Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

[AVBunyan]

Here is the challenge - prove there are errors in a King James Bible.

The only rule - you can only use a current King James Bible as your source - No 1611 to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day King James Bible.

Yes, I understand that even today there are differences between King James Bibles due to modern-day typos, misprints and publishers taking liberties.

Again - use only a King James Bible to show there is error or errors.

Enjoy...

God bless

 

[Vic C.]

B, it would be futile for me to try and explain this without quoting the Greek TR or the brief commentary. Sorry bro. Please forgive me. :wink:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The second fold should read flock.

kai alla probata exw a ouk estin ek thv aulhv (<-- translated fold) tauthv kakeina me dei agagein kai thv