A Biblical attitude about the Bible

You know, Dr. Bob said in another thread that there have been 150 Major changes in the KJV. So, I googled "150 Major changes in the KJV" and saw that he had said the same thing on another forum several years ago.

That link no longer works, but the poster posted all of the supposed "150 Major changes". Here they are:

Now you can see for yourself. Do you see any changes here that would affect doctrine?

And aren't many of these changes obvious typos such as the last example shown Jeremiah 34:16? Wouldn't it be very easy for a printer to mistakingly print "ye" when the correct word was "he"? Or printing "sins" instead of "sin"?

So, as you see, these are not "major" changes at all, they do not change doctrine, and most are due to typographical errors.

 

So when, according to your view, God promises a written word as perfect as His Son, that excludes small errors and typographical errors.

Does that allow for small flaws in the character of Christ?

 

Every word? So must one put their faith in 'the sonne' as specified in the KJV1611 or 'the son of God' as spelled out in the KJV1769?

Do you really mean 'every word' or are small differences like this acceptable?

 

English was far from a new languages in 1611. Wycliffe translated the Bible into English in 1382! Even the English Bible was already over 200 years old.

A form of spoken English goes back to the 5th century.

 

There are over 807,000 words in the Bible. Printing in 1611 was primitive and painstaking to say the very least. When they would make a large printing that would go out to the public, over a long period of time errors would be spotted. They would not all be seen at once, so perhaps a new edition would be printed that corrected some of the errors but not all, as even more errors were found after this new printing went out. So, again a new edition had to be printed. And sometimes in these new editions new errors were introduced which also took a period of time to be spotted and corrected.

This does not mean the original translation was not correct. It is because there was an existing standard that these errors could be identified and later corrected.

Unfortunately, we have not been as exacting as the Jews were when they kept the scriptures. So there have been numerous printings with errors in them. But again, in time they were identified and corrected because an inerrant standard existed.

This is no reflection on the Lord whatsoever or the Word of God, it just shows that men will make mistakes.

Finding and correcting typographical errors cannot be compared with dropping hundreds of verses and even whole passages out of the scriptures.

 

All men make mistakes - you are correct. Including the KJV translating team,

But do you not claim that the written word of God is as perfect as Christ? If so that means no flaws, not one, no matter how small.

 

Well, the fact is (and still is to an extent) that there were many variations in the spellings of words in English in those days. You know they made fun of Vice President Dan Qualye for spelling potato with an "e" at the end (potatoe) back in 1992. But the fact is, at one time in the past that was an accepted alternate spelling for potato. And as I pointed out, to this day the English spell color as "colour" adding the letter "u". This does not make either spelling correct or error, they are the same exact word.

So, changing the archaic spelling "othes" to the modern "oath's" is really not a change whatsoever, they are the same exact word.

 

No one argued that - just pointing out the English was NOT new in 1611.

I live in Ireland, I am well aware of differences in spelling.

 

Well, this is the major weapon those who hate the KJV use, spelling differences. When they say there have been thousands of changes in the KJV, they are knowingly misleading people.

 

I would also assert that believing in Biblical inspiration and infallibility would seem to refer more to the teachings of the Bible instead of the words of the Bible. In that case, I still think some translations are more accurate than others, but I can wholeheartedly accept biblical teaching on faith.

 

Do you not realize how stupid and ridiculous you sound in a post like this?

 

Thank you for making my point so clearly

 

It wasn't meant to be a compliment, nor did it prove any points that you and others on the BB so feebly try to make over and over again. :tonofbricks:

 

Hi stilllearning, There are two problems with your statements. One is biblical and the other historical .

Biblical
Here are some of the facts that the Bible teaches. First it teaches that the words are God breathed. (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21). We also know that the words are truth and therefore inerrant (John 17:17, Psalms 119:151,160). The fact that God is giving the words should be enough to know that the Bible is inerrant. We are also told that the words will be preserved (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35).

Some of the things that we are not told is how God will preserved His word. The Bible never promises to keep the copyist from errors in copying the Scriptures. We are never promised to keep the translators free from translator or textual errors.

Historical
As noted above, we are not told copyist would be free from copy errors. We have in the NT over 5600 manuscripts. None are identical to each other. We are also not told that translators would be free from error. Those that try to advocate the perfection of the KJV by using the preservation argument, have a major historical problem. What was the preserved Bible prior to 1611 KJV? Many would say statements about it being preserved in the manuscripts...but isn't this exactly what non-kjvo's say? We are told we have a lack of faith in preservation because we don't believe in a perfect translation, but that same view is ok before 1611.

It's not a lack of faith as the Bible never says that the Bible will always be perfectly translated. I'm not lacking in faith any more than the Christian was before the KJV.

 

Yet again with the same bull pucky. NNE HERE HATES THE KJV. Did I type it loud enough?

Most here do, however, detest the level of bovine manure being heaped up by stilllearning (what a joke of a name, he is "learning" nothing but likes to dishonor God by tearing down His word), Cutter, and yourself by trying to elevate a specific translation to perfection. If God Himself penned the translation then it would be perfect... but He didn't. The KJV is just a translation among many, one written 400 years ago by Anglo-Catholics to please the head of their baby-baptizing church. This individual also happened to be a king who did not like the Geneva's treatment of monarchs and so commissioned his own translation to address that "error".

No, the KJV is a decent translation in its own right but the idolatry being heaped upon it sickens me and many others. The SDA cult's "doctrine" has infected others besides just you three, poisoning the body of Christ. The Israelites bowed down to Nahushtan and worshiped it instead of the One who was the power behind it... just as the KJVOists do with the KJV. I am sure such idolatry both sickens and saddens God much more than it sickens and saddens me.