Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

The first problem is not a problem at all, since the plural singular was used by some folks back then. Grammar and spelling were not standardized until 1769, and they still are not. So, If I were making the challenge, I would insist on the 1769. Still, it is not an error.

The second problem is a bit tougher. Some say that it is a printer's error like so many that occurred in 1611 by virtue of either the "h" or the "y" being type set up side down. I have no way of verifying that claim. On the other hand, some say that it makes no difference in the meaning of the verse, because the verse starts with a plural "ye" and drifts into an every man, so an argument could be made for either English choice. The Greek would seem to go with the Cambridge, if my memory serves me right. I use the Cambridge.
--Herb Evans

 

You dare deprive those who like to correct the KJB of their support tools. I never heard of such a thing! What will they do without:

History? Lexicons? Concordances? The Hebrew? The Greek? Manuscripts? What Professor Whatchamahamaczysz says? -- Herb Evans

P.S.. I think someone alraedy violated your rule about spelling errors and typos. :laugh:

 

The Thread originator said a current KJB. That was the RULE! I guess that means the most current in use.-- Herb Evans

 

BTW, Quickverse and the on-line Bible use Oxford, as does Scofield.
--------------------------------------------

Hey, I learned something from these versions debates............I didn't realize that the Scofield notes were only i an Oxford KJVersion of scripture.

And I always thought these debates were an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Jim

 

There have been long lists of errors put forth before. If you didn't believe them, why will you believe them now?

So you are calling the Bible average? That's inconceivable. The Bible is supernatural. It is not average.

But I can't help but notice you call previous KJVs not the Bible since you admit that they are different.

Furthermore I notice that you equivocate on teh meaning of error, but refusing to accept printer's errors as errors. You have to qualify exactly what you mean by error, and then to be consistent you must allow others to define what they mean by error.

As people have shown, the KJVs today are not the same. Therefore one is in error, or both are. Within my reach are two different "current versions" of the KJV. One of them is clearly in error.

When will you repent of this manmade doctrine that is not found in Scripture? When will you submit your mind and will to what God has revealed to us?

 

The most current edition of the KJV might be the 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE, which is also the text used in the 2006 Penguin Classics edition of the KJV.

 

Is this a fair and valid challenge if the challenge is based on unproven assumptions or premises? This challenge seems to ignore and undermine the very foundations on which the KJV was based. Can a valid challenge ignore the very basis on which the derived authority of the KJV depends?

If someone started with the assumption that the Book of Mormon had no errors and that only the Book of Mormon itself could be used to show that there are any errors in it, would that be considered a valid challenge?

 

On the basis on your own challenge, how can you determine which current edition of the KJV supposedly has the correct or better renderings in the following few examples? How do you know which edition supposedly has a printing error or not since you cannot consult any other source besides a present KJV edition?

Gen. 3:24 cherubim (present American Bible Society KJV) cherubims (present Oxford)
Gen. 11:3 thoroughly (present ABS KJV, present Zondervan KJV that is based on 1873 Cambridge edition, 2005 Cambridge edition) throughly (present Oxford KJV)
Gen. 15:18 In that same (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) In the same (present Oxford KJV)
Gen. 22:7 and wood (2005 Cambridge) and the wood (present Oxford KJV)
Gen. 39:6 aught (Cambridge Standard Text Edition, present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) ought (present Oxford KJV)
Exod. 25:30 always (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) alway (present Oxford KJV)
Exod. 39:1 clothes (present ABS KJV, present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge) cloths (present Oxford KJV)
Num. 10:25 rearward (Cambridge Standard Text Edition, present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) rereward (present Oxford KJV)
Deut. 22:11 diverse (2005 Cambridge) divers (present Oxford)
Deut. 26:1 the LORD (2005 Cambridge) the LORD thy God (present Oxford)
Josh. 11:9 hocked (2005 Cambridge) houghed (present Oxford)
Ruth 3:15 he went (2005 Cambridge) she went (present oxford)
1 Sam. 2:13 priest's custom (present ABS KJV) priests' (present Oxford)
1 Kings 8:56 the LORD (Cambridge Standard Text Edition) the Lord (present Oxford)
2 Kings 21:7 all the tribes (present ABS KJV) all tribes (present Oxford)
Job 39:14 in the dust (present ABS KJV) in dust (present Oxford)
Ps. 31:16 mercy's (present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge) mercies' (present Oxford)
Isa. 6:2 seraphim (present ABS KJV) seraphims (present Oxford)
Isa. 30:8 tablet (2005 Cambridge) table (present Oxford)
Ezek. 40:31 outer (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) utter (present Oxford)
Hos. 6:5 shown (2005 Cambridge) hewed (present Oxford)

