Is the King James bible inerrant?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Dec 18, 2006.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or do christians which are against the NIV and prefer the KJV simply think that the KJV is better but still not inerrant?
    I mean what would happen if somebody decided to bring out a new bible which is based on the same manuscripts which the King James is based on?
    If he would also use the masoretic text and the textus receptus to make his own bible would it be as good as the King James if he's a good translator? His translation would not be exactly like the King James because it is very unlikely that 2 people translate a text using exactly the same words but it would still be based on the same manuscripts which the KJV is based on. Would it be acceptable for a KJV-fan to also read a different bible which is based on the same manuscripts or do KJV-fans despise everything which is not KJV?
     
  2. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    1) A few believe the KJV is inerrant.

    2) Others believe that the KJV is the best version.

    3) The NKJV is mostly based on the same manuscripts as the KJV.

    4) I'm not KJVO so I can't comment on your last question.
     
  3. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously a biased KJVO website.
    XD, I pray that you do not go down the KJVO road. It's a false man made doctrine. Bible version is a preference not a command. :saint:
     
  5. J. Jump

    J. Jump
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    See Amy more stuff we agree on.
     
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you JJ. You are my brother in Christ no matter what!:love2: Merry Christmas to you and your family. Who knows what discussion we'll get into in '07!:laugh:
     
  7. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the kjv is not inerrant. Is it trustworthy? For the most part, but it does have translation mistakes. Most eggregious is the translation of shema and akuo as obey rather than listen or hear.
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    I wouldn't call that an egregious error. In fact, I wouldn't even call it an error at all, if the lamedh preposition follows shema. "Listen to" carries the meaning of obey.

    I'm not familiar with translations of akouw as obey...do you have a reference or two I can look up in my GNT?
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll just debunk one lie told on that page:

    There is no copyright on the KJV (except for a possible
    copyright on the maps and notes used). You can’t copyright
    God’s Word. But there is a copyright on the NKJV.

    Of course you can copyright God's Word.
    The KJVs are copyrighted. In fact, the USofA
    split with England because the copyright was held by the
    king. The cost in the USofA for a KJV was 3 pounds (worth
    about a years wages) of which the King of
    England personnally got 1 Pound. Yes, we rebelled against
    that.

    The KJVs have no moral high ground on a copyright basis.


     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Xdisciplex: //Is the King James bible inerrant?
    Or do christians which are against the NIV and prefer the KJV simply think that the KJV is better but still not inerrant?//

    No, the King James Bible is not inerrant
    (because KJB is undefined).
    However the following different King James Versions
    that I have are inerrant:

    KJV1611 Edition
    KJV1769 Edition
    KJV1873 Edition

    And these Bibles are also inerrant:
    (the ones I have a paper copy of on
    the shelves around my computer screen):

    CEV = Contemporary English Version
    ESV = English Standard Version
    NIV = New International Version
    NASB = New American Standard Bible
    NLT = New Living Translation
    Amplified Bible
    nKJV = New King James Version

    These Bibles are a part of 'all scripture':

    2Ti 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
    All Scripture is giuen by inspiration
    of God, & is profitable for doctrine,
    for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,
    17 That the man of God may be perfect,
    throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

    Recall that 'perfect' here means the same as
    'complete' in the 21st century (2001-2100)
    not the same as 'sinless' in the 21st century.
     
  11. dispen4ever

    dispen4ever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    xdx, your recent posts reflect improvment in your internal battle. God's blessings! Only the original manuscripts are inerrant. Everything else is an honest attempt by us to reflect their truth*. While all translations are not perfect, the type and frequency of error is relatively small. Do not concern yourself with what appears to be an error, or a contradiction. All scripture is spiritually discerned. The thrust of each translation is to introduce you to Christ, then let the Holy Spirit take over. The truth of scripture is revealed as you, through study, through learning, learn to overcome the flesh. In such learning you grow spiritually stronger. Your spirit gradually overwhelms your flesh. That's when you begin your walk in His footsteps!

    Bless you, Brother. Keep those defeating thoughts under spiritual control!

    *I will exclude "The Message" and any translation authorized by a lone preacher or evangelist, like Kenneth Copeland, and "The New World Translation" of the Jehovah Witnesses.

    :thumbs:
     
    #11 dispen4ever, Dec 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2006
  12. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Only the Word of God is inerrant, all Bible translations have errors in them.

    The KJV has a lot. But it also has a lot of style.

    David
     
  13. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmmm...
    but if only the original manuscripts are inerrant and they have been lost long time ago then everything seems pretty senseless to me. Then all the pedantic copying of the scriptures and trying to be as accurate as possible was totally senseless.
    And what we have today is only a reflection of the truth which lacks all the detail.
    I don't understand why God should allow this. Why should he start with 100% and then simply watch it go down over the centuries? Does this make sense?
    How does it help us if the original bible still exists in the heavens or in God's mind but not here on earth? This makes no sense to me.
    Doesn't God care about these things? How long is a bible a bible? When does it stop being "God's word"? At 96% accuracy? Or at 90% accuracy?
    I think it makes a huge difference if the bible says Jesus was the only begotten son or if it says Jesus was God's one and only son. Begotten is an important detail. The angels are also referred to as God's sons....
    Or all these fancy details which are being changed. I simply cannot imagine that there isn't a system behind them and that they continually find older manuscripts which didn't contain them. If the KJV is based on newer manuscripts which contain comments from christians then why did the originals not contain them if it makes them easier to understand? Why should God bring out a bible which could be more understandable with comments? Didn't God think of it and forgot important details and then poor christians felt urged to include comments such as "begotten"? Does this make sense? I don't think so.
    Or when hell is replaced with hades and Son with servant. This rather seems to me as if somebody is sitting there with a pencil blotting out every word which he doesn't like.
     
