Featured Do you see A Difference between Inerrancy/Infallibility?

You are wrong. I do not have the burden of proof to prove a negative as you suggest.

You in effect make the positive claim that the KJV translators made no mistakes, which means that you have the burden of proof. It is your duty to prove your own positive claim.

An error in the 1611 edition would still be an error regardless of whether it was supposedly made by a printer, editor, or translator. I provided sound evidence that there were errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Thus, I backed up with proper evidence what I asserted.

You have no sound basis for suggesting that an error in the 1611 KJV cannot be considered an error because you speculate that it was supposedly the fault of the printers.

If the KJV translators actually noticed and spotted the errors in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, it would reflect on the KJV translators if they failed to make sure that they were corrected by the printers.

On what proper basis can you suggest that it takes over 100 years in one case [until 1743] for an error in the 1611 to be corrected and over 200 years in another case [until 1829] for an error in the 1611 to be corrected?

 

How can I prove the King James has no mistakes? It is up to you to show me that the King James does contain mistakes.

I disagree with this reasoning. Because a printer spelled "murmurers" as "murderers" does not mean the King James translation contains an error, the printers simply made an error, the translation was correct.

It is a known fact that the vast majority of these "errors" were printing mistakes. I think you KNOW that.

I do not know how you determined this.

Because the Bible is a HUGE book with over 780 thousand words, and over 3 million letters. It can take many years to spot a mistake, especially if it is a single letter. Only scholars themselves would likely be able to spot such minor errors. Most readers would read right over a mistake without realizing it, so it could take decades or longer to spot some mistakes.

There have been textual changes in the King James, but they are very minor and do not affect doctrine.

Here is a fellow who listed what he considered MAJOR differences between the 1611 and 1769 King James

These differences are almost laughable, it is clear that many are typos, such "that he may" vs. "that ye may". This is the kind of mistake that could escape detection for many decades. This fellow is grasping at straws he is so desperate to find errors in the King James. Pathetic. And this is the best he could do. Laughable. :laugh:

But what is important is that the correct translation was known, so that errors could be spotted and corrected. This argues that the translation was inerrant, though you seem unable to grasp that. It is like counterfeit money, they train agents to know proper money so they can spot errors in a counterfeit.

 

KJV-only burden of proof

In every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative--in this case the KJV-only view. Dean John Burgon noted: "It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue" (Unholy Hands, Vol. I, p. C-9). John S. Hart asserted: “The burden of proof rests naturally with the affirmative” (Manual of Composition, p. 316). Ralph Thomas wrote: “Burden of proof rests upon the fundamental logical principle that he who asserts must prove” (Manual of Debate, p. 29). Thomas also maintained: “One is never obliged to prove the negative of an assertion” (p. 30). Reformer Francis Turretin observed: “The affirmative is bound to prove, not the negative” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, p. 38). John A. Broadus wrote: “He who alleges must prove; no man is under obligation to prove a negative” (Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 165). Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, wrote: “We never learned to prove the negative” (Perpetual Government, p. 251).

You would prove that the KJV has no errors by proving that it has a perfect rendering of every original language word of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Later editors and printers of post-1611 KJV editions used that proper standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in correcting errors in the 1611 edition. Without that proper authority independent of the translating decisions of a fallible group of men or the printing by fallible men, there would have been no way to correct errors in the 1611.

 

Good, so the KJV has errors. The KJV translators were not perfect.

While there were some, you cannot say that all of these are printer errors.

Only naive people would believe that they were all just printer errors. People make mistakes. The KJV translators were no different.

No one argues that there were no printer mistakes. What you are arguing is that they were all printer mistakes which you have not nor can prove. People make mistakes. The KJV translators were no different.

No where in the Bible does it say that English translators would be kept from error.

 

1 Cor. 12:28

One of the reported 14 changes that a prelate or prelates made to the translating decisions of the KJV translators according to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon involved 1 Corinthians 12:28.

“Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, Scottish Reformer George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19).

The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” Bishop Thomas Bilson along with KJV translator Miles Smith are said to be the last two men who edited the 1611 so he would have the opportunity to do what he asserted.

David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34). Was this change deliberately introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government? Did Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their position to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government?

What truth of the original demanded that this change be introduced into the 1611? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103).

