Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

Amen, Rob! Preach it!

Actually the entire premise of the challenge is invalid. We are asked to take the KJB, a Bible version that does not exist, and then prove error in it without comparing it to anything. AVB is more than a little naive if he thinks this will make folks stop standing up against the KJVO myth!

Of course, when the KJV is compared to the original-language manuscripts it is found to be in error in places. But to think that anyone can find error in the KJV without holding it up against the standard of the original manuscripts is totally invalid.

AVB, I challenge you to prove the NKJV is in error without comparing it to anything. You cannot compare it to the KJV. You cannot compare it to the original manuscripts from which it was translated. You can use no lexicons, no dictionaries, no commentaries, etc. You must prove the NKJV is in error by using only the NKJV. And once you are done with the NKJV, then move on to the NASB, the ESV and the HCSB, using the same standards. See how invalid the challenge really is? It is impossible to prove any Bible verrsion in error without comparing it to some standard, so your challenge is not at all valid, AVB! Looks like you painted yourself into another corner, doesn't it?

:laugh: :BangHead: :tonofbricks:

 

Evasion and SPIN!!

Why not just simply ANSWER THE CHALLENGE?!

 

The mulberry bush version

Reading this thread brought this classic to mind.... :laugh:

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Monday morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Tuesday morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Wednesday morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Thursday morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Friday morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Saturday morning

This is the way we fuss about versions
Fuss about versions, fuss about versions
This is the way we fuss about versions
So early Sunday morning

 

The challenge has been answered and shown to be invalid. On the basis of the challenge, it is evident that no proven absolute final authority beyond which there is no other has been advocated to be be used as the standard for determining which rendering of varying multiple KJV editions is correct or incorrect.

Over twenty-five examples of differences in current KJV editions have already been given, and no basis has been offered for determining which of the varying KJV renderings is the correct or incorrect one.

Four thousand differences in current KJV editions could be listed if that would help.

 

To show error in any literature-let alone a Bible version-it must be COMPARED to either something of the same genre or the SOURCES of that genre. For example, if I were searching for errors in a Billy Graham book, I'd hafta COMPARE it with other Greham books or statements-or, if it were a narrative of history, I'd hafta compare it with previously-accepted historical narratives. Neither you nor I can pick up a KJV, NIV, or any other English BV by itself & truthfully declare that such-and-such a passage is wrong.

And this also applies to the use of "research tools" which another member seems to detest because they show his KJVO doctrine wrong. For example, the average reader, coming across this passage in the KJV...Song of Solomon 2:12
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;...is gonna wonder what Solomon was smoking when he wrote, unless he/she sees in a reference book that 'turtle' was used for 'turtle dove' in Elizabethan English, with the context indicating whether a given 'turtle' is a bird or a reptile.

In the case of Bible translations(or any other translations, for that matter) , they must be compared to the material being translated to find error of translation. And even then, one must take into consideration ALL the possible meanings of a given word or phrase in English.

An oft-discussed example is "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4. The pro-Easter side will argue that Easter was often used for Passover, especially before Tyndale coined the word 'passover' in the 1530s, & that the OED uses Acts 12:4 as an example of a usage of Easter...while we con-Easter people argue that Easter did not exist before Luke wrote Acts, that the KJV renders the Greek 'pascha' as passover everywhere else it appears, and that the older 1599 Geneva Bible reads 'passover' in Acts 12:4.

In conclusion: a PROPER error search cannot be made without something to use in COMPARISON. Mr. Bunyan couldn't use the New World Translation nor the "Good As New" alone to prove they have errors.

 

If you know exactly what you're doing with this thread, you have not demonstrated it yet.

 

Going by the ONLY rule, please turn in you KJV to the book of Osee and post the 1st verse.

Thanks..

 

Hello Anti-Alexandrian,

Good to meet you. I wish this was another thread other then Bible version, I would like to take you up on that name you have.
Maybe another day we can do that.

Using the ONLY rule from the OP, please tell me what savourest means.

Use only the KJV to back your support. Do not pull from a dictionary, or lexicon. Do not say my pastor says, or my professor says. Do not use the TR greek. Just tell me what the word "savourest" means and back the meaning with the KJV and the KJV only.


Thanks...and enjoy

 

Why not apply the exact same challenge to prove errors in any version?

 

A similar challenge was issued already - AVBunyan was challenged to prove error in the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV and the HCSB using only those particular versions. So far - zilch proof of error in any version. Imagine that!

 

This is the most illogical thread I have ever seen.

 

So you think the Arian heresy of John 1:18(as found in the Alexandrian MSS) does not qualify?

 

Well, the challenger did say "A" King James Bible, not two of them. And he did say no typo's spelling errors, etc. he said nothing about comparisons. The point I believe that the challenger is making is that to go outside the bible to prove the Bible wrong, when the Bible is supposed to througly furnish the man of God unto all good works, is an exercize in futily as well as a humansitic endeavor. -- Herb Evans

 

Next to this most illogical post [personal attack snipped]? -- Herb Evans

 

How is that the point when the Scriptures in the original languages was the Bible given by inspiration of God?

Use of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages [the claimed underlying original language texts for the KJV] as the standard or authority for the making and evaluating of all translations is not actually going outside the Bible. It seems that one result or logical consequence of this challenge would undermine the very original language foundations on which the derived authority of the KJV depends.

 

Your list is manmade and violates the rule that the challenger posted, which was to find errors in the KJB using "A" King James Bible. -- Herb Evans

 

Well, let us see you use either to prove errors in itself. -- Herb Evans

 

Lets see anyone use any version to prove errors in itself.

 

Sounds fair to me and all those who believe the word of God is the word of God. But if you believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, I guess it woul be unfair. -- Herb Evans