The Bible Agnostic Test.

[Ascetic X]

Hi Ascetic. I notice you dodged my question to you about your ever changing, Vatican supervised text NASBs and that the editions from 1972 to 1995 teach that the children of Israel DECEIVED God. Is that even possible?

All the things you just posted about the KJB are other more than the change from Gothic to Roman font, the correction of minor printing errors, most caught and corrected within the first 30 years by two of the original KJB translators, and later on the updating of much of the spelling - things like sonne to son, sinne to sin, citie to city, eies to eyes, dayes to days, yeares to years, hee to he, sate to sat, sayde to said. BUT the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts never changed. That is why there is only one copyright date on the KJB 1611.

This is in sharp contrast to the deliberate textual and translational changes that are being made in modern versions like your NASBs, and the NIVs, ESVs, etc, that nobody believes are the inerrant words of God.

If that is what you want to go with, then go for it. No one is stopping you from promoting these fake "bibles" that nobody, including you, believe are inerrant.

I don’t care about the NASB, so do not call it “your ever changing, Vatican supervised text NASBs”.

If you paid attention, you would see that I do not promote any particular Bible version.

You can call serious mistakes in the KJV “minor printing errors”, but they change meanings and cause the published KJV Bibles to not be inerrant. And for them to be uncorrected for 30 years means a lot of people were exposed to errors.

Your resemblance to Ruckmanism is on display…as you dodge many issues, including — why did God wait until 1611 to supposedly provide an allegedly perfect inerrant Bible translation? Your reply was rather inconsequential and did explain any reason.

According to your program, God let believers read error filled Bibles until 1611.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Printing errors (typos) did happen in the printings of the King James Bible. There is one undeniable example of where the printer was obviously not paying close attention to what he was doing. He may have been tired or his eyes blurred what he was reading or he just had a mental lapse.

This example is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. You can get a copy of the first printing of the King James Bible 1611 from Thomas Nelson publishers. I have a hard copy myself.

When you go to 1 Corinthians chapter 15 we see the verses are numbered in the following fashion. The verses themselves are the same. But the numbering of the verses is not. What we see here is verse numbering as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7. Notice the two 5's and the absence of the number 6.

In Matthew 26:34 instead of reading “this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” The 1611 printing had “this MIGHT before the cocke crow.”

And in Matthew 27:37 another obvious printing error occurred when it said: “And set up over his head, his accusation WRITTTEN…with three Ts instead of “written”.

There is another obvious printing error found in Ephesians 4:30. The first printing had an “r” instead of the “p” in the word Spirit. It read: “And grieve not the Sririt of God, whereby yee are sealed unto the day of redemption.”

And in 1 Corinthians 7:32 there was another clear printing error where the original printing omitted the letter “n” and it read: “He that is unmarried, careth for the things that belogeth (instead of belongeth) to the Lord, how he may please the Lord.” This was caught and corrected in the 1612 printing.

Most printing errors were caught and corrected within the first 30 years by two of the original translators.

For example, Psalms 69:32 of the 1611 edition read "Your heart shall live that seek GOOD" instead of "that seek GOD." This was clearly a printer's error, and was caught and corrected in 1617.

How do we know this was a simple printing error? Easy. All Hebrew texts and all previous English Bibles read “that seek God.”

The two words are similar in spelling, just an additional “o” and any modern spell check would not have detected it because both sentences make sense.

In Ezekiel 24:7 the “first printing of the KJB in 1611 read “powred it vpon the ground" vs. "poured it NOT upon the ground" - This printing error was caught and corrected in 1613. Very easy to skip over the word "not". It is in all Hebrew texts and so read Wycliffe, Coverdale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible and the Geneva bibles.


In 1 Corinthians 4:9 the first printing of the KJB read: "approued to death" vs. "appointed to death”. This printing error was caught and corrected in 1616. This was a simple printing error. All previous English bibles read "appointed to death" -Tyndale, Coverdale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, Bishops' bible and the Geneva bible.

Errors cannot in any way, shape, form, or fashion mean inerrant.

