Question: Is There an Innerrant Bible?

[Is]

And yet you seem to think there were 66 books? The KJV was delivered, replete with every single book of the Apocrypha included in it.

The Apocrypha was between the Old and New Testaments in the KJV not interspersed throughout the Old Testament. It was kept in the KJV purely for historical interest and nothing more.

When interspersed through the OT the Apocrypha disrupts the flow of the OT which is made up of the The Law, The Prophets and The Writings.

There is no indication that the Apocrypha was part of the Bible prior in Origen's Hexapla.

 

[Willie-T]

The Apocrypha was between the Old and New Testaments in the KJV not interspersed throughout the Old Testament. It was kept in the KJV purely for historical interest and nothing more.

When interspersed through the OT the Apocrypha disrupts the flow of the OT which is made up of the The Law, The Prophets and The Writings.

There is no indication that the Apocrypha was part of the Bible prior in Origen's Hexapla.

Of course I know that... But it makes little difference if someone is pigheadedly going to insist that "God had that AUTHORIZED version made just the way we are to still enshrine it today."

 

[Is]

The Syrian Aramaic Peshitta was a second century AD translation of the LXX into Syrian Aramaic; and several NT books were included in the translation. If you have been told otherwise; you have been misinformed.

It agrees with the Textus Receptus.

 

[JackRT]

It agrees with the Textus Receptus.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.

 

[Is]

U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

RHINOC'EROS, n. [L. rhinoceros; Gr. nose-horn.]
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, as a single horn growing almost erect from the nose.
(Noah Websters 1828 dictionary)

Yes I believe in unicorns


[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

No I can't conclusively prove anything but I trust that God preserved his word without error and I believe on that basis that "spider" is the correct reading. from what I have briefly looked into, the reason scholars try to say "spider" is not accurate is that a different word for spider is used elsewhere in the Bible. However this isn't a good argument because a different word is used in Leviticus 11:30 for Lizard as well not just in the King James Bible but in the NIV, ESV, NASB and others. The point is even in English there are different words that have the same meaning. The context of the passage itself is referring to creatures with a seeming disadvantage. The spider though small manages to make its home in kings palaces by using its hands. Here's more on that: "Spider" or "Lizard" in Proverbs 30:28? - King James Version Today

[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

I believe that there are many good translations in other languages based on the Hebrew moseretic text and the Greek textus receptus, but God never promised to preserve His word in every language. He just promised to preserve his word. People who translate the Bible into other languages ought to do there best to be faithful to those underlying manuscripts and not deviate from the King James Bible reading.



Hebrew and Greek are only spoken by a very few people in comparison to English. God by his providence knew that English would become the worlds dominant and most important language. English makes perfect sense.

Personally I like spider better than lizard it fits the passage better because they probably use their hands for making webs.

 

[valiant]

Personally I like spider better than lizard it fits the passage better because they probably use their hands for making webs.

Spiders produce silk from their spinneretglands located at the tip of their abdomen. Each gland produces a thread for a special purpose – for example a trailed safety line, sticky silk for trapping prey or fine silk for wrapping it. Spiders use different gland types to produce different silks, and some spiders are capable of producing up to 8 different silks during their lifetime. They do not have hands LOL

Lizards have different Hebrew words for them because there are different kinds of lizards.

 

[Is]

Of course I know that... But it makes little difference if someone is pigheadedly going to insist that "God had that AUTHORIZED version made just the way we are to still enshrine it today."

Sorry must have misunderstood you. It looked like you were making a big deal out of the Apocrypha.

 

[Is]

Spiders produce silk from their spinneretglands located at the tip of their abdomen. Each gland produces a thread for a special purpose – for example a trailed safety line, sticky silk for trapping prey or fine silk for wrapping it. Spiders use different gland types to produce different silks, and some spiders are capable of producing up to 8 different silks during their lifetime. They do not have hands LOL

Lizards have different Hebrew words for them because there are different kinds of lizards.

True, but, if you have ever watched a spider they use their quote un quote hands too. We have anoles-sp, small green lizards where I live and I have never seen them do anything with their hands. For that matter I have seen lots of shows about lizards and they never do anything with their hands, it is always with their mouth.

 

[Atwood]

40 Moth Swatters Vs. Skeptical Errors

Like Moths attracted to a flame (in which they will burn themselves up), so skeptics are likely to be attracted to a professed-Christian site like this one. Thus I supply 40 Moth Swatters (better swatted than burned).

Since skeptics can easily paste a garbage list of alleged errors in the Bible, I have compiled my omnibus answer to the Skeptical errors, as below. He who puts forth canards vs God's Word can most likely find his error in the list below:

1. Out of a hard heart, one denies the obvious.
2. One refuses to acknowledge the existence and propriety of figures of speech.
3. One fails to interpret a difficult passage by other passages (on the same subject) that are clear.
4. One ignores the legitimacy of God’s using humans with their human vocabulary.
5. One takes a directive given to a specific person or people (in some historic culture) and insists (a) that the directive was meant to be applied to everyone everywhere for all time, or
(b ) that the directive was meant as God’s ideal course of action.