  14. dispen4ever

    dispen4ever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    God preserves the reason Christ came and how to become one of His.

    No, not totally senseless. You are defining the Bible as totally senseless in spite of the efforts of the translators to produce an accurate translation. Your analysis is flawed, not the bible.

    That's an assumption on your part. You can't document that.

    Your imagination is taking over. God didn't allow this. He didn't start with 100% and then simply watch it go down. That wouldn't make sense. God preserves the essentials of his message to us.

    Realize that what doesn't make sense to you is your reasoning. The original is obviously in the spirit of God, and authenic translations are available to us, while they may contain minor errors. Was it 10,000 that David slew, or 1,000, or 100, or 10? The context indicates that it was a large number. That's all I need to know about that.

    God cares. He wrote the Book. It is forever His word.

    That isn't an accurate analysis. "continually" "didn't contain" "originals not contain them" are assumptions that you are making.

    There are guys out there like that. Jimmy Swaggart, Kenneth & Gloria Copeland, word-faith preachers, love to change words. They blot out words they don't like, plug in some they do, cross-reference information incorrectly.

    Recall that we have more manuscripts of the Bible than any other writing in history, and that NT manuscripts are available from the early centuries. If you compare the time of writing of a manuscript with the time in which the details occurred, no other historical writing even comes close to the nearness in which the gospels were penned.

    :type:
     
  15. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, I would say that even the original autographs would probably had some error in them. Maybe not.

    The point being that Truth is found in Jesus. And the words that He spoke were and are Spirit and Truth. The Word of God is alive and active and not ink.

    David
     
  16. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    But then it also doesn't make any sense to really try to find out what a verse might mean because in a different translation the verse might sound entirely different and have a totally different meaning. This makes it look so senseless to even try to understand the bible when you don't know if a certain word is correct or not. When it comes to hermeneutics every single word matters. :(
    Maybe this means that we cannot really understand what the bible even wants to say. Even if we had the originals how do we know that we really know what the writers thought when they wrote this? We cannot know it. We can only assume that we know it.
     
  17. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    To be as accurate as we can is important I think.

    I also think God is independant of our best efforts.

    David
     
  18. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    XDX, God can do his work in several ways. He could have preserved his work miraculously or he could have preserved his word through his providence.

    The KJVonlyite holds that God preserved his word miraculously by re-inspiring the scriptures in the translation that was made in 1611. Those who hold that only the original writings are inerrant must necesarily believe that God has preserved what was written by means of providence. That is, he used the copyists in the multitude and plentitude of their copies to preserve his Word. God COULD have done either thing. I think the evidence shows that he did the second.

    Just because we have copies does not mean that we have lost God's word. After all, there are five versions of the Gettysburg Address that date back to the day it was given. None of those five agree totally with the others. But I know of no one who concludes that, because there are differences in the copies, we therefore have no idea at all what Lincoln said.
     
  19. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    The state of man and the Gospel is as clear as daylight, in our minds, when we try to put into words that FACT is when we err in a sense. The Holy Spirit is Truth and He comes to the sinner in a way that is perfect.

    David
     
  20. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    xdisciplex:

    I realize that what I am about to post will be much hated because of how the fact is abused by others, but I am going to say it anyway.

    God finished giving us Scripture before the end of the first century, but it was not until the 1500's that copies of Scripture readable by their owner became a widespread phenomenon. Before then, most Christians simply did not have a private copy of Scripture.

    My point: before the 1500's, most Christians simply did not have a private copy of Scripture to spend hours poring over in order to verify that they understand every minute detail of what Scripture teaches.

    At 2 Peter 1:3, however, it says that God “hath granted unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (ASV). However, He did not give the New Testament church enough copies of Scripture for each of them to spend hours a day poring over to analyze the most minute religious details. Hence, an errorless copy to EVERY Greek-reading Christian for this purpose, or a copy of an errorless translation in every language to every Christian for this purpose, is not needed, because otherwise God would have provided these.

    He gave us Scripture for this purpose per 2 Timothy 3:16-7: "that the man of God may be complete,| entirely instructed for all good work.”
    --ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.

    I trust the copies of Scripture that I have. Behold this from Psalm 12: "The words of the lord are pure words, silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold. You O Lord, will keep them, guarding each from this age evermore” (JPS 1985). Based upon this, I trust that God has kept Scripture as intact as He sees fit and in conditions fitting for us to trust.
     
    #20 Darron Steele, Dec 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2006

Share This Page

Loading...