Inerrant = incapable of being wrong. Oh the hypocrisy!

 

[SovereignGrace]

I don’t care about the NASB,

Oh, you’ve ripped my heart out and threw it on the floor!

 

[SovereignGrace]

I don’t care about the NASB, so do not call it “your ever changing, Vatican supervised text NASBs”.

I have not declared allegiance to any Bible version. If you paid attention, you would see that I do not promote any Bible version.

You can call serious mistakes in the KJV “minor printing errors”, but they change meanings and cause the published KJV Bibles to not be inerrant. And for them to be uncorrected for 30 years means a lot of people were exposed to errors.

Your resemblance to Ruckmanism is on display…as you dodge many issues, including — why did God wait until 1611 to supposedly provide an allegedly perfect inerrant Bible translation? Your reply was rather inconsequential and did explain any reason.

According to your program, God let believers read error filled Bibles until 1611.

Oh, there’s the wicked Bible as well. It’s a double standard. The same standards they hold the modern versions to, they give a pass to the KJV and come up with some off the wall reason why it’s not an error. A non-error error, only a KJVO can come up with that.

And notice they call it the King James Bible. It’s not a King James Bible; it’s a King James VERSION of the holy Bible. It’s one of many versions, and is not the sole Bible for today.

 

[Logos1560]

I fully believe the English text of the King James Bible is the only complete and 100% true words of God in the English language and is the Standard by which all others should be measured.

You can choose to believe your own non-scriptural and non-true KJV-only opinions, but that does not make them true. You can deceive you yourself by believing claims that are not true.

 

[Logos1560]

David Norton asserted: “It should never be forgotten that there were genuine problems in the first edition text that the Cambridge editors contributed greatly to remedying” (Textual History, p. 92). Nevertheless, the 1638 standard Cambridge KJV edition and the 1629 edition did not fix all the errors, imperfections, or inconsistencies in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Concerning “man of activity” at Genesis 47:6, David Norton noted: “1611’s error comes from Bod [1602 Bishops’ with annotations]. Elsewhere the phrase is plural” (Textual History, p. 207). David Norton observed: “There are four good reasons for thinking this an error: the singular is inconsistent with ‘make them rulers,’ the Hebrew is plural, the same Hebrew is translated as plural in the other places where it occurs, and all the previous translations recognized that it was plural” (p. 36). The 1560 Geneva Bible translated it accurately and faithfully to the Hebrew as “men of activity.” Gordon Campbell wrote: “In Genesis 47:6, for example, he [F. S. Parris] observed that the singular form ‘man’ made little sense in the phrase ‘if thou knowest any man of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle’, and so changed ‘man’ to ‘men,’ which is what the Hebrew says” (Bible, p. 131).

 

[Logos1560]

Clear evidence would conflict with the assumption or unproven claim that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the 1611 printer.

It has not been demonstrated that the KJV translators had noticed the error of the name of the wrong king at 2 Kings 24:19 in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible. At least it would be clear that the KJV translators did not make sure that this error [“Jehoiachin”] was corrected in the 1611 edition since this error is found in it. If the KJV translators had noticed this error of fact in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, they would have been expected also to notice it uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV and would have been expected to make sure that the printer corrected it very soon after 1611. The fact is that this error remained uncorrected in at least sixteen more editions of the KJV printed in London [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] could suggest some responsibility on the part of some of the KJV translators since some of them had positions with authority over the press or over printers.

The error of the name of the wrong group of people [“Amorites”] at 1 Kings 11:5 in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible was also not corrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Jack McElroy asserted that the Lord “won’t accept material error (i.e., errors of fact, history, geography, Science, & doctrine) in his holy book” (Bible Version, p. 472).

KJV-only advocates present no convincing case why these two material errors at 1 Kings 11:5 and 2 Kings 24:19 would remain uncorrected over 15 years in KJV editions if they had actually been corrected in the text of the KJV translators prepared for the printers.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Lots of revisions [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] for an inerrant Bible, eh, @Logos1560?