Inerrancy?

[jonathan.borland]

I have come to believe that the KJV is that inerrant version.

What if the KJV disagrees with an inerrant passage of a copy in the original language descended from the pen of an inspired author?

You say the autographs don't exist. Fine. Can you prove that John 1:1 in the Greek copies is different than it was in the original of John? If you can't, then you must assume that all the copies are identical with the wording of the original, and in that case, all the copies are just as inerrant as the original. When copies have differences, we use our God-given brains to decide which manuscripts are wrong and which are right. When one is wrong at one place, there are hundreds others that are right at that place. So, as Bentley argued, when there is the multiplication of copies, there is also the multiplication of errors, but these errors do not all occur at the same place, and so there is safety in the multiplication of copies even though it means also the multiplication of various errors here and there. Of course, you could resort to divination, as did Herman Hoskier (a favorite of the KJVO folks), to decide which one is right in this or that spot. But I prefer to use the reason God gave me with a prayerful attitude to decide the "inerrant" reading in those difficult places where the copies disagree.

 

[kyredneck]

....you could resort to divination....

So THAT'S how the KJVO folks do it! Thanks! I've often wondered how............;you just articulated something for me

 

[sag38]

The examples given by Winman in no way reduce the diety of Christ, remove the blood, etc. It's amazing the arguments that KJVO's produce to support their position. What's sad is the innocent people who fall prey to this heresy and cultish following of a false doctrine.

 

[Cutter]

I feel your pain Winman. To cherish and promote the KJV among liberal minded Baptists today is like being on TV and saying homosexuality is a sin.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I simply believe God preserved the scriptures as he promised to do. I have come to believe that the KJV is that inerrant version.

A question I am still seeking an answer for after many attempt to get those who hold to an inerrant KJV to answer.

Examine 1 John 5v12 in a 1611 KJV and in one of the later editions. Which of these renderings is the inerrant word of God?

 

[HankD]

1 Timothy 3:16 is a scribal problem in the 5th century Uncial Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02) not a problem of inerrancy.

John Burgon (1813 - 1888) a one time hero of the KJVO devotees until it was shown that he himself was not KJVO, wrote a disertation in his book The Revision Revised, 1881, pgs 424-501 concerning this passage in Uncial Codex A.

The short of it is that "He" and "God" in Codex A are difficult to ascertain anywhere in the manuscript because look-alike letters are used and the Codex A scribe always made the marks of differentiation with a very light stroke.

The reason that "OC" (Uncial, or what we would call "uppercase") could be confused either as "He" or "God" is because "OC" with two horizontal bars (one through the middle of the "O" making it a theta, the other across the top) is a scribal contraction for theos while "OC" with no bars is "He".

The advocates of "He" readily admit the there is a horizontal bar through the "O" but claim it is too high up in the letter to make the omicron a theta (a very weak argument). They also claim there is no contraction bar obove the "OC".

However, Burgon claims that the manuscipt had been examined with a high power lens in the eighteenth century, the examiner (and others) claiming that the contraction bar, though faint, was/is indeed present.

So, if this is true, "God manifest in the flesh" is the correct reading of manuscript A.

This reading is supported by other manuscript copies, translations, as well as quotations from the early Church Fathers.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Examine 1 John 5v12 in a 1611 KJV and in one of the later editions. Which of these renderings is the inerrant word of God?

I have to go to work in a few minutes, won't be back till tomorrow, but could you please post the two versions of this verse for me please?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have to go to work in a few minutes, won't be back till tomorrow, but could you please post the two versions of this verse for me please?

1611 - Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne hath not life.

1769 et al - He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Discrepancy bolded. Either the 1611 left 'of God' out or the versions most of use today added 'of God.'

Which rendering is the perfectly preserved inerrant rendering?

 

[Rippon]

I feel your pain Winman. To cherish and promote the KJV among liberal minded Baptists today is like being on TV and saying homosexuality is a sin.

Absurd. Reasonable responses to KJV Onlyism by Baptists does not mean that we are liberal-minded by any stretch.

I won't even dignify your very last remark.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Absurd. Reasonable responses to KJV Onlyism by Baptists does not mean that we are liberal-minded by any stretch.

Amen. But when falling for the horrendous error of the only sect, they HAVE to attack anyone who opposes them. Calling us "liberal" just shows the paucity of their own ideas and 100% lack of any biblical support for their man-made notions.

 

[HankD]

Here is just one verse that is significantly changed in the newer versions.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. This is the strongest verse in all of scripture proving Jesus is God. What do the other versions say?

Here's the NIV

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

How about the RSV?

1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

How about the ASV?

