word of God?" Would you claim that Spurgeon did not love the word of God?

In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible: History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Charles Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi). Spurgeon continued: “It is of course an arduous labour to persuade men of this, although in the light of common sense the matter is plain enough. But there is a kind of Popery in our midst which makes us cling fast to our errors, and hinders the growth of thorough reformation; otherwise, the Church would just ask the question, ‘Is this King James’ Bible the nearest approach to the original?‘ The answer would be, ‘No; it is exceedingly good, but it has many glaring faults’” (p. xi).

In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii). Again in this preface, Spurgeon asserted: “It was a holy thing to translate the Scriptures into the mother tongue; he that shall effect a thorough revision of the present translation will deserve as high a meed of honour as the first translators. Despite the outcry of reverend doctors against any attempt at revision, it ought to be done, and must be done. The present version is not to be despised, but no candid person can be blind to its faults“ (pp. vii-viii).

Spurgeon maintained: “Multitudes of eminent divines and critics have borne their testimony to the faulty character of King Jame’s version: there must therefore be some need for a little correction” (pp. viii-ix). Spurgeon then gave several example quotations from several authors as evidence that supported his statement. In one example, Spurgeon favorably quoted Anthony Blackwall as saying concerning King James’s version: “Innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original” (p. ix). Spurgeon also favorably quoted Richard Fuller as writing in 1850: “That our present English version has some defects is admitted on all hands, and by every denomination. That the Word of God ought to be purged of all defects in the translation which the people read,--this is also admitted” (p. x).

Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327).

 

[Yeshua1]

You said you just accept the KJV as inerrant by faith, but it sounds like your faith is actually placed in facts and reasoning, and by the translators that "determined" what was Scripture and what was not Scripture.

what is interesting is that neither those who did the geneva/Bishop etc, nor ANY who worked on ANY MV wewre able to piece the manuscripts together to get back to the original text, but the KJV team could!

Per KJVO, they HAD to have Apsotolic inspiration guiding their work!

 

[Logos1560]

I believe God preserved his word by faith. Don't tell me you have faith in the word of God, YOU DO NOT. You are a skeptic and a doubter plain and simple.

You spend all your time attacking the word of God, if you loved it you wouldn't do that. It is that simple. Actions speak louder than words.

According to a consistent application of Winman's faulty reasoning and bogus accusation, the KJV translators were evidently "skeptics" and "doubters" who were attacking what they said was the word of God in English [the pre-1611 English Bibles]. Of course, Winman will likely close his eyes to the truth and refuse to see how his accusations depend upon unrighteous divers measures or weights since they cannot be applied consistently without including others such as the KJV translators.

When they were not persecuting believers for their Bible-based beliefs, the KJV translators spent a great deal of time attempting to make better the earlier English Bibles that they said were the word of God.


In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

Is Winman suggesting that if the KJV translators loved the word of God that they would not have spent their time making corrections, revisions, and changes to it [at least to what they said was the word of God in English]?

 

[Yeshua1]

According to a consistent application of Winman's faulty reasoning and bogus accusation, the KJV translators were evidently "skeptics" and "doubters" who were attacking what they said was the word of God in English [the pre-1611 English Bibles]. Of course, Winman will likely close his eyes to the truth and refuse to see how his accusations depend upon unrighteous divers measures or weights since they cannot be applied consistently without including others such as the KJV translators.

When they were not persecuting believers for their Bible-based beliefs, the KJV translators spent a great deal of time attempting to make better the earlier English Bibles that they said were the word of God.


In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

Is Winman suggesting that if the KJV translators loved the word of God that they would not have spent their time making corrections, revisions, and changes to it [at least to what they said was the word of God in English]?

What happened to Tynsdale? Wasn't he willing to "make the supreme sacrifice?"