6. One insists that regulations limiting man's sinful conduct in the Mosaic Law express God's ideal course of conduct, as in "Love your neighbor as yourself."
7. One insists that a passage must speak comprehensively on a subject although the passage is only giving a partial revelation.
8. One claims that a rounded number is an untrue number.
9. One fails to realize that general statements may have exceptions.
10. One demands that an allusion by the New Testament to the Old Testament, must be a verbatim quote or an exact word-for-word translation.

11. One maintains that because something has not been explained, there can be no explanation.
12. One assumes that if some other ancient source disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is wrong.
13. One insists that because 2 accounts of the same event differ, one or both must be wrong, instead of complementary witnesses.
14. One takes scripture out of context.
15. One refuses to accept that the Word of God could have minor copying errors in the multitude of manuscripts, or one insists that the existence of minor copying errors invalidates our knowledge of God’s word.

16. One alleges that a multiplicity of translations indicates that the text has no integrity.
17. One assumes that what a majority of scientists teach must be correct if it disagrees with the Bible.
18. One jumps to an unnecessary interpretation of an obscure passage.
19. One refuses to validate the use of common language and insists that the text should use technical precision.
20. One insists that if the Bible is not politically correct, the Bible must be wrong.

21. One maintains that a Bible passage is in error because one does not know any proof that the Bible is right. (One finds that the Bible is guilty because one cannot prove it innocent.)
22. When 2 passages could be interpreted either as harmonizing or as in conflict, one insists that the conflicting interpretation is correct.
23. One expects that human understanding of a passage must be the same thing as what an infinitely intelligent God meant when He revealed truth.
24. One maintains that when scripture records a behavior, therefore the scripture approves of that behavior.
25. One dogmatically advocates opinions contrary to the Bible, although one has no source of ultimate truth with which to support those opinions.

26. One believes that a behavior contrary to the Bible, must be acceptable if one wants to do it.
27. One insists that God must be the way one wants Him to be.
28. One confuses a statement about what SHALL be with a statement about what SHOULD be (confounding prophecy with commandment), as if a statement predicting the death of 1,000 babies, were the same as a commandment to kill 1,000 babies.
29. One imagines that one should tell the Lord how He ought to have written His book and govern the universe.
30. One cynically lies about what the Bible says.

31. One plays the Paul vs. Jesus game & claims that Paul changed Christ's teaching, though one has not carefully compared.
32. One twists the meaning of one passage of scripture to make it seem to contradict another.
33. When two interpretations of a passage are possible, one insists on an unnecessary interpretation to try to make it contradictory to another passage.
34. One insists that ungodly interpreters are correct and the Bible is thus wrong.
35. One insists that the majority of scientists who advocate some theory must be correct vs. a minority who disagree.

36. One insists that the majority of historians must be correct vs. a minority who agree with the Bible.
37. One pretends that one has a higher standard by which one could judge God or His Word.
38. One arrogantly presumes to judge God, forgetting that God is one's judge.
39. One assumes that the "Sayings of Jesus" are superior to the rest of God's Word.
40. One exalts human tradition or demonic document over God's Word.

 

[Romolomo]

Re: 40 Moth Swatters Vs. Skeptical Errors

Like Moths attracted to a flame (in which they will burn themselves up), so skeptics are likely to be attracted to a professed-Christian site like this one. Thus I supply 40 Moth Swatters (better swatted than burned).

Since skeptics can easily paste a garbage list of alleged errors in the Bible, I have compiled my omnibus answer to the Skeptical errors, as below. He who puts forth canards vs God's Word can most likely find his error in the list below:

1. Out of a hard heart, one denies the obvious.
2. One refuses to acknowledge the existence and propriety of figures of speech.
3. One fails to interpret a difficult passage by other passages (on the same subject) that are clear.
4. One ignores the legitimacy of God’s using humans with their human vocabulary.
5. One takes a directive given to a specific person or people (in some historic culture) and insists (a) that the directive was meant to be applied to everyone everywhere for all time, or
(b ) that the directive was meant as God’s ideal course of action.

6. One insists that regulations limiting man's sinful conduct in the Mosaic Law express God's ideal course of conduct, as in "Love your neighbor as yourself."
7. One insists that a passage must speak comprehensively on a subject although the passage is only giving a partial revelation.
8. One claims that a rounded number is an untrue number.
9. One fails to realize that general statements may have exceptions.
10. One demands that an allusion by the New Testament to the Old Testament, must be a verbatim quote or an exact word-for-word translation.

