Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

[Herb Evans]

On the basis on your own challenge, how can you determine which current edition of the KJV supposedly has the correct or better renderings in the following few examples? How do you know which edition supposedly has a printing error or not since you cannot consult any other source besides a present KJV edition?

Gen. 3:24 cherubim (present American Bible Society KJV) cherubims (present Oxford)
Gen. 11:3 thoroughly (present ABS KJV, present Zondervan KJV that is based on 1873 Cambridge edition, 2005 Cambridge edition) throughly (present Oxford KJV)
Gen. 15:18 In that same (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) In the same (present Oxford KJV)
Gen. 22:7 and wood (2005 Cambridge) and the wood (present Oxford KJV)
Gen. 39:6 aught (Cambridge Standard Text Edition, present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) ought (present Oxford KJV)
Exod. 25:30 always (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) alway (present Oxford KJV)
Exod. 39:1 clothes (present ABS KJV, present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge) cloths (present Oxford KJV)
Num. 10:25 rearward (Cambridge Standard Text Edition, present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) rereward (present Oxford KJV)
Deut. 22:11 diverse (2005 Cambridge) divers (present Oxford)
Deut. 26:1 the LORD (2005 Cambridge) the LORD thy God (present Oxford)
Josh. 11:9 hocked (2005 Cambridge) houghed (present Oxford)
Ruth 3:15 he went (2005 Cambridge) she went (present oxford)
1 Sam. 2:13 priest's custom (present ABS KJV) priests' (present Oxford)
1 Kings 8:56 the LORD (Cambridge Standard Text Edition) the Lord (present Oxford)
2 Kings 21:7 all the tribes (present ABS KJV) all tribes (present Oxford)
Job 39:14 in the dust (present ABS KJV) in dust (present Oxford)
Ps. 31:16 mercy's (present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge) mercies' (present Oxford)
Isa. 6:2 seraphim (present ABS KJV) seraphims (present Oxford)
Isa. 30:8 tablet (2005 Cambridge) table (present Oxford)
Ezek. 40:31 outer (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) utter (present Oxford)
Hos. 6:5 shown (2005 Cambridge) hewed (present Oxford)

Matt. 14:9 oaths' sake (present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge) oath's sake (present Oxford)
Matt. 23:24 strain out (present Zondervan KJV) strain at (present Oxford)
Luke 1:63 writing-tablet (2005 Cambridge) writing table (present Oxford)
Luke 23:32 others (present ABS KJV, 2005 Cambridge) other (present Oxford)
John 10:25 ye believe (present Zondervan KJV) ye believed (present Oxford)
Acts 7:45 Joshua (present ABS KJV) Jesus (present Oxford)
Acts 25:23 were entered (present Zondervan KJV) was entered (present Oxford)
2 Cor. 3:3 tablets (2005 Cambridge) tables (present Oxford)
1 Tim. 2:9 shamefastness (present Zondervan KJV, 2005 Cambridge)
shamefacedness (present Oxford)
Heb. 10:23 hope (present Zondervan KJV) faith (present Oxford)
Heb. 13:9 diverse (2005 Cambridge) divers (present Oxford)

You are violating the Challeger's rule. He did not ask for a comparison. He asked for "A" KJB. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Logos1560]How is that the point when the Scriptures in the original languages was the Bible given by inspiration of God?

Now, how do you know that except from a Bible that has errors in it? -- Herb Evans

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.

How do you know what the original languages were? And are you saying that the Hebrew and Greek do not have errors. What manuscript are you reading? Or are you reading a composite of the Greek and hebrew created by men? Are you reading the Hebrew without vowel points or the Hebrew with vowel points? -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Lets see anyone use any version to prove errors in itself.

No, the Challenfger was more specific than that. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Did you violate the rule about "no 1611" and the rule about no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts?

In referring to Jeremiah 34:16, should that not be the Hebrew instead of the Greek, unless you were referring to the Greek LXX?

You do seem to see that you have no way of verifying which current KJV edition of the several varying editions is correct based on the terms of the challege.

I was not trying to prove error in the KJB; I was answering someone who was. No one was asking for a verification of KJB versus KJB. -- Herb Evans

 

[Logos1560]

He asked for "A" KJB. -- Herb Evans

Each one of the current KJV editions from which renderings were taken is "a" KJV.