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Only the KJV tells you Jesus is God, do you think that is an important difference between these versions? I do. So I reject your argument that the letter of scripture is not important. It is vital.

Hi Winman.
Actually this is only one of the strongest verses in the Bible supporting the deity of Christ.

The most famous of course is:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

As far as I know there is no scribal error in any critical apparatus I have seen for John 1:1 and all the major MVs agree with the KJV translation.

Also did you know that some MVs strengthen the doctrine of the deity of Christ because of weak translations found in the KJV?

Here is an example which JW's use from the KJV to ensnare folks:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.​

However, when looking at the original language manuscripts this passage ought to be translated as follows​

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.​

NAS Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.​

Christ in His kenosis was temporarily lowered in rank to less than angels (the Word became flesh) in order to suffer the mortal death of mankind.​

The Koine words brachu ti (little while) were left out of the verse by the KJV translators. IMO, this confuses the meaning of the verse and weakens the original language scriptural character and deity of Christ.​

The RSV and NAS show that the word "made" in the passage was not a creative act but a temporary lowering of rank. "...my Father is greater than I".

No translation of the Scriptures is perfect (apart from the OT translations imbedded in the NT).​

HankD​

 

[Winman]

Hi Winman.
Actually this is only one of the strongest verses in the Bible supporting the deity of Christ.

The most famous of course is:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

As far as I know there is no scribal error in any critical apparatus I have seen for John 1:1 and all the major MVs agree with the KJV translation.

Also did you know that some MVs strengthen the doctrine of the deity of Christ because of weak translations found in the KJV?

Here is an example which JW's use from the KJV to ensnare folks:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.​

However, when looking at the original language manuscripts this passage ought to be translated as follows​

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.​

NAS Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.​

Christ in His kenosis was temporarily lowered in rank to less than angels (the Word became flesh) in order to suffer the mortal death of mankind.​

The Koine words brachu ti (little while) were left out of the verse by the KJV translators. IMO, this confuses the meaning of the verse and weakens the original language scriptural character and deity of Christ.​

The RSV and NAS show that the word "made" in the passage was not a creative act but a temporary lowering of rank. "...my Father is greater than I".

No translation of the Scriptures is perfect (apart from the OT translations imbedded in the NT).​

HankD​

Hank, thanks for the kind response. As concerning John 1:1, I agree with you, the major MVs are fine with this verse. But you probably know the Jehovah's Witnesses have also altered John 1:1.

New World Translation John 1:1

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

So, you see the JWs alter this verse to say "a god", teaching that Jesus is a minor god or angel and not God himself. However, I could argue with a JW that they used the KJV for many years and take them to 1 Timothy 3:16 and show them Jesus is God himself, not some minor deity. That at least might shock them, knowing for a fact they used the KJV for many years.

As for Hebrews 2:9, I don't really see an improvement there, but perhaps, but that is not the issue. The issue is, do the MVs affect or pervert many important doctrines? I believe the answer is yes.

Here is a detailed article showing many verses in the MVs that affect doctrine. You can decide for yourself if there is any merit to this article.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

 

[Winman]

1611 - Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne hath not life.

1769 et al - He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Discrepancy bolded. Either the 1611 left 'of God' out or the versions most of use today added 'of God.'

Which rendering is the perfectly preserved inerrant rendering?

OK, I will attempt to answer you, but I am sure you will not be satisfied with my answer. The truth is, I am not the proper person to ask this question of. I read many good books on the various translations around 30 years ago and became convinced the KJV was the inerrant word of God. But I have forgotten almost every thing I read. And even then, I was a novice at this, there are many other men who are far more qualified than I am to ask this question of. There are also numerous articles that can be found online. I don't think asking the average Joe is the best way to get the answer you want.

It is a fact that words have been added to the KJV. This is absolutely necessary in any translation from one language to another. That words have been added is not the issue, being understood they are necessary to convey the true meaning of any translation. What is important is how these added words affect doctrine.

Going back to 1 Timothy 3:16, in the KJV this verse makes it absolutely clear that Jesus was God. He wasn't a minor deity as the JWs and some other groups teach. The MVs which translate "God" to "He" affect important doctrine.

Now, on the other hand, you asked about 1 John 5:12. Originally the verse said only "Son" and now says "Son of God". Does this affect doctrine? I don't think it does. If anything, it strengthens the doctrine.

Now, as to why the men who made this change did so, I cannot say. I do not know Greek, so I cannot say what the original languages truly implied in the language, or demanded for a true translation.

But you see, it still comes down to preservation. It is really very simple, God either preserved his word or he did not. I believe he did, obviously many here do not.

I will not continue to debate this, been there, done that. Rarely does anyone change their view.

