Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

[Keith M]

How do you prove err except by holding the object up to a standard?

Without comparing the KJV to any standard you are merely looking for consistency.

It took ~1500-2000 years to iron out an internal consistency for a Textus Receptus.

It took time for the Authorized version to develop a internal consistency too...
(...for what other reason would you exclude the 1611 version?)

Something can contain errors and still have basic internal consistency.

When we study historical manuscripts from ages past, we are attempting to reconstruct the very words written by those whom God inspired.

My allegiance is to that very message that God gave to his holy prophets
...and not to any version developed by translators (however gifted they may have been).

I want to know what God has said!
Not just one particular version of what he said.

Rob

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:

 

[AVBunyan]

1. 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.
2. AVB is more than a little naive if he thinks this will make folks stop standing up against the KJVO myth!

1. OK Keith - go down to Walgreens and get a King James Version - you know what I meant - you are playing word games here so I'll play along.

2. This was not my intent at all - you misread me here - I know just exactly what I'm doing with this thread and I know just exactly why I started this thread.

How do you determine which is the standard Cambridge KJV rendering?

2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God,

1 Cor 2:13... comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Mat 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Evasion and SPIN!!

Why not just simply ANSWER THE CHALLENGE?!

 

[Mexdeaf]

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

 

[Logos1560]

Why not just simply ANSWER THE CHALLENGE?!

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

 

[Logos1560]

I know just exactly what I'm doing with this thread

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

 

[Jarthur001]

Here is the challenge - prove there are errors in a King James Bible.

The only rule - you can only use a current King James Bible as your source - No 1611 to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day King James Bible.

Again - use only a King James Bible to show there is error or errors.

Enjoy...

God bless

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

Romans 9
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Thanks..

 

[Jarthur001]

Evasion and SPIN!!

Why not just simply ANSWER THE CHALLENGE?!

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.

Originally Posted by AVBunyan
Here is the challenge - prove there are errors in a King James Bible.

The only rule - you can only use a current King James Bible as your source - No 1611 to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day King James Bible.

Again - use only a King James Bible to show there is error or errors.

Enjoy...

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

Mark 8:33
"For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" (KJV)

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

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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

 

[Keith M]

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!

 

[tinytim]

This is the most illogical thread I have ever seen.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

So far - zilch proof of error in any version. Imagine that!

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

 

[Herb Evans]

'erb - that's why I asked. Half of the KJV used today are Cambridge and half are Oxford.

Which one is correct.

BTW, Quickverse and the on-line Bible use Oxford, as does Scofield.

Things that are different are not the same.

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

 

[Herb Evans]

This is the most illogical thread I have ever seen.

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

 

[Logos1560]

The point I believe that the challenger is making is that to go outside the bible to prove the Bible wrong, . -- 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.

 

[Herb Evans]

There have been long lists of errors put forth before. If you didn't believe them, why will you believe them now?

So you are calling the Bible average? That's inconceivable. The Bible is supernatural. It is not average.

But I can't help but notice you call previous KJVs not the Bible since you admit that they are different.

Furthermore I notice that you equivocate on teh meaning of error, but refusing to accept printer's errors as errors. You have to qualify exactly what you mean by error, and then to be consistent you must allow others to define what they mean by error.

As people have shown, the KJVs today are not the same. Therefore one is in error, or both are. Within my reach are two different "current versions" of the KJV. One of them is clearly in error.

When will you repent of this manmade doctrine that is not found in Scripture? When will you submit your mind and will to what God has revealed to us?

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

 

[Herb Evans]

The most current edition of the KJV might be the 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE, which is also the text used in the 2006 Penguin Classics edition of the KJV.

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

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

 

[Herb Evans]

Is this a fair and valid challenge if the challenge is based on unproven assumptions or premises? This challenge seems to ignore and undermine the very foundations on which the KJV was based. Can a valid challenge ignore the very basis on which the derived authority of the KJV depends?

If someone started with the assumption that the Book of Mormon had no errors and that only the Book of Mormon itself could be used to show that there are any errors in it, would that be considered a valid challenge?

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