11. One maintains that because something has not been explained, there can be no explanation.
12. One assumes that if some other ancient source disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is wrong.
13. One insists that because 2 accounts of the same event differ, one or both must be wrong, instead of complementary witnesses.
14. One takes scripture out of context.
15. One refuses to accept that the Word of God could have minor copying errors in the multitude of manuscripts, or one insists that the existence of minor copying errors invalidates our knowledge of God’s word.

16. One alleges that a multiplicity of translations indicates that the text has no integrity.
17. One assumes that what a majority of scientists teach must be correct if it disagrees with the Bible.
18. One jumps to an unnecessary interpretation of an obscure passage.
19. One refuses to validate the use of common language and insists that the text should use technical precision.
20. One insists that if the Bible is not politically correct, the Bible must be wrong.

21. One maintains that a Bible passage is in error because one does not know any proof that the Bible is right. (One finds that the Bible is guilty because one cannot prove it innocent.)
22. When 2 passages could be interpreted either as harmonizing or as in conflict, one insists that the conflicting interpretation is correct.
23. One expects that human understanding of a passage must be the same thing as what an infinitely intelligent God meant when He revealed truth.
24. One maintains that when scripture records a behavior, therefore the scripture approves of that behavior.
25. One dogmatically advocates opinions contrary to the Bible, although one has no source of ultimate truth with which to support those opinions.

26. One believes that a behavior contrary to the Bible, must be acceptable if one wants to do it.
27. One insists that God must be the way one wants Him to be.
28. One confuses a statement about what SHALL be with a statement about what SHOULD be (confounding prophecy with commandment), as if a statement predicting the death of 1,000 babies, were the same as a commandment to kill 1,000 babies.
29. One imagines that one should tell the Lord how He ought to have written His book and govern the universe.
30. One cynically lies about what the Bible says.

31. One plays the Paul vs. Jesus game & claims that Paul changed Christ's teaching, though one has not carefully compared.
32. One twists the meaning of one passage of scripture to make it seem to contradict another.
33. When two interpretations of a passage are possible, one insists on an unnecessary interpretation to try to make it contradictory to another passage.
34. One insists that ungodly interpreters are correct and the Bible is thus wrong.
35. One insists that the majority of scientists who advocate some theory must be correct vs. a minority who disagree.

36. One insists that the majority of historians must be correct vs. a minority who agree with the Bible.
37. One pretends that one has a higher standard by which one could judge God or His Word.
38. One arrogantly presumes to judge God, forgetting that God is one's judge.
39. One assumes that the "Sayings of Jesus" are superior to the rest of God's Word.
40. One exalts human tradition or demonic document over God's Word.

Occam's Razor:

1. One creates a lengthy list attempting to justify an erring book.

 

[Jason0047]

I thought it was obvious, oh well, yes I'm a King James Bible believer

I believe the KJV to be the preserved Word of God for our day. I believe it to be divinely inspired and perfect. That said, I do not agree with all KJV-onlyists that it is the easiest version to read. Many times the passages in the Old Testament are very confusing in the way that they are written because back then the folks in the 1600's spoke "Early Modern English" and they did not speak "Late Modern English" like we do today.

I also believe sometimes the Greek is more accurate to conveying what it says in the KJV in some cases. For example: I believe Matthew 10:28 should say "Lake of Fire" for the Greek word "Gehenna" and not "Hell." The KJV also uses the word "matrix" as a part of the birth process instead of just using a word that we would be familar with today. But this does not mean that the KJV is in error. No, no. Most certainly not. It just means that they spoke differently back then and we have to be open to looking at other translations so as to help guide us into what the KJV is saying sometimes. Granted, I would also caution someone to be careful when looking at Modern Translations, though, too. For in Modern Translations they have corrupted and eliminated many verses in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, in many of them, the devils's name is placed into them. Which of course is really wrong. But the Modern Translations are not entirely useless, though. They are just tools that you can use (Despite their imperfections). For there are many times Modern Versions have helped me greatly in understanding the KJV. So it's having a balance. Not going to one extreme or the other.

 

[valiant]

I believe the KJV to be the preserved Word of God for our day. I believe it to be divinely inspired and perfect. That said, I do not agree with all KJV-onlyists that it is the easiest version to read. Many times the passages in the Old Testament are very confusing in the way that they are written because back then the folks in the 1600's spoke "Early Modern English" and they did not speak "Late Modern English" like we do today.

