KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[SovereignGrace]

Are the errors in question wirting errors or type setting errors?

Errors are errors. If there were errors, and there were in the 1611, that’s all the proof I need to aver the KJV is not inspired.

To your question about proof..



Definition of proof

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

 

[KJV1611]

Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”

Context says "not upon the ground". Are we that nit picky that typo's are considered mistakes in the word of God?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I didn't use the 1611 version.

But I used the KJV. Whatever version the Gideons were handing out in the early 2000's.

And I was saved through reading it and trying to do what it said to do.

And I worked out my Salvation through fear and trembling with this same book.


I would think that would be proof of its inspiration.


The English language itself has gone through revisions since 1611. I would think that a book written in a language that has changed over the years would need to change its language to keep close to its original meaning.

Otherwise, the true intent could be lost because of the difference in meaning between similar but different words.

Many have been saved through reading other versions, too? Are those versions inspired, too?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Context says "not upon the ground". Are we that nit picky that typo's are considered mistakes in the word of God?

So when the 1611 needs corrected, it’s still inspired.

#gotcha

 

[KJV1611]

Holy Ghost 91times and Holy Spirit 10times.

Yes, coincidental. Or, what do you think it means?

Coincidental if only happened that one time.

End of the world found exactly 7 times in the KJV - coincidental or intentional.... The same Greek words were translated differently to make that happen.

 

[Joseppi]

So now the title page is inspired as well? If you're going to argue that the title page "proves" anything then intellectual integrity demands that you also consider what the Preface to the Reader says. Then again, I have ceased to expect integrity from you.

You want to put words in others mouths because you are wrong.
The title page tells the truth.
The preface is but a preface.
The apocrypha is useless and was finally discarded.
The Holy Bible consists of both The Old and New Testaments.

The only people stating falsehoods are modern bible perversion lovers.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I need to know what you would consider proof.

Oh boy. You are avoiding my question. Proof proves your point. AGAIN, what proof do you have they were inspired whilst translating the KJV?

 

[KJV1611]

Errors are errors. If there were errors, and there were in the 1611, that’s all the proof I need to aver the KJV is not inspired.

To your question about proof..



Definition of proof

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Yeah you and I can't really debate this because I don't consider typos and spelling updates as errors.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You want to put words in others mouths because you are wrong.
The title page tells the truth.
The preface is but a preface.
The apocrypha is useless and was finally discarded.
The Holy Bible consists of both The Old and New Testaments.

The only people staring falsehoods are modern bible perversion lovers.

Coming from someone who said the Holy Spirit is only a name.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yeah you and I can't really debate this because I don't consider typos and spelling updates as errors.

Huh? So, if you’re spelling Shittim and inadvertently left of the ‘tim’, that wouldn’t be an error?

#suuuuuuuuuuuure

 

[KJV1611]

Errors are errors. If there were errors, and there were in the 1611, that’s all the proof I need to aver the KJV is not inspired.

To your question about proof..



Definition of proof

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

What criteria would you require to believe the KJV is inspired? Typos changes in spelling... are these the only things that you need to say a bible is not inspired?

 

[Grandpa]

Many have been saved through reading other versions, too? Are those versions inspired, too?

Possibly.

That would be a step in the right direction.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yeah you and I can't really debate this because I don't consider typos and spelling updates as errors.

 

[KJV1611]

Oh boy. You are avoiding my question. Proof proves your point. AGAIN, what proof do you have they were inspired whilst translating the KJV?

I'm not going to waste my time and your time going through things that prove to me that the KJV is inspred. I need to know what you're looking for as proof of inspiration.

 

[trofimus]

Context says "not upon the ground". Are we that nit picky that typo's are considered mistakes in the word of God?

Yes, we are that nit picky when you say that the KJV is perfect. It is obviously not.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What criteria would you require to believe the KJV is inspired? Typos changes in spelling... are these the only things that you need to say a bible is not inspired?

We have no record when Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, Joshua, Matthew, Paul, Peter, et al, has errors in their writings. We have no record they had typos, either.

But we have proof there were errors in the KJV because there have been many revisions.

 

[KJV1611]

This is a good question for all, if God wanted to put his stamp of authenticity on a bible how do you think he would do it?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm not going to waste my time and your time going through things that prove to me that the KJV is inspred. I need to know what you're looking for as proof of inspiration.

If something is inspired, there are no errors, including typos. Including printing press errors.

 

[trofimus]

Coincidental if only happened that one time.

End of the world found exactly 7 times in the KJV - coincidental or intentional.... The same Greek words were translated differently to make that happen.

So it is 7times... how does it differ from 8times or 6times? I do not get your point.

BTW, its 10times, not 7times. 3 occurences are in the KJV apocrypha.

 

[KJV1611]

We have no record when Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, Joshua, Matthew, Paul, Peter, et al, has errors in their writings. We have no record they had typos, either.

But we have proof there were errors in the KJV because there have been many revisions.

Like I said before, my standard for inspiration is not the same as yours.