Several errors in inspired KJV?

I like how the NET handled this one as I posted earlier:
2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.
and the reason they chose eighteen instead of eight: tc The Hebrew text reads "eight," but some ancient textual witnesses, as well as the parallel text in 2 Kgs 24:8, have "eighteen."

 

Or maybe we should assume that the idea of "inerrant originals" is in error. (?) Why not go all the way?


A.F.

 

Printing errors, Paul. Every one of them! :laugh:

Seriously, it has been shown repeatedly that the KJV does have some errors. However, as imperfect as translations are, the KJV is the word of God brought down to us in English. The KJV, along with the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV and several other versions, teaches us what we need to know about salvation and the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. Sure, there are minor errors in all translations, but we have the road map to heaven. And that road map has, through God's grace and mercy, come down to us in various versions that we can understand.

Thank You, Lord, for providing Your word for us! And thank You that we can understand it. But most of all, thank You for Jesus Christ who died for us.

 

You don't have to assume, Paul. It has been shown over and over again that the "inerrant KJV" position is not at all credible.

 

Why do you ask these questions here? If you take a look around, it would appear that most of those on this board do not take up a KJV-only position. Why don't you take these questions to some KJV-only boards? I'm sure someone there will attempt to challenge you, or would provide you with links to answer your questions.

I'm not saying your not welcome here, or telling you what to do, I just don't think your going to find very many here who are willing or able to challenge you.

 

Chris, it would appear you haven't been following the Bible Verstions/Translations forum very long. The KJVO myth is rampant here at Baptist Board.

Yes, the fact that there are errors in the KJV has been shown to be true over and over and over again. Yet there are those who must have a totally different definition of the word "error" because they keep re-hashing the same old myth that there is no error in the KJV. This is despite (or is it simply to spite?) all the evidence that refutes their false notion. It is truly sad when people refuse to accept truth and would rather believe a myth.

Another glaring error that was not mentioned in the OP is the appearance of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. But that error has been discussed over and over again as well as many other errors found in the KJV.

I don't think anyone on this board who points out errors in the KJV is against the KJV. Many of us use the KJV either exclusively or as one of our most-used versions. We don't make the ridiculous claim that there are no errors in the modern versions. What we do stand against is the myth that there are no errors anywhere in the KJV and that it is perfect in every way. The KJV is merely a translation made by men, and despite the rantings and ravings of some who claim perfection, there are errors in the KJV as well as in the modern versions.

 

No, I haven't been here long, but of all the baptist boards I've visited, this one is by far the most opposed to KJV-Onlyism, I don't mean that the BB is opposed to the KJV as a Bible, but against the KJVO myth. Paul33 seems to want to challenge those that hold to a militant KJVO position, and I suggested that there are other forums and web pages where he would get quite an earful.

The "errors" that Paul33 were bringing up are the same tired old things that the skeptics and atheist's usually do. He didn't bring up any errors unique to the KJV that I could see, like the one in Matt. 23:24, and I found it odd that he seemed uninterested in wanting answers to these as contradictions or errors in the word of God in general, but that he is using them as some kind of slant against KJVO. There are MV's that have some of the same contradictions or errors (nobody corrected me here on this one), and Christians who do not use the KJV who believe and have shown that there may be answers to these "errors."

Whether it's true or not, the only thing this topic seems to do is show that our Bibles are full of errors and contradictions. Why do some Christians want to cause others to doubt their Bibles? Is this a noble pursuit for a Christian to do? Should we approach the Bible as a text book to be scutinized rather than believed and practiced?

Some people are looking for reasons to believe their Bibles, others seem to be looking for reasons not to. There are worse false teachings and goings on in Christianity today, than KJVO, and no denomination or group is immune or safe from falsehood. I don't believe practicing KJVO might cause someone to be damned to hell, unlike the teachings of the Mormon's, JW's or Catholics, and If I have to tolerate some KJVO in an otherwise good soulwinning church, that isn't a big problem for me. It's better than being around Christians who flop about on the floor, babble gibberish all the time, and imply that I'm not saved unless I do the same thing.

 

Modern textual criticism was largely rejected before the 20th century, and it seems we did fairly well without it before. It seems to me that modern textual criticism has caused much confusion and doubting of God's word, and when I look at the state of Christianity today, I don't see much evidence that it is has helped very much.

It's a shame that some of those scholars were unbelievers, who viewed the Bible as just another text book to be studied as a coarse at the university.

 

I would say you're absolutely right about that.

Right again, Chris! The KJVO myth is only a minor error in comparison to some of the heresies and errors taught by certain groups.