 

What? How is a typographical error the fault of the translators? Pure nonsense.

A person can see for themselves that they were almost all typos. Writing "he" instead of "ye" is a typo. It was spotted and corrected which argues the translation is inerrant.

I disagree, I do not believe the translators made mistakes.

It is certain there were errors in the 1611 and many printings afterwards. The fact that they were spotted and corrected shows the translation inerrant. You cannot seem to grasp this.

Go back to murderers in Jude 16. That is a typo. It was known that the correct translation was "murmurers" as the KJB reads today. Knowing the correct translation allows you to spot and correct errors. You cannot see this because you do not want to see it.

Adding text such as changing "Son" to "Son of God" is not an error. The translators had to add words so that we can read the translation in English, all translations MUST do this. "Son" was not an error, but "Son of God" is simply a clarification, it makes the translation even more precise and concise. But simply writing "Son" was no error.

 

That's the most ridiculous excuse I've ever seen! It's used a lot by people on forums all over, and it makes no sense whatsoever. It's just a convenient way to get out of proving your statements.



How about this..............I submit that Logos1560 has posted error filled information, and his posts are full of misinformation and personal bias.


Now........since that ^^^^^ is a "negative" it's not up to ME to prove my statement. It's up to YOU to disprove it!

The idea that someone who says that the KJV is error free has to PROVE his statement, but the person who says the translators made many mistakes does NOT have to PROVE his statement is convoluted thinking, IMHO.

Ridiculous.


This argument will go on until the Lord returns, but truly, all anyone is posting are their OPINIONS, or the OPINIONS of other people. Each side claiming "my sources are right, your sources are wrong". Since no one has the originals, no one can claim their posts as FACT. Personally, I trust in the Lord to protect His Word and will continue to trust and use the KJV.


I believe there ARE still the pure Words of God today.
I cannot believe that God thought it so important as to INSPIRE the writers of Scripture to put down EXACTLY what He wanted us to know, and then, after He was that precise about what He wanted written, just turn His back, and let it become corrupted!! Yet that's what many of you claim, so I have to ask you then, why in the world did He even bother in the first place? And, NO, I don't believe we "have parts of God's Word in all good translations"! That's a ridiculous statement! Yes, there are corrupt manuscripts today. There are different sets of manuscripts that do not agree with each other. I believe ONE of them is right. Both of them CANNOT be. That's illogical.


Let's see, your Bible has "this" passage, mine doesn't have "this" passage........... OK, is that passage Scripture, or not?............. And if that isn't Scripture, well, how do I know that ANY of it is Scripture? ...............Maybe some of those passages that are in BOTH our Bibles aren't supposed to be there either!.................. Maybe BOTH translations got it wrong!!....................... We don't have the originals, how do we know?



That's a mighty slippery slope to be stepping out onto. I'll put my trust in the KJV. I truly believe this flood of Bible translations, most of them different from the other, does FAR MORE damage to the body of Christ than any KJVO belief ever has because it raises DOUBT about what is, and what is not, actually the Word of God! That leads to doubting the entire Bible! I HAVE seen that happen, while I've NOT seen the KJVO stand cause the "divisions" everyone claims.


I don't believe you are not a Christian if you don't use the KJV. I don't believe you cannot be saved unless you were saved from the KJV. I don't believe you should be forced, ridiculed, kicked out of your church, etc., for not using the KJV. I just believe the KJV is the best Bible version to use.

 

Why should anyone believe your opinion or speculation that is not supported by the Scriptures?

You evidently believe or assume that other translators of the Scriptures [besides the KJV translators] made mistakes.

Would the Scriptures support showing partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 [see James 3:17]?

Would the Scriptures support use of divers measures or weights in applying different measures to the work of one group of translators [the KJV translators] than to the work of other groups of translators [the translators of the Geneva Bible, the translators of the NKJV]?

Do the incorrect Church of England doctrinal views and practices kept from the Roman Catholic Church and accepted by the KJV translators suggest that the KJV translators were perfect in their understanding of the Scriptures?

 

Are you saying that it is ridiculous to accept what the Scriptures teach and thus reject the using of divers measures or weights [double standards] and the showing of partiality to one group of fallible scholars?

