Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

Well, why did you just not pick the word "Maranatha" as an error or Jesus' words on the cross? Who says that quotations in other language in the KJB are errors because they are not in English? KJO's don't; why do you? -- Herb Evans

 

Well, your challenge to the challenge is invalid. How is that for pontification? -- Herb Evans

 

No you are not! Spelling was a no-no. -- Herb Evans

:godisgood:

 

There are two of them Isaiah and Osee, just like Bob, Robert, Bobbie, Rob. -- Herbert, Herb, Herby, Sonny, Sleepy

 

Why are you guys still chasing this red herring - it is an impossible challenge, as it would be with any book.

You can't even use the original KJV to show an error in the KJV?

 

My how these fellows are forced to prove our point by the lentgths they will take to call things an error. What will they do with baptism and the Latin Calvary called Golgotha. perhaps, we should help them with some of these words. -- Herb Evans

 

Translation- I don't like the thread, and if you fellows would stop debating, the thread would die of itself. -- Herb Evans

 

I don't know. What are the errors and why? Are they all from the SAME KJB? THe Challenger did specify "A" KJB. Are you asking a question or positing an error? -- Herb Evans

 

Watch those personal attacks. -- Herb Evans

 

Thank you sir. I be careful! -- Herb Evans

 

My most humble apologies, kind sir. I should try to be more subtle. It seems to be the safer path.

 

No errors in the Faithful Word

IF ANY MAN SPEAK​

If any man SPEAK, let him speak AS THE ORACLES of God . . . --1 Pet. 4:11

We have observed that even an exegesis of Greek and Hebrew, which does not really seek to correct the English, is no match for the spiritual nuggets, which Bible believers have been extracting from the King James' English. One such Bible—believing pastor (Louisville, Kentucky now deceased), upon being asked whether or not King James was saved or not, responded that he didn't think so. He was careful to add, however, that he did not believe that God's servant—King Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. 25:9) nor God's anointed—King Cyrus (Isa. 45:1), were saved either. Brother, that's a nugget!

The error finder, who thinks that he must speak according to history, Strong's concordance, W.E. Vine's Dictionary, and recycled R. A. Torrey in order to help ignorant Christians discover what the Bible really meant to say doesn't realize that there is an abundant supply of fresh oil in the word of God. There is no shortage! If there is one thing that he has in common with the Charismatic, it is in not speaking "as the oracles of God." This new instruction finalizes what Paul foretold of speaking in tongues and prophecy and became the modus operandi for future oratory. Error finders and Charismatics both ignore it.

Speak "as the oracles of God!” We are not prepared to pay attention to anyone who does not so speak. God does not expect for us to respond to anything less than a "thus saith the Lord." Let the gainsayers produce a "thus saith the Lord" to prove that the Scriptures have errors or are no longer infallible or no longer alive or that they have not been preserved or that they have fallen from their former lofty state. Let them provide a "thus saith the Lord" to prove that the original manuscripts or languages are superior. In order to speak as the oracles of God, one must have them.

The Advantage​

What advantage then hath the Jew . . . because that unto them were committed the oracles of God . . . --Rom. 3:1, 2

The inspired oracles (not inspired originals) were committed to the Jew and not to the Greeks in their corrupt Septuagint. The fact that they were committed to them proves that God intended for the oracles to be around for some time. The fact that the Jew still "hath" an advantage in Paul's time is proof enough that the Jew still possessed the holy oracles. Today, Bible believers must "press to the hilt" that we have no less advantage. Bible believers have the oracles of God, whether Bible error finders can find the originals or not. The heavenly oracles do not have to be re-created; all one has to do is to walk into any five and dime store and buy a set. You ask, "Which Bible shall I use?" Use the one that God uses and demonstrates His power through the Authorized King James Bible! Let the error finderscut their backs and dance around the altar of scholarship and try to bring the fire down on their revisions, corrections, and versions!

The Lively Oracles ​

Our fathers: who received the lively [hey, theirs were alive also] oracles to give unto us . . . --Acts 7:38

Stephen recognized some very simple truths, which have not been discovered by error finders (after some nineteen hundred years). First, he understood that God's word is the sole authority for faith and practice and correction; he loaded his sermon with references to it. Second, he realized that these inspired utterances were full of life. Third, he insisted that these divine declarations were to be passed on, beyond those who received them, to later generations.

The question is not whether God originated the originals, a fact, which is taught throughout the Bible. The question is whether or not these lively oracles (which were pre-settled in Heaven) have been preserved "as" lively oracles unto this present time. The divine origin of the Scriptures es not disputed among fundamentalists any more than is the divine origin of man. However, unlike man, the Scriptures did not fall from their lofty state, and nowhere does the Bible even hint that this would ever be the case! The Scriptures were also given for our admonition. God still testifieth (present tense) today (Heb. 7:17). The Holy Ghost still saith (present tense) today (Heb. 3:7). The Scripture still saith (present tense) today (1 Tim. 5:18).

The process of inspiration and preservation is not at odds with the result. Moreover, the result "IS profitable" (2 Tim. 3:16) for Timothy and us, regardless of the time element or the copies or the translation involved. God preserved inspired Scripture, not uninspired scripture!

Some remind us that a more literal rendering of the underlying Greek word (THEO-PNEUSTOS) for inspired would be "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3: 16). Now, we wonder why, if folks are going to go to all of the trouble to be literal, why don't they end up with "God-Spirited" rather than "God-breathed?” After all, wouldn't that be a more literal rendering? What did you say? "That would say a bit more for Scripture than modern scholarship can tolerate." Oh . . . !

First Principles​

. . . Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the ORACLES of God . . . --Heb. 5:12

It is a humiliating thing to be a proud intellectual and to have a host of degrees after one's name and to be exposed as a spiritual baby. This is why modern professors, preachers, teachers, and college presidents are so incensed at the progress of the "King James Only” advocates. Their pride is wounded, [personal attack snipped]

One of the first principles of the word of God is that "God’s word" is supposed to judge us; we are not supposed to judge "God’s word!” God's word is the only authority for faith, practice, instruction, correction, reproof, and rebuke, etc. "The B-I-B-L-E that's the Book for me . . . !” If we were only able to get all the moidern bunch into one room to teach them this popular children's chorus and make them sing it over and over again—it would do wonders for their ministry. They might learn to speak as the oracles of God!

–by Herb Evans

 

Amen - every poster here would agree

"The B-I-B-L-E, yes thats the book for me!"

 

This post is both off topic and it contained a personal attack. This is what gets threads closed.

 

As you are senior moderator on this thread your vote carries extra weight.

Thread closed as being off topic and containing personal attacks.