 

[Herb Evans]

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?

The Challenger did not ask for counter challenges; that can be done on another thread. The challenger gave a standard, "A" KJB. And you do not have the original manuscripts nor have you ever seen them nor would you know them if you saw them. Morever, any challenge is invalid to those who cannot handle them. -- Herb Evans

 

[Logos1560]

How do you know what the original languages were? And are you saying that the Hebrew and Greek do not have errors. What manuscript are you reading? -- Herb Evans

Your questions do not answer the valid statement that your seeming to imply that any use of the original language texts that underlie the KJV would be going outside the Bible would be an invalid claim.

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.

 

[Herb Evans]

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

Do you know the Farmer in the dale or ol' Mcdonald had a farm. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

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.

Brother Bunyan is proving his case by all you rule breakers trying to inject everything else but what he asked for to create a soap box for what you do not agree with. Par for the course. he has deprived you of all your error finding support tools as if you were on a desolated island with nothing but your King Jame Bible, just as man POW's in enemy prisons.-- Herb Evans

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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

Obviously, this can't be done. Any more than ..

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

The only rule - you can only use a current New King James Bible as your source - No 1981 to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day New King James Bible.

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

Enjoy...

or

Here is the challenge - prove there are errors in a New American Standard Bible.

The only rule - you can only use a current New American Standard Bible as your source - No (sorry, don't know the date ) to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day New American Standard Bible.

Again - use only a New American Standard Bible to show there is error or errors.

Enjoy...

So what is the point?

 

[Logos1560]

The Challenger did not ask for counter challenges; that can be done on another thread. The challenger gave a standard, "A" KJB. And you do not have the original manuscripts nor have you ever seen them nor would you know them if you saw them. Morever, any challenge is invalid to those who cannot handle them. -- Herb Evans

Of course, the challenger did not ask for counter challenges since he did not want his challenge exposed as invalid. The challenger did not name and identify a specific standard of which of the several varying present KJV editions is the only one he considers to be "a" KJV. Since he did not name a specific KJV edition, any one and thus all KJV editions would seem to be acceptable. Are you suggesting that this challenger is infallible so that his challenge and reasoning cannot be questioned and examined?

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages on which the KJV is said to be based still exist. The pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision still exist.

 

[Herb Evans]

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

Thanks..

All you have done is flung a verse; state the error! -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

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.

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

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

The Challenger did not ask for definitions, he asked for errors. Do you hereby call that an error and why? -- Herb Evans

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Bunyan has thrown us a red herring.

The whole thread is totally irrelevant as the test could be applied to any version or any book at all.

 

[Keith M]

There are lots of comments defending the original challenge which is not a valid challenge at all, but since he was also challenged AVBunyan, the originator of this ridiculous challenge, seems to have fallen strangely silent. Maybe he's beginnig to realize how ridiculous the original challenge really is since the ball has been placed in his own court to prove error in the MVs by comparing them only to themselves. At least those who are not onlyists are showing how ridiculousa the challenge really is, while the original challenger remains mute.

:laugh: :tonofbricks: :BangHead:

 

[Herb Evans]

Lets see anyone use any version to prove errors in itself.

I believe that is a modification of the challenge; the chalenger was more specific than that! -- Herb Evans

 

[Keith M]

Bunyan has thrown us a red herring.

And is it ever smelling!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I believe that is a modification of the challenge; the chalenger was more specific than that! -- Herb Evans

Okay - please see post #50 above.

 

[Herb Evans]

Each one of the current KJV editions from which renderings were taken is "a" KJV.

Well, choose one not several. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Originally Posted by Herb Evans

How do you know what the original languages were? And are you saying that the Hebrew and Greek do not have errors. What manuscript are you reading? -- Herb Evans

Your questions do not answer the valid statement that your seeming to imply that any use of the original language texts that underlie the KJV would be going outside the Bible would be an invalid claim.

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.

I implied nothing. I directly asked you how you know what the original languages were. I also asked you if the Hebrew and Greek had any errors? You evaded both question. here's another. What if you have a bad standard to evaluate the KJB? Again you are violating the Challenger's rule. -- Herb Evans