I will say this though, I have always been amazed at the almost outright hatred some people have toward those who believe in the KJV. Those who hold to the KJV are ridiculed relentlessly. Why? What do you care what I or others believe?

 

[Winman]

Many KJVOs say that One Book Stands Alone by Dr. Douglas Stauffer is one of the best books ever written defending the KJV. You can read several chapters free online.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Douglas_Stauffer/one_book-toc.htm

 

[HankD]

Hank, thanks for the kind response. As concerning John 1:1, I agree with you, the major MVs are fine with this verse. But you probably know the Jehovah's Witnesses have also altered John 1:1.

New World Translation John 1:1

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

So, you see the JWs alter this verse to say "a god", teaching that Jesus is a minor god or angel and not God himself. However, I could argue with a JW that they used the KJV for many years and take them to 1 Timothy 3:16 and show them Jesus is God himself, not some minor deity. That at least might shock them, knowing for a fact they used the KJV for many years.

As for Hebrews 2:9, I don't really see an improvement there, but perhaps, but that is not the issue. The issue is, do the MVs affect or pervert many important doctrines? I believe the answer is yes.

Here is a detailed article showing many verses in the MVs that affect doctrine. You can decide for yourself if there is any merit to this article.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

I almost always side with the KJV and NKJV because of the mss behind their English text.

It is true that most of the MVs follow after the Wescott and Hort principles: 1) Oldest is best; 2) shortest is best; 3) The more difficult passage is best.

Here and there I personally find the the MVs to have a superior translation where there is no dispute concerning a scribal error.

However I like John Burgon's 7 Tests of Truth as my guide to scribal differences:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs2771.htm#III.

I disagree with the Wescott and Hort theory in that the theory also says that the majority and/or Traditional readings are of little or no value especially in the miniscules (younger "lower case" manuscripts) because they have longer readings and are therefore (they say) "doctored" or conflated to smooth them out.

Not having the originals it is of course immpossible to determine with evidence. Therefore it is a matter of personal faith and conviction.

However, no one that I know of here at the BB has one day said to them selves "I think I will now use a preverted or doctored text as my Bible".

We are all seeking the truth and trying as best we can before God to use a Bible which we each view is the closest to the originals or at least best represents those originals.

The Church of England spent over 2 centuries making corrections to the text of the orginal 1611 First Edition Authorized Bible.

Don't forget that when the 1611 version was first published it contained the Apocrypha and no where in the 1611 Edition (either in the preface or the marginal notes) was it stated that the Apocrypha was not the Word of God.

In fact, in the 1611 calendar of daily reading of "the Scriptures", the Apocryphal books were included as well as in the marginal notes (Yes, the original KJV had marginal notes). Many CoE assemblies were still celebrating "the mass", hearing confessions, baptizing babies, teaching baptismal regeneration, etc.

Later the Articles of Religion attempted to explain these things away but are unconvincing to me.

In addition Baptists were persecuted and imprisoned by King James simply because they were Baptists.

John Bunyan (Pilgrims Progress) was imprisoned for 12 years because he preached the Gospel to the people without a license from the CoE.

The Church of England was not then or now perfect and neither was their translation which they officially amended over 400 times over the course of 200 years (that to their credit).

Many KJVO say that these were minor things, spelling, etc.
Well not all of them were "small".

Besides saying that these were only minor corrections is the same (if one follows the KJVO line of reasoning) that God only makes small mistakes (assuming inspiration of the English text) but not big ones and needs our help to correct them.


HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Now, on the other hand, you asked about 1 John 5:12. Originally the verse said only "Son" and now says "Son of God". Does this affect doctrine? I don't think it does. If anything, it strengthens the doctrine.

Now, as to why the men who made this change did so, I cannot say. I do not know Greek, so I cannot say what the original languages truly implied in the language, or demanded for a true translation.

But you see, it still comes down to preservation. It is really very simple, God either preserved his word or he did not. I believe he did, obviously many here do not.

Okay, in which edition was God's word perfectly preserved, 1611 or 1769, et al?

If you don't know which edition is perfectly preserved, then how can you trust either one. One of them has a mistake, correct?

You slander your brothers in Christ when you accuse them of not believing in the preservation of Scripture. Every poster here believes in preservation, some just don't accept the idea that He only preserved it in English in 1611.

I believe He is powerful enough to preserve it in English both before 1611 and since.

I will say this though, I have always been amazed at the almost outright hatred some people have toward those who believe in the KJV. Those who hold to the KJV are ridiculed relentlessly. Why? What do you care what I or others believe?

