Want Some Answers ???

King James Error

Hi Herb

I asked about that fact KJ radicals say 'God's Word' is '
without error' and the word 'error' changes to suit them. And gave quotes to show this, you reply,

>>Why am I held accountable for someone else's choice of words. They do not speak for you nor do they speak for me, so they do not belong in this discussion. (The word is "dost" not doest.) (If you are addressing me, the word is "thou" not "ye."...Doctor) Herb Evans<<

So this indicates the confusion that abounds in the KJ hardcore. They all say different things to different people what ever they can get away with at the time. How can I accept a doctrine when the adherents all say different things? What should be obvious [what they claim] is instead nebulous. Clearly words have two meanings. When they say, "If you change ANYTHING you are a bible corrector" they don't mean 'anything' only 'something's'. Anything changed in the KJ is all right but those in other versions they are evil and the users of them. So your word "all" does not mean "all"? And you replied,

>>Have you decided to speak for me, or will you allow me to speak for myself. -- Herb Evans<<

That's not good enough Herb. When you are faced with a difficult question that you have not thought about before. Take time to pray about your answer. Quite frankly, if that's your explanation to the question, you are welcome to hold your belief but don't expect me to embrace what you say with any credibility. Seems like KJ radicals 'pass the buck' on the difficult questions or concepts and [or as you change the subject].

I mentioned about the 75,000 changes and alterations in the KJV and about the 139 changes on one page of my old KJ compared with today's version. You reply,

>>What of them? What are these changes and alterations? Is there a reason for you to not being specific? How does anyone address a general question? Do you want me to do your research and search these changes out?<<

What those changes and errors prove was that the same inspiration afforded to Scripture did NOT follow to translations. Think about that, you wilfully over look the fact. It means the KJV is just another human translation. Insisting the KJV is 'without error' is all based on who says it and how they understand it and does not tell the whole truth. Insisting the "The KJB is the same word for word unaltered inerrant, unchanged 1611" is nonsense. Yes I know those are not your words, but so what! They are a doctrinal position taken by radicals to argue their nonsense. And you people expect me to believe it without question. It only takes one error to fail the perfect test, but not for you. You have a very original doctrinal concept that differs from other radicals, discuss these things among yourselves as to why you differ. So why argue all other versions have errors, corruptions and corrections and avoid using these words concerning the KJV? You reply,

>>Are you also aware of the changes and/or variations in the various Hebrew and Greek Texts? Do all changes constitute error? What percentage of the 75,000 constitutes error. Do you promise not to have a double standard in this matter? -- Herb Evans <<

I'm aware but you are not aware of the consequences. Of all the manuscripts [MSS] in the text-type tradition behind the KJV no two agree perfectly. So to claim special inspiration is ridiculous. Before the Printing Press (1455) all literature was laboriously hand copied. When scribes hand-copied documents they made mistakes which resulted in errors intruding over the centuries. The more frequently copies were made, the more errors the copies acquired. And of all the thousands of MSS today there's none without error and no two agree exactly. This is a problem to the extent that some Church authorities occasionally intervened in the process of textual transmission in order to achieve some type of uniformity - new editions of the Greek NT. Yet all these are only reconstructions based on the documents and thousands of mss available to us.

Examining these MSS is an immense task and is never being fully completed because new MSS keep coming to light. So it's nonsense to argue any MS (or text-type) is inerrant, that term must be reserved for the originals. Early MSS generally have few errors compared to those of the late middle Ages because less copying between MS and the autograph means better copies. Although some early MSS were carelessly copied and their early date does not mean greater accuracy. And the number of witnesses behind a particular reading means nothing. It is the quality of those witnesses that counts. Conservative Christians are at the forefront of this science we call 'Textual Criticism'. It also involves finding errors, which need to be deleted and corrected wherever possible, additions traced and alterations replaced and attempting to reconstruct original readings and explaining the reasons for any alterations. We should be grateful to those who so painstakingly strive to know and exact words of Scripture as originally written.

The KJV is based on a few MSS of poor quality and late. Modern versions are based on better textual studies and Greek MSS. Keep in mind the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousands witnesses, while the TR which underpins the KJV did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence.

Mark Purchase