My wife and I attend a Free Will Baptist church where the pastor and some of the members adhere to the KJVO myth. However, it is not a major issue at church. We love the soul-winning, the worshipping, the praying and the love that are a part of our church to the point that we tend to overlook the occasional mention of the KJVO myth. My wife and I both carry KJV Bibles to church. For one reason, it is easier to follow along with what the preacher is reading. For another thing, we both have eyes that are just not what they used to be when we were younger, and these KJV Bibles have print that is larger than many of our other Bibles.

And we should believe and practice what the Bible teaches us as you say. Apparently, God's word gives us the same guidelines to follow no matter what mainstream and legitimate Bible version we read, whether it is the revered KJV, the NASB, the NKJV or whatever other mainstream Bible version we prefer. I have yet to see one of the modern versions that teaches us to pray to our left knee or to believe that we are good enough to attain heaven on our own merits.

 

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf

 

Has anybody ever wondered if the use of the word "Inerrancy" means something much deeper than our average human understanding?

I think it is possible to have a word changed here and there and God still maintain control of the contents to the point that His Word is inerrant. ...and that it is inerrant in a number of English translations.

This is sort of like trying to explain "time" to a person who cannot grasp that God may see everything as one big picture. I tried to explain to my pastor once that it is possible that Jesus not only WAS on the cross, but IS on the cross and that made him so upset with me because he couldn't grasp the concept that I was trying to get across that our pea-brains are so limited that we cannot grasp things that God sees in ANY form or fashion. Time travels onward to us--to God--how do things appear? Even if we tried to explain it we couldn't because of the limitations of even understanding the mind of God.

Just my thoughts on the matter. How can God have a Bible in many translations of English and they are all perfect? Only God could do that or perceive that and this is the way He maintains his perfection that we pick apart by single words that don't match, but don't effect the perfection of "The Word".

 

See the bold above -- EXACTLY! That is very true.

See the bold and unline above -- I was right. Some posters disagreed with me and rejected my comments in their past posts.

Chris, excellent comment! :thumbs:

 

I agree with Chris's suggestion. :thumbs:

 

1. That is correct. 2. MV defenders can't solve these contradictions or errors in modern versions. 3. Some posters question God's Words because of their logic [snip].

 

The earlier pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV agree in their rendering “lapwing” at this verse. Samuel Clark maintained that “our translators have followed the older English versions with no good authority” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 550). The lapwing belongs to the plover family of birds, and this name comes from its manner of flight. Is “lapwing” the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew word dukiphath or is it a mistaken rendering based on confusion of it with another bird?


Several sources indicate some possible problems with this rendering. The Oxford English Dictionary cited the 1675 Dictionariolum Trilingue in English, Latin, and Greek by John Ray (1627-1705) which noted: “This bird [the lapwing] by a great mistake hath been generally taken to be the upupa of the Ancients, which is now by all acknowledged to be the Hoopoe” (VII, p. 372). At one of its entries hoop, this source also listed: “1. The Hoopoe (formerly identified or confused with the lapwing on account of its crest)” and cited a statement from the 1481 Caxton as an example of this confusion [“The huppe [hoopoe] or lap wynche [lapwing] is a bird crested”] (VII, p. 371). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia suggested that “because it is almost the size of a hoopoe and somewhat suggestive of it in its golden plumage, the lapwing was used in the early translations of the Bible instead of hoopoe” (III, p. 1419).


G. S. Cansdale asserted: “There is no evidence to support lapwing, which is one of the plovers” (All the Animals, p. 175). J. G. Wood observed: “There would be no particular object in the prohibition of such a bird as the lapwing, or any of its kin, while there would be a very good reason for the same injunction with regard to the Hoopoe” (Story, p. 476). Tristram wrote: “There can be no doubt that the Hoopoe is the bird denoted in these passages, as the Coptic and Syriac names for the Hoopoe are closely allied” (Natural History, p. 208). Cansdale pointed out: “The Coptic, Egyptian and other ancient names resemble the Hebrew: these and other names, including the Arabic hudhudu, the scientific name Upupa and Hoopoe itself are all based on its unmistakable call” (All the Animals, p. 187). Fairbairn’s Bible Encyclopedia indicated that the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Arabic version “agree in understanding the Hebrew word to signify the hoopoe” (Vol. 4, p. 59). Alice Parmelee suggested: “Though not a bird of prey, the hoopoe probes in filth for insects and worms and this habit doubtless earned for it an ’unclean’ classification” (All the Birds, p. 105).

 

It has been my experience with other boards that hold the KJV as perfect, when you ask a question like this, you are told you are questioning God's word, and are called a heretic and banned... or they edit your post, or delete your comments... BB is the only one that will accept this question... if you know of another one, I would certainly like to know where it is... you can PM me

 

I don't see anyone questioning "God's Words" just the English translation commonly referred to as the KJV.
God's Words were in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The KJV is a translation of His words into English. The question is, did the translators choose the correct English words that would correspond to the original language, or was the underlying texts the translators used corrupted in some way to allow these contradictions in the KJV?