I love my KJV and I honour those who do. I honour and respect those who use it solely. My problem comes when men spend their time deriding and attacking other versions of Scripture based in a doctrine or teaching never found in Scripture. I would ask you the same question, why do you care what versions other men use?

 

[Winman]

Okay, in which edition was God's word perfectly preserved, 1611 or 1769, et al?

If you don't know which edition is perfectly preserved, then how can you trust either one. One of them has a mistake, correct?

You slander your brothers in Christ when you accuse them of not believing in the preservation of Scripture. Every poster here believes in preservation, some just don't accept the idea that He only preserved it in English in 1611.

I believe He is powerful enough to preserve it in English both before 1611 and since.

First, as I told you, I am no scholar, so I cannot tell you exactly why the men who made this change did so, but I am sure they had some legitimate reason. There have been many changes besides this one particular verse, and the reasons for these changes are documented. Here is a good article about the changes that have been made in the KJV.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/kjv2.html

I think even you would agree that the change in type, and changes in spelling are not an issue. Textual changes would be the real issue, as here is where there is a risk of perverting doctrine. Here is how this article addresses that.

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

As you can see, the only textual change that could possibly alter doctrine is Psalms 69:32.

But you can not argue this with the MVs. Many verses are missing, and many words are changed which could affect doctrine. The article I posted earlier documents these many changes.

Now, I'm not going to spend forever debating you on this subject, many of these writers are alive, you could contact them yourself if you wish to challange their conclusions.

But all this makes little difference to me. As I have said several times now, for me the issue is preservation. I believe there are many verses in the bible where God promises to preserve his word. And I believe the scriptures inerrant. Does that mean that there was never a bible without errors in it? No. As the article I posted showed, there were many errors (around 400), most due to the poor quality of printing in the 17th century, but the vast majority of these errors were quickly identified and corrected.

And you have to ask, how could they spot an error unless they had a correct version? They couldn't.

So, did God promise to preserve his Word? I believe the answer is yes. Is God powerful enough to preserve his Word? Yes.

Now, I am not saying the men who translated the scriptures were inspired like the ancient prophets. But they were good, godly, and very scholarly Christians who did their very best to translate the scriptures as accurately as possible. And I believe God was behind their efforts, and the efforts of men who made these corrections.

To me it is no accident that almost simultaneously as the scriptures were translated into English, that Britain became the world's super-power. They used to say the sun never sets on the British Empire and it was true, England had colonies, settlements, and trade on every continent except perhaps Antarctica (and they went there too). And without controversy the predominant bible they took with them was the KJV. They took the Word of God to the whole world. I believe this was God's doing, perhaps you would disagree. For me it is a matter of faith.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I am not real smart and generally do not participate in these types of debates. I preach only from the KJV and do 99.99% of my study from such. I own a few other versions so that I am aquainted with them when someone ask. If God did preserve his word, and I believe he did, and only one translation is this perfect word. What language is this "perfect" translation in? Why would God select English which is a pretty imperfect language. How can people from other countries possibly recieve the gospel if they do not speak the King's english. Also, as someone else asked, what did they do before 1611?

I here the KJO point of view all the time in several of our churches and it is the most frustrating thing, except for the evils of modern music, easter eggs, christmas, etc. etc. etc.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So God could preserve His word in the translation room but not in the printer's shop?

I firmly believe in preservation. I think God is powerful enough to preserve His word In 21st century English. He is not bound to the English of 400 years ago.

 

[Winman]

So God could preserve His word in the translation room but not in the printer's shop?

I firmly believe in preservation. I think God is powerful enough to preserve His word In 21st century English. He is not bound to the English of 400 years ago.

I don't completely disagree with you. If the KJV could be accurately translated in modern English, I do not see that as a problem. That said, I have no problem with the KJV as it is.

The difference is that no one could possilby say the KJV agrees with the MVs, there are many verses omitted. And the MVs do not agree with each other as well.

I believe in preservation. But you cannot have versions which are very different all being correct at the same time. There are really only two possibilites when it comes to the scriptures.

#1 There are no accurate translations of the scriptures.

#2 There is only one accurate translation of the scriptures.

This is good old common sense and logic. You do not have to have a PhD in Theology to figure this out. If all the many versions of scripture are very different (and they are), then only one can possibly be accurate, or else they are all inaccurate.

But if you believe they are all inaccurate, then you cannot honestly say you believe in preservation.

You say you believe in preservation, then which version is the accurate version?

And as for the printing problems, that is exactly what happened and is documented. Printing was very new in 1611, it was still a very tedious and painstaking work, especially a monumental work like the scriptures. But as the article I posted showed, immediately many mistakes were identified and corrected (although that took years at the time). How did they know they were mistakes? Because they had an infallible standard to judge the copies by.