Matt. 14:9 oaths' sake (present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge) oath's sake (present Oxford)
Matt. 23:24 strain out (present Zondervan KJV) strain at (present Oxford)
Luke 1:63 writing-tablet (2005 Cambridge) writing table (present Oxford)
Luke 23:32 others (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) other (present Oxford)
John 10:25 ye believe (present Zondervan KJV) ye believed (present Oxford)
Acts 7:45 Joshua (present ABS KJV) Jesus (present Oxford)
Acts 25:23 were entered (present Zondervan KJV) was entered (present Oxford)
2 Cor. 3:3 tablets (2005 Cambridge) tables (present Oxford)
1 Tim. 2:9 shamefastness (present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge)
shamefacedness (present Oxford)
Heb. 10:23 hope (present Zondervan KJV) faith (present Oxford)
Heb. 13:9 diverse (2005 Cambridge) divers (present Oxford)

 

Did you violate the rule about "no 1611" and the rule about no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts?

In referring to Jeremiah 34:16, should that not be the Hebrew instead of the Greek, unless you were referring to the Greek LXX?

You do seem to see that you have no way of verifying which current KJV edition of the several varying editions is correct based on the terms of the challege.

 

Why not just simply answer the question?

 

You yourself responded to questions with another question.

It is valid to respond to questions and a challenge with questions in order to find out whether or not the questions and challenge were valid or invalid. The challenge as issued would exclude the very original language texts that later KJV editors used in introducing the changes, revisions, or corrections that they made in the text of the 1611 and would even exclude the renderings in the 1611 edition that were the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves as an authority.

It has not been demonstrated that the challenge is valid since the person who made the challenge seems to have no firm and valid foundation which he uses to determine which of the many (over 4,000) variations in present KJV editions are the correct ones. His own personal spiritual or mystical experiences seem to be his authority.

 

I have examined an actual 1762 Cambridge KJV edition. The 1762 Cambridge KJV edition had "sins" at 2 Chron. 33:19 and "whom he" at Jer. 34:16.

In addition, one 1790 Cambridge KJV edition, one 1824 Cambridge edition, one 1833 Cambridge edition, one 1842 Cambridge edition, one 1844 Cambridge edition, one 1865 Cambridge edition, one 1869 Cambridge edition, one 1872 Cambridge edition, and one 1887 Cambridge edition all have “whom he” at this verse, indicating that several Cambridge editions in the 1800‘s likely had this rendering.

One 1824 Cambridge edition, one 1833 Cambridge edition, one 1842 Cambridge edition, one 1844 Cambridge edition, one 1865 Cambridge edition, one 1869 Cambridge edition, one 1872 Cambridge edition, and one 1887 Cambridge edition also have “sins” at 2 Chronicles 33:19, which may indicate that this rendering was also found in some other Cambridge editions between 1762 and 1887.

How do you determine which is the standard Cambridge KJV rendering?

 

Logically before we can 'prove' anything, we need to agree on:

Basic definitions.
Basic truths (aka: assumptions, axioms)

The man asked a reasonable question:
what is the definition of "King James Bible"?
(i.e. how do I know if I have a King James Bible in
my hand?)

I propose agreement on this basic truth:

God has preserved His Written Word (Holy Bible)
for the present time [ early (2001-2020) part of the
21st Century (2001-2100) ] in the English language
in the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /HCSB, 2003/.

BTW, your HCSB will read like my HCSB reads :godisgood:

 

Since current Bibles are titled as the King James Version and not the King James Bible, then neither the question nor the challenge is valid. There is no KJB that anyone can consult, only the KJV. We are "challenged" to use something (the KJB) that doesn't exist, which makes the "challenge" invalid from the beginning. If there actually is a book titled the King James Bible then please tell us where we can get one, As far as I know, the King James Bible exists only in the minds of onlyists while the King James Version is readily available anywhere you can purchase a Bible.

:tonofbricks: :BangHead: :sleeping_2:

 

How do you prove err except by holding the object up to a standard?

Without comparing the KJV to any standard you are merely looking for consistency.

It took ~1500-2000 years to iron out an internal consistency for a Textus Receptus.

It took time for the Authorized version to develop a internal consistency too...
(...for what other reason would you exclude the 1611 version?)

Something can contain errors and still have basic internal consistency.

When we study historical manuscripts from ages past, we are attempting to reconstruct the very words written by those whom God inspired.

My allegiance is to that very message that God gave to his holy prophets
...and not to any version developed by translators (however gifted they may have been).

I want to know what God has said!
Not just one particular version of what he said.

Rob