Is the use of divers measures and the showing of partiality sound thinking or convoluted thinking?

 

No.....I said THIS:

is ridiculous. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

in multiple cases, the KJV Translates a clear Hebrew phrase, which would literally read, "live the King."

...and makes it the KJV 1611 English idiom "God save the King." They quite simply, removed the literal hebrew word from the textus Receptus, and added two DIFFERENT english words. No word for God is even in those lines. Sounds like they took some creative license.

 

In their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators acknowledged that the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Kings 11:12, and 2 Chronicles 23:11 was "let the king live" and at 1 Kings 1:25 "let king Adonijah live." Perhaps because of their note at verse 25, the KJV translators did not include this marginal note at 1 Kings 1:34 and 39 where it reads "God save King Solomon." The Geneva Bible translators also had marginal notes giving the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, and 1 Kings 1:25. God's Word in the Hebrew does not contain the word "God" nor the word "save" in these verses. The KJV translators translated the same Hebrew word used here as "live" many times.

Why didn't the KJV translators put the literal meaning of the Hebrew in the text rather than in the margin?

Perhaps the rendering "God save the king" was considered to be more in line with the divine right of kings view advocated by King James I.

 

Were the KJV translators superior to the manuscripts and copies of God's Word in the original languages which they used? Did the KJV translators have the miraculous credentials of the prophets and apostles? KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman stated: "Within the New Testament Church there has never been any body of men to whom God has given any special authority to make decisions concerning the New Testament canon or the New Testament text" (Forever Settled, p. 46). KJV-only author Timothy Morton wrote: "God never intended for a 'priest class' of elite scholars to have a lock on the words of life" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 68). Wayne Williams claimed: "God placed no scholastic lords over His heritage" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 66). R. B. Ouellette wrote: “It is wrong to commit--to any individual or exclusive group--the determination of truth for every person in matters relating to faith” (More Sure Word, p. 51). Ouellette wrote: “God did not appoint scholars to be the final authorities for the interpretation of Scripture” (p. 27). Moorman, Morton, Williams, and Ouellette fail to apply their statements to the KJV translators.

It is obvious that God's Word does not teach that God gave the KJV translators special, superior, or ultimate authority to make decisions concerning the text or translation of His Word. No one man or group of men can have an exclusive and sole access to the truth or reach sinless perfection which makes them the ultimate translators/interpreters, beyond which there can be no other. Thomas Smyth’s statement about the doctrine of apostolic succession would seem to apply also to the KJV-only doctrine. Smyth disagreed with this doctrine‘s “teaching that prelates are the authoritative interpreters of scriptures, so that it must mean what they are pleased to say it does mean” (Prelatical Doctrine, p. 97).

Does the KJV-only view result in the tyranny of the experts as it seems to give rule over all English-speaking churches and believers to a small group of scholars who are alone claimed or implied to be competent, authoritative, and trustworthy in understanding, interpreting, and translating the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

In fact, such KJV-only claims and reasoning seem to reveal a disregard for the Scriptural doctrine of the priesthood of the believer that KJV-only advocates say that they accept. Lloyd Streeter, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The doctrine of preservation of Scripture is wrapped up in the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, a Baptist distinctive” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 145). David Cloud cited where Jack Moorman also maintained that “preservation is brought to pass through the priesthood of believers” (Things Hard, p. 297). Is the KJV-only view in practice consistent with the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers?

Does a claim of superiority or perfection for the KJV translators conflict with the doctrine of the priesthood of believers? Is it Scriptural to suggest or imply that a small group of men in 1611 had a special, exclusive priesthood that made them exempt from error or mistake in translating which no other believers can have? Were the KJV translators superior in rank, position, or authority to other believers? Are certain men such as the KJV translators more important and superior to others in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:18-24)? No amount of education and scholarship could prevent the KJV translators from making any errors in translation. If we say that the KJV translators have not sinned or made any mistakes in translating without being supernaturally inspired, do we make God a liar (1 John 1:10)? Are some fundamentalist KJV-only advocates implying that education and scholarship can produce perfection and inerrancy in the translating of God's Word? Was the scholarship of the KJV translators so exhaustive and comprehensive that they could not possibly make a mistake in translating? Does the KJV-only view promote a form of environmental determinism that in effect argues that the KJV translators were so uniquely shaped by their environment and education that they alone could make a perfect translation? These questions were suggested by the claims and logical implications of the KJV-only view.

