The Highway
Posted By: Tom KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:56 PM
One of the arguments that KJVO use is that they are the only ones who are consistent when it comes to believing in Bible inerrancy.
All others can only say that the Bible as originally given is inerrant. They claim that this only serves to make people doubt the accuracy of the Bible itself.
My question is what would you say to a person who made that claim?
I am not asking for flaws in the KJV itself.

Tom
Posted By: Meta4 Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:15 PM
So, you're saying that they claim that the KJV itself is inerrant? I've heard this before, along the lines of the KJV being itself inspired, and actually correcting errors in the original manuscripts!

It is very doubtful to me, whether such an extremist's view could ever be changed, except by God. I might perhaps point him to James White's "The King James Only Controversy" and leave it at that.
Posted By: Tom Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:07 AM
Actually, this particular person believes that the KJV is the only translation that has been translated perfectly from the original languages.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:47 AM
Why the KJV and not the Bishop's Bible, or the Great Bible, or the Geneva, or Cloverdale, or the Tyndale, Douay-Rheims or even Wycliffe's translation? shrug
Posted By: Tom Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:19 AM
Are those translations from the same transcripts that the KJV was translated from?
As an aside, I told him that the NKJV was translated from the same transcripts that the KJV was translated from. He told me that I was mistaken; despite the fact my NKJV said it is. I then asked him if he would accept a new translation translated from the same transcripts that the KJV was translated from. He said he absolutely would and wishes someone would do it.

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:29 AM
Isn't amazing that God preserved the integrity, infallibility and inerrancy of the writing of the Bible but evidently failed to preserve it throughout history until 1611 where He suddenly felt guilty for leading all His people astray for centuries by allowing all these 'fake' Bible translations to be read and believed. At least today, it is understandable that there are 'fake' translations but the genuine article is existent among them. Isn't that similar to the argument used by all the cults, i.e., there was no true church nor any true believers until Joseph Smith came along, OH..... no, until Charles Taze Russell came along.... OOPS!, no it wasn't until Mary Ellen White came along, Hmmmmmm, or was it Mary Baker Eddy?????????????? I guess you get my point. The consensus among thousands of scholars and men of God has overwhelming been that the original manuscripts of the original Holy Spirit guided men are infallible and inerrant. But despite the scribal errors, etc., which were inserted and deleted throughout history, not one single doctrine of Scripture was affected. They were speaking of Formal Equivalent translations, of course, and not any others which are more than obviously defective in major ways.
Posted By: Tom Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:28 PM
Pilgrim
Great way to put the whole matter in perspective.

What do you think of the claim that not one single English Bible version was translated from the same manuscripts that the KJV was translated from?
A friend of mine who is KJVO says that he would welcome a translation that was translated from the same manuscripts; but until then he will stick with the KJV.
I need to admit that the majority of my family that attends Church, are KJVO and a few old friends as well.
I am getting a bit tired of needing to bite my tongue when matters like this come up, when I am around them. Sigh...

Tom
Posted By: Meta4 Re: KJVO and Bible Inerrancy - Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:31 PM
Whether your friend accepts it or not, the New King James did use the same texts as the King James, and was intended to be an update (replacing thee's and thou's, etc.) as well as correcting errors within the KJV. The translators also referred to the other manuscripts, not for the purpose of translation, but in order to make note of the differences. I use the NKJ extensively, and that is one of the things that I particularly like about it, that the footnotes show the variations found in the NU, the Majority Text, etc. It is a little like having an NASB right there for comparison.
© The Highway