Want Some Answers ???

Hi Herb
 
 Thanks your mail, about time you posted something sensible instead of those 'silly emails' without intelligent comment. I asked your age because you wrote like a teenager. Though I still find it hard to believe "65" after re-reading those emails. I asked the question "How much in the KJV is without error?  If you say "all", then which "KJB" do you refer to? You reply,
 
 >>All of it. Any of them, apart from printer's errors.<<
 
 Doest thou not know the writings of the radicals? Behold hear ye them -
 
 "If the KJB is the true Word of God, then it cannot contain any error..."
 "Because Prov.30:5 states "EVERY word of God is PURE:... An inaccurate word
 is not a pure word".
 "How can the true Word of God contain even one error?"
 "If you change ANYTHING you are a bible corrector"
 
Are they wrong and you right? Your word "all" does not mean "all". What of the 75,000 changes and alterations? When did it become, "without error"? I have two pages photocopied from the 1627 KJV. I count 139 changes on one page compared with today's. It only takes one error to fail the perfect test. Why argue all other versions have errors, corruptions and corrections and avoid using these words concerning the KJV?
 
 The 1611 KJV contained error and the KJ has a long history of changes. Your criticisms about other versions are true regarding the KJV. You condemn errors in other versions as evil and those in the KJV are ignored. A 'Divine Error Theory'. So have they been corrected? Have the "Bible Correctors" been busy correcting the KJV? Then, doesn't this contradict your claim of a perfect, inerrant, infallible KJV? The changes and errors proves the same inspiration afforded to Scripture did NOT follow to translations.
 
 >>But to keep you honest, do you believe any Bible extant is without error? - Herb<<
 
 No translation is perfect in every respect and without errors "printing" included. Or are you telling me the KJV is perfect in every respect? You just admitted the KJV is not foreign to 'error'. The text today still has readings found in no Greek MS. Note Acts.9.6 KJV "And he trembling and astonished said, lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"  Words not found in any Greek manuscript. Erasmus introduced them from the Vulgate [Western text-type]. They are an obvious assimilation to the parallel account in Ac.22.10. 'Easter' is another. The text was altered to include this word. Yet it wasn't used by Luke or even known to him. Erasmus for the book of Revelation had but one MS and it was lacking the final leaf so he translated the Vulgate into Greek and published that. So there are words in the KJV that are in no MSS whatever. Erasmus introduced material from the Vulgate into the KJV and was criticised for 'attacking the Vulgate'. 1 John 5:7-8 KJV has no support in the Byzantine family and Erasmus could not find the words in any Greek MS. Other examples could be mentioned.
 
If you are telling the KJV is a Bible version "without error". And God has selectively chosen one English version. Then you have a very poor appreciation of God's purposes. It's not God's purpose to lock-up His Word in old English for a select few! The Gospel is for ALL the nations NOT just English speakers. Communication of the Gospel must be clear and accurate for understanding. For this reason, no translation can ever be considered final, simply because language and words change over time. Has God done for one language group what He has not done for another? No! [Ac.10:34-35].
 
 So again, is "all" in the KJV without error? And which should I use, Nave's KJV Study Bible, which has alternate RV readings, the Open Bible, which updates some archaic words, or my KJV which recommends  'probable' texts with alternative readings. You suggest an answer  -
 
>>If you have a prooftext that gaurantee's helps to be inspired or preserved, we might well discuss marginal notes  but . . . -- Herb Evans<<
 
Somehow this doesn't answer the question. I accept that footnotes are not part of Scripture text although some found their way into the KJV over centuries of copying [1 Jn.5:7-8]. But the question is not answered, or did I miss it? You then write - 
 
>>We do not accept folks' doubts or probabilities. Moreover, we do not care about folks' authenticity considerations. We have God's word on the matter of preservation and that is sufficient to throughly furnish us We are interested in the internal evidence of the Bible.. -- Herb Evans <<
 
What makes the KJV [or the TR] 'preserved' and other versions [text-types] not preserved? There's no 'internal evidence' in the Bible that refers solely to a KJV and not other versions. Not unless you insist the Bible writers said something they clearly didn't. The writer's penned the words that God gave. And God has "preserved" and this is true of all MSS and text-types regardless. The text of Scripture has been kept clear in all ages 1st 2nd and this century. God has preserved His Word by translation and copying. The fact that Christians began to copy and translate Scripture almost immediately in the early history of the Christian Church has been  vital in preserving the faith and guaranteeing accuracy in what is written. Strange as this may seem, the translating of God's Word for others, has benefited the Church and preserved the text and promoted the Gospel.
 
I mentioned about Nave's Topical KJV which has the occasional alternate reading from the RV. And the Zondervan KJV Topical Bible which includes ASV, RSV and RV alternate readings. You wrote,
 
 >>You can cite apples and oranges all day. Still, corruptions remain corruptions. Man's word and traditions of men remain man's word and traditions of men. What does the Bibble say about itself?-- Herb Evans<<
 
Which again doesn't answer the question. These 'corruptions' are in these KJV's [according to you] and you have no idea what to do. Does your word "Bible" only apply to the true uncorrupt KJV? Perhaps you could tell me what it is in the Bible that points to a true uncorrupt KJV and not other KJV's?  I mentioned my KJV states "Easter" should be "Passover" perhaps contrary to your KJV? What to do? You wrote,
 
>>If I answer your Easter argument, will you ignore me and go on to another supposed error in the KJB.<<
 
I won't "ignore" you. Explain why Luke used the word Easter. Hopefully I can ask questions without you disappearing like the others.
 
>>Or will you concede the errors are in your mind and not in the KJB? --Herb Evans<<
 
 Herb you cannot admit to one incorrect verse or word in the KJV or you have lost the whole argument. You believe the KJV could not have ONE mistake, which would suggest 'God has a mistake'. And if anyone questions the KJV they question God, for the KJV is regarded perfect, even as God. In fact, the impression I get is that your final authority is the KJV not the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit is The Translator (Jn.16:13-15). He excised control to produce inspiration, accuracy and divine wisdom in the words penned. The Scriptures proceed from Him, He opens our eyes to its truth. And the emphases must be that the message has come of God - not the language. Human languages are entirely arbitrary and err. The words of life are so powerful they can't be trapped in time or language. God's Word is alive today as it was to Augustine, Wyclif or Luther, because we are the recipients of a Divine Revelation not a divine translation.
 
The Bible has always been a missionary book. God has given His Church the responsibility to communicate the gospel. But translators have 3 problems. [1] They are not perfect.  [2] They don't have the original autographs. [3] Human languages are not perfect.
 
The KJ sect would withhold Scripture from millions of needy souls, by insisting translating is corrupting Scripture. This would steal what belongs to the whole Church. God has given His Word for all His people of every nation and generation.
 
 Mark Purchase