I also believe sometimes the Greek is more accurate to conveying what it says in the KJV in some cases. For example: I believe Matthew 10:28 should say "Lake of Fire" for the Greek word "Gehenna" and not "Hell." The KJV also uses the word "matrix" as a part of the birth process instead of just using a word that we would be familar with today. But this does not mean that the KJV is in error. No, no. Most certainly not. It just means that they spoke differently back then and we have to be open to looking at other translations so as to help guide us into what the KJV is saying sometimes. Granted, I would also caution someone to be careful when looking at Modern Translations, though, too. For in Modern Translations they have corrupted and eliminated many verses in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, in many of them, the devils's name is placed into them. Which of course is really wrong. But the Modern Translations are not entirely useless, though. They are just tools that you can use (Despite their imperfections). For there are many times Modern Versions have helped me greatly in understanding the KJV. So it's having a balance. Not going to one extreme or the other.

lol condemned out of your own mouth.

 

[Jason0047]

I like using the KJ2 Version sometimes. Granted, it wrongfully replaces the word "dragons" for "jackals" and occasionally in a blue moon will mess with a timed favorite verse in the New Testament that I love in the original KJV. But it is probably the closest version to the KJV that does not use the "Thou" and the "Thees." I also like the KJ2 because it places the letters of Christ in red (In both the Old Testament and the New Testament). In fact, any time God is speaking, the words are in red (Which is nice).

Here is the online version:

John 1 King James 2000

I also like checking out the Voice Version on rare occasion to see who is talking quickly, too. Granted, the Voice Version of the Bible massacres the text big time, but it seems to get who is speaking correctly, though. In other words, the Voice Bible reads sort of like a movie script.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=VOICE

 

[Jason0047]

lol condemned out of your own mouth.

Are you sure about that? Or are you simply misunderstanding what I had said?

 

[Willie-T]

Sorry must have misunderstood you. It looked like you were making a big deal out of the Apocrypha.

Not at all.. I was just pointing out that if someone is going to claim that only the KJV is God's true word, then they better not be messing around changing ANYTHING about that very first one printed.

 

[Jason0047]

Not at all.. I was just pointing out that if someone is going to claim that only the KJV is God's true word, then they better not be messing around changing ANYTHING about that very first one printed.

I believe the 1769 KJV is the final result that was intended as the Word of God currently today. For there was no standardization of spelling back in the 1600's and they had not perfected the printing process of it's errors yet. But if you were to compare the 1611 with the 1769, they really do not say anything really different between each other. Yes, there are about 10-15 verses that appears to be the case, but when one examines the truth to what they are saying, there really is no difference between the two (Besides just spelling and printing errors).

Side Note: I did talk about these rare verses that appear to be different at TOL (Theologyonline), but it appears they have deleted all their old archives that had all my old posts in it.

 

[Willie-T]

Actually, you could drive yourself nuts sweating all the extra books of the Bible. (Maybe some already have?) I mean there are something like 22 books mentioned in the Bible that aren't in the Bible.

And then, in the Bible, we read... "As it is written" (with the quote following), and what is quoted cannot even be found ANYWHERE. (It's been a long time since DTS, but I'll try hard to remember where that is if no one else can help.)

 

[Elin]

Actually, you could drive yourself nuts sweating all the extra books of the Bible. (Maybe some already have?) I mean there are something like 22 books mentioned in the Bible that aren't in the Bible.

And then, in the Bible, we read... "As it is written" (with the quote following), and what is quoted cannot even be found ANYWHERE. (It's been a long time since DTS, but I'll try hard to remember where that is if no one else can help.)

Would that be Paul in 1Tim 5:18 quoting Lk 10:7 as Scripture, showing that even in the time of the apostles, the NT writings were viewed as Scripture?

 

[ChrisHill]

Actually, you could drive yourself nuts sweating all the extra books of the Bible. (Maybe some already have?) I mean there are something like 22 books mentioned in the Bible that aren't in the Bible.

And then, in the Bible, we read... "As it is written" (with the quote following), and what is quoted cannot even be found ANYWHERE. (It's been a long time since DTS, but I'll try hard to remember where that is if no one else can help.)

Jude quotes a prophecy of Enoch that is not written down.

 

[Is]

Not at all.. I was just pointing out that if someone is going to claim that only the KJV is God's true word, then they better not be messing around changing ANYTHING about that very first one printed.

I can't remember, not even once where Jesus or the Apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha and it was around during their time.


Martin Luther, in his Bible translation of 1534, extracted the apocryphal books from their usual places in the Old Testament, and had them printed at the end of the Old Testament. He stated that they "are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.

At the time the apoc.was in the KJV it also contained maps and geneologies, they were removed in 1885 A.D.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews who wrote them.

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material.
This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James himself said this about the Apocrypha:
"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13

In his, "A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches,"--found in his Workes (a collection of the king's writings)--King James said this--
"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition. The Church of England published the Authorized King James Version) states that

(1) the Old and New Testaments are the Bible--
In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...

(2) the apocrypha is not the Bible--
And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.

Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James specially commanded the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--
The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...

Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I,
edited by G.W. Prothero, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, 1894, p. 416

The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles.

Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

What matter is it if they were removed, since they were never considered to be the Word of God.