 

I'll repeat:
I do not believe that God thought it so important as to INSPIRE the writers of Scripture to put down EXACTLY what He wanted us to know, and then, after He was that precise about what He wanted written, just turn His back, and let it become corrupted!!

Yet that's what many of you claim, so I have to ask you then, why in the world did He even bother in the first place?

 

Does a KJV-only theory in effect suggest the same thing before 1611 since the KJV does not match 100% in text any original language OT manuscript or any original language NT manuscript?

Are you questioning the wisdom of God in not choosing to perform miracles to keep men from making mistakes in their copying and translating of the Scriptures?

Here are some answers that have been given by believers for a question similar to yours.

In his 1857 book Manual of Theology, Baptist John L. Dagg wrote: "Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know thatmanuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct" (p. 24).


In his 1888 book, Baptist Basil Manly stated: "It is not true that plenary inspiration would be useless, unless the copies were secured by a perpetual miracle against the effects of time and of careless and corrupt transmission. A truly divine original, even if copied with no more more than ordinary human care and fidelity, is vastly superior to an original however accurately preserved, that never had divine authority. And obviously the fact that it was recognized and accepted as from God would serve greatly to insure its being preserved with more than ordinary care. Neither can it be justly said that God would supernaturally inspire the writings, unlesshe also miraculously preserved them from
erroneous transcription. He might do the one,which He alone could do, and leave the other, as in many other matters, to the faithfulness of his servants intrusted with that responsibility"
(Bible Doctrine of Inspiration, pp. 226-227).

In response to those who objected to the infallibility of the Bible, Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) observed: "The errors from transcription, translation, etc., are such as can be detected, at least estimated, and reduced to a minimum, while errors in the original revelation could not be measured" (Bush, Baptists and the Bible, p. 281).

In 1864, John William Burgon acknowledged “that no codices of the Scripture exhibit an absolutely identical text” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 66). Burgon noted: “By multiplying MSS., we do indeed multiply ’various readings,’ as they are called; but then, (what is far more important,) we also increase our certainty as to which of those readings are true, because we multiply our witnesses on this very point” (p. 68). Burgon added: “So that although the various readings of the N. T. amount to some hundreds of thousands, the text, (as already hinted,) is established with an extraordinary degree of certainty” (pp. 68-69).

 

They don't have to believe what I believe, I believe you have the right to believe whatever you want. But that works both ways, if I want to believe only the KJB is inerrant, that is MY right.

No, I do not believe this, in fact, even my Pastor says the NASB is an "excellent" translation, only it is a translation of a corrupt text. But it is an excellent translation.

This is something YOU must prove. So far you have not proved that to me.

I do not understand this question.

Again, you are making accusations which you must prove. The statements you posted before were not even statements, they were questions. Every sentence ended in a question mark.

This is not proof, it is a question!! Whoever wrote this obviously does not know the answer. You consider this proof?? I don't.

 

Double post

 

Exactly. I believe the KJB is inerrant BY FAITH. I believe God desires that we know his word and would preserve it for us. There are basically two texts, the Received Text and the Critical Text. I believe the KJB translated from the Received Text is the preserved text.

Can I prove it? NOPE. I believe it by faith.

 

Why is it that only King James readers believe God has preserved his word in the English translations? Why do you almost never find someone who reads the NIV, or the ESV, or the NASB who believes their version is inerrant?

You see it over and over again, the folks who use the MVs say all versions have errors in them. Therefore, they say they are all the same. Yeah, junk!

You gotta wonder why the King James Bible inspires such faith in it's readers when the other versions do not?? Seriously, folks should consider this.

There are probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions of folks who believe God has preserved his word inerrant in the King James Bible. You cannot find this with any of the Modern Versions. I doubt if you could find one person out of ten thousand who uses an MV who believes it is perfect and inerrant the way many thousands of King James users do. Why?

Say whatever you want, the King James Bible inspires FAITH in it's readers, the MVs do not.

Those folks who do not have faith in their MV hate and despise those who do have faith in their KJB. :thumbs: