"No words ever changed, just the spelling"

Actually, all of those can be attributed to the correction of typos and printer's errors. That is not to say there were not some changes made between 1611 and 1762/1769 which cannot be so attributed, just that the above are not.

 

I wasn't aware you were making such a specious claim. You were talking about changes, not inspiration of the English. I responded to what you said, not to what you thought you should have said.

 

I think an "error" is an "error", but I'm curious as to how you know these were printing errors and not another type of error?

[ September 06, 2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

No, and no. And I think, for the most part, the changes are used as a straw man. There are some radical KJVOs who ignore the corrections/changes, but for the most part they are acknowledged as printer's errors which were corrected. No KJVO that I know of, or any other Christian, for that matter, would consider a printer's error capable of negating inerrancy.

 

The question is not "is an error an error" but "did the translation committees make the error or was it a typesetters error." If we allow typesetters errors to negate the doctrine inerrancy, we have no bible at all.

 

Wouldn't you say the same about translator's errors? I am not convinced these two can be placed in separate categories.

 

No, translational committee errors do not negate the doctrine of inerrancy. Yes, I'm asking you how you know it was a typesetting error and not a translational comittee error.

 

<sigh> Just look at the errors!

Left out the word "all."

Left off the words "thy God."

Superfluous "y."

Left off "of God."

By championing such ambiguous "errors" you play right into the KJVOs hands by opening yourself up to ridicule for not recognizing what to them is obvious. If you are going to point to changes from the 1611 to the 1762/1769, point to ones which cannot be so easily dismissed as printer's errors!

 

I did look at the errors, the first time they were posted. Looking at them again does not explain that the printers misprinted what was given to them. I agree things were "left off", but electronic sighing doesn't show that it was the printers that left them off instead of the translators.

 

did i sense an implicit claim/appeal for inerrancy on the part of the Translators?

so what if the Translators made a mistake rather than the Printers?

[ September 10, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]