Is your Bible Inerrant?

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by bryan1276:

...the text [of the KJV] 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....

The extensive list I posted earlier highlights actual changes in the wording of the text of the KJV. When you change the *words* of the KJV, you change the *text* of the KJV; and when you change the *text* of the KJV, you *revise* it. By your own admission and example, the words *have* changed -- "and" and "or" are two completely different words with two very different meanings.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

bryan1276: You KJVO guys seem so eager to get us Bible Believers NOT to believe 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. Those who use one of the inspired "MVs" wouldn't "attack" the KJV if KJVOs didn't attack theirs and call the inspired Word of God they use corrupt or satanic, ad nauseum. According to the original meaning of the word, vocal KJVOs are heretics; they attack God's Word in other versions seemingly to promote their heresy--to divide the body of Christ and sow dissent. I've never seen a believer who uses the Bible in their own language ever attack the KJV first, but only point out various shortcomings of the AV in response to attacks against their Bibles, or unsupportable claims made for the KJV, published or posted by a KJVO. However, I've seen dozens of examples of KJVOs going after someone else's Bible first.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you for participating in this poll.
At a count of 34, the poll is looking like this:

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (34 votes.)
Is your Bible Inerrant?

-3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid 0% (0)
-2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful 0% (0)
-1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution 0% (0)
0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 3% (1)
1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 15% (5)
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 6% (2)
3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 50% (17)
4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 3% (1)
5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 6% (2)
6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 0% (0)
7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 0% (0)
8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 3% (1)
9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 0% (0)
10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 15% (5)
11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England 0% (0)
12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform 0% (0)

Interesting, our three resident KJVOs split their vote
for 4 & 5. I know for a fact that no one who posts regurarly
and claims KJVO actually uses the KJV1611. So the KJVO deception
is alive here.

Not to pick on KJVOs only, what good does it do to have the majority
opinion that "The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs"?
Come on! the original autographs are NOT available. Is this really
different from NOT believing inerrancy? Isn't believing
"The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs" a philosophic
inerrancy and and a practical errancy?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Archangel... I've never heard anyone give any TEXTUAL revisions

First, we don't hate the KJV, so please use some honesty in this manner.

Second, there were 14 TEXTUAL revisions made by Archbishop Bancroft, after the final text was agreed upon but just before the first edition was printed - these textual alterations were objected to by many of the other translators, but were overridden (which was against the initial translation rules, btw). These 14 changes were made to support the hierarchical church system, in opposition of the "local independent church" concept which Bancroft and the rest of the church-government at the time were opposing and persecuting.

Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (MEN BEHIND THE KJV, p. 128)

One of the changes was Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas, in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). This change was perhaps to provide support for the Church of England allowing some ungodly men to remain as bishops.

Another one of the changes is supposed to have involved Acts 19:37. McClure noted: "Bancroft, that he might for once stick the name [church] to a material building, would have it applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, to the idols' temples! 'Robbers of churches' are strictly, according to the word in the original, temple-robbers; and particularly, in this case, such as might have plundered the great temple of Diana of Ephesus. Let us be thankful that the dictatorial prelate tried his hand no farther at emending the sacred text" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 221).

Henry Jessey, a Baptist pastor in the early 1600's, complained about the KJV for its bent favoring "episcopacy," and said that Bancroft, "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53)

Thanks to Rick Norris for this info.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Can you cite the remaining changes of the 14? Were they corrections against the readings of Tyndale or the Geneva Bible too, in effect? (I suspect a change in 1 Timothy, since the word "bishop" was rendered "overseer" in the plural in Acts.)

 

[BrianT]

No, unfortunately I don't have a list of the other changes.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Wow! Another inerrantist voted:
-2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful 3% (1)

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Yes, as far as I know, my OT is inerrant. As far as I know, my NT is inerrant.

 

[bryan1276]

Regarding Ruth. The statement he,she went to the citie are both true statements since they both went. Concerning the RCC charge and Erasmus. Very tyipcal thinking but wrong. Erasmus, like Luther was originally of the Catholic church however his text was banned by the RCC. Furthermore, his text was NOT the one used to translate the KJV (another idea that floats in seminaries that no one studies). The translators relied more on Beza's text, while incorporating Stephanus text, Elzivar's among the many other ancient versions, texts, church fathers and so on. As to King James and some supposed money deal to bring England back under Rome, that's false. Rome was engaged in violence, not bribery to bring England "back into the fold" and as King James said in his own words "I am no Papist." Straight from the "horses mouth"

Archangel: As I said before, I can believe any and all statements in any edition of the KJV. I cannot say the same about the modern versions. But you allow for contradictions in modern versions and scoff at "and" "or" in the KJV. Its a typical double standard.

This nonsense about KJV causing division in the body of Christ let me remind you of history. When the KJV was beleived by the people for 300 yrs up until 1900 there wasn't division in believing one Bible. Scholars had to come up with new authorities to cause the divisions. And since we are now so far removed from that time, you dont remember when there was ONE Bible for Christians and no division about authority. The KJV was here long before these modern versions and it was only at their advent did the divisions start taking place b/c you now had to deal with multiple authorities IF you wanted to call all of them Bibles.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Brian1276: "When the KJV was beleived by the people for 300 yrs up until 1900 there wasn't division in believing one Bible."

Your statement in incorrect.
Here is a more correct one:

When the KJV was believed by the English speaking minority 200 yrs up until 1900 there wasn't division in believing one Bible.

