Is your Bible Inerrant?

I know a lot of people who claim that they have not
sinned in 1 year, 5 years, 10, 25, 50, 65, and more.
Amazingly, I used to believe them! But the lives
of some of these was what made me believe
initially in Calvinism. It was either that or believe
the whole lot of them were headed for hell. :-D

 

now i have degrees of the English Translations. It is entirely inerrant in the origional autographs. However based upon linguistic changes and cultural changes, the English are faithful translations and in all major points correct, however, we may have interpretation issues if we don't consider the cultural, linguistic or historical contexts of the scripture, or the time/region it was translated in. Example... In the English language, common usage of the words and grammer have changed dramatically in 400 years. Even dialectic variations caused issues back in that day.

 

I voted 1. Perhaps I should start a whole new thread on why, as it is somethng I struggle with...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I vote for the total inerrancy and perfection of the King James Bible in all its editions.

 

Even though they disagree with each other? Cool! You're on the right track.

 

glad you took the bait tauf. Tell me where the KJV editions disagree and I'll believe you. (And dont tell me you believe in all the modern versions since you've established that you dont agree with things that disagree)

 

First, your parenthetical statement is untrue. I asked you whether you thought all editions of the KJV were inspired even though they disagree. Then I commended you for a more mature attitude and for taking a position--that different versions can disagree yet be inspired--that reflects considerable thought about the arguments and evidence, thinking perhaps you had begun on the right path. Or I was ironically chiding you for the opposite, but unsure whether your post was droll to begin with.

From Ed Edwards:

Ruth 3:15D (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.

Ruth 3:15D (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.

Ruth 3:15D (KJV1611);
... and he went into the citie.

Did Ruth or Boaz go into the village
to see Naomi?

_________________________
Since perfection is 100%, this example should prove sufficient.

 

This issue was raised and a number of specific examples given in a thread a couple of weeks ago. No KJV-Only advocate has responded to it yet.

Examples of Real Differences Between the 1611 KJV and Today's KJV

[ September 24, 2003, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

Ill try to answer everyone here. Tauf you ask if Ruth or Boaz went into the 'citie'--they both went. Easy enough. Concerning the person that said something about a Roman Catholic plot to add the Apocrypha. Since all Bibles included the Apocrypha up until the KJV, but the "protestant" Bibles had the Apocrypha put either between the testaments or as an addenda, this plot thing makes no sense.
1. Tyndale’s Bible (1525 AD) placed by itself apart from scripture...
2. Coverdale’s Bible (1535 AD) same
3. Matthew’s Bible (1537 AD) placed between testaments
4. Taverner’s (1539 AD) same
5. AV 1611 same
6. Great Bible (1539 AD) placed in an appendix
7. Geneva Bible (1560 AD) same
8. Bishop’s Bible (1568 AD) same

Ive never heard of a plot to install something that already installed... The difference between all these Bible and the Vaticanus and RCC texts which are the basis for all modern versions is that the RCC texts place the Apocrypha AS scripture. Did you know that the underlying text to your modern Bibles ACCEPTED the Apocrypha and the KJV did not accept it? As King James said "I don't accept the Apocrypha because I am no Papist."

 

Archangel... I've never heard anyone give any TEXTUAL revisions, which is what haters of the KJV call them while loving any revisions done in the 20th century. I have a book that lists every EDITION of the KJV and its additions such as the Apocrypha taken out of a 1613 edition, or John Canne's preface put into and Amsterdam edition in 1644, or parallel texts placed by Dr. Scattergood in 1676 and on and on. Now folks that hate the KJV call those REVISIONS, but the text was never REVISED. There are changes in spelling in some editions like asswaged to assuaged in Gen 8:1, or mortar for moter in Gen 11:3, and on and on, but again, the words don't change. "Or" has been substituted for "AND" in Joshua 19:2, and for those of you who bow to scholars know either is acceptable in the "Original Manuscripts" So, I guess to answer you Archangel, I've heard the accusations, checked the references and come to the conclusion I originally stated... I believe all editions of the KJV. YOu guys seem so eager to get us Bible Believers to NOT beleive in our Bibles. Why. Ask yourself why you're so quick to judge a person who believes the Bible for their Bible belief and defense of it.

 

So the KJV was in error both times??? Very interesting theory. Note that it does not say "they" went into the city in any revision.

If this is the range of your knowledge on this topic then you are poorly informed. No MV is based solely on Vaticanus. Further, it is extremely hypocritical of you to make the RCC charge since the text used to translate the KJV was collated by the Catholic scholar Erasmus who used the RCC Latin Vulgate as a source and guide for his Greek text.

Actually "texts" don't accept or reject anything. Users of texts either accept or reject the Apocrypha. But more to your point, aleph and B both pre-date the general acceptance of the Apocrypha as scripture in the western (Roman) church. Besides that, the RCC was not in any sense fully developed nor as apostate in the 400's as it was by the time Erasmus huddled in Basil.

Again, the KJV neither accepts nor rejects anything.

Interesting that he should make such a statement. There were political manueverings during his day to bring England back under Rome. They appear to have been unable to meet James' price. Besides that, he had a pretty good gig going on since he was the monarch and the prelate of the Church of England... in other words, for all intents and purposes, he was a pope.