 

[HankD]

James said in his own words "I am no Papist." Straight from the "horses mouth

Yet as a good Anglican Catholic, he endorsed baptising (Christening) babies, celebrating the Eucharist (the Anglican Catholic "consubstantiation" version of the Roman Catholic "transubstantiation" mass), dutifully read his Apocrypha (Church of Rome Scripture) and confessed his sins to an Anglican "priest".

He also allowed the persecution, imprisonment and torture of dissident Baptists and Puritans who preferred the Geneva Bible to the "authorized" Version.

HankD

[ October 02, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
When the KJV was believed by the English speaking minority 200 yrs up until 1900 there wasn't division in believing one Bible.

The "English speaking minority"? Are you referring to world population or to Christianity? I doubt that you would find that the minority of Christians in the 1700's &1800's were English speakers. God providentially used the spread of the British Empire to spread the gospel throughout the world. If English Speakers are the minority in Christianity now it is only because KJV carrying missionaries did such a good job during those 200 years. There is absolutely no way, historically, to dispute this.

Lacy

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
If English Speakers are the minority in Christianity now it is only because KJV carrying missionaries did such a good job during those 200 years. There is absolutely no way, historically, to dispute this.

Nor to prove it. Nor to show how it therefore assures textual perfection. Thus the whole issue is irrelevant and worthless as support for or against an "inerrant Bible".

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by HankD:
Yet as a good Anglican Catholic, he endorsed baptising (Christening) babies, celebrating the Eucharist (the Anglican Catholic "consubstantiation" version of the Roman Catholic "transubstantiation" mass), dutifully read his Apocrypha (Church of Rome Scripture) and confessed his sins to an Anglican "priest".
He also allowed the persecution, imprisonment and torture of dissident Baptists and Puritans who preferred the Geneva Bible to the "authorized" Version.
HankD

I make it a point to seldom bring up the translators for the MVs. I hardly ever bring up Westcott & Hort, etc. If you want to compare apples to apples then let's start a thread about KJV translators vs MV translators and leave King James himself out of it. James never translated a single verse.

I can go to the scripture and show you time after time when God providentially used EVIL, secular kings to do his will. For instance I think you would find Cyrus much more of a "heathen" than James, yet God calls him his "annointed" He even surnames him "Jacob". (Just for fun, someone look up the English equivilant of "Jacob".)

Isaiah 45:1-4

1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of
brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

My second point is that James had limited revelation. The world was just coming out of the dark ages.

Like Josiah in 2 Kings 22, 23 James followed a long line of wickedness in high places. (This was the king of God's chosen people). Josiah (like James) repented in limited light (at least as far as getting the word out to the people- 2Ki 23:1,2) and God brought more perfect revelation.

In 2Kings 22, Josiah provided for the repair of the temple of God. During the repairs, the book of the law was found buried in the rubble. As a result of having a good king who followed in the steps of David (at least in the limited light he had), the law was restored to Israel. Where was it before? It was hidden in the ruins of the temple buried perhaps in mounds of earth awaiting resurrection. How do we know that it was the perfect word of God? Read the chapters! It started a revival:

What was the last year a baptist was killed by an Anglican? Circumstantial evidence? Perhaps.

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Nor to prove it. Nor to show how it therefore assures textual perfection. Thus the whole issue is irrelevant and worthless as support for or against an "inerrant Bible".

Perhaps it is worthless and irrelevant to some, but it is very important to me. It is a deep heartfelt conviction. I respect your opinion brother but I'm trying my best to look at Biblical principals and apply them to my life. I don't carry a KJV just because my daddy did. And there is so much at stake here.

How do you "prove" that the list of 66 books in all of our versions is "perfect"?
How do you "prove" that the general Christian revelation is "of God"?
How do you "prove" the Bible is true?

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

By the way HankD,

Thank you for your kindness and the excellent example of Christian character you have shown on these boards. Sometimes when we debate on opposite sides, we forget that we are brothers. Also we all can follow your example which seems to say, "character first and then doctrine."

Lacy

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Perhaps it is worthless and irrelevant to some, but it is very important to me.

I didn't say it was worthless and irrelevant in general, but in the context of support for or against an "inerrant Bible". A language's status as majority or minority, or how wide-spread it was in any given century has nothing to do with whether or not any particular translation of scripture is 100% accurate.

 

[HankD]

Thanks Lacy,

yes I believe it is important that we obey (or at least try, for we are all human) the Scripture as well as "defend" it.

BTW...

My second point is that James had limited revelation. The world was just coming out of the dark ages.

The Waldenses and other dissenting groups had no "Dark Age" (apart from the persecution of the "established churches such as the Church of Rome and England) but had the light of Scripture (the Old Itala, Wycliff and others) long before the 1611KJV came upon the scene.

The martyred Church of Rome also used the Old Itala long before and during the "Vulgate" (another "authorized" Version of the Bible) reign or the 1611KJ "Authorized" Version.

Why is it that those churches which find it necessary to "Authorize" the Word of God also persecute and slaughter those Christians who refuse to use those "authorized" versions ONLY?

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:

What was the last year a baptist was killed by an Anglican? Circumstantial evidence? Perhaps.

Lacy

In case this was not a rhetorical question, the last Baptist martyred by the Church of England was in 1611.

The CoE listed a litany of charges including arianism against the man but some of the charges actually contradicted each other so their validity is questionable.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lacy Evans:

What was the last year a baptist was killed by an Anglican? Circumstantial evidence? Perhaps.

Lacy

In case this was not a rhetorical question, the last Baptist martyred by the Church of England was in 1611.

The CoE listed a litany of charges including arianism against the man but some of the charges actually contradicted each other so their validity is questionable. </font>[/QUOTE]So, the very year the KJV came out the killing stopped? At Wednesday night prayer-meeting, we'd refer to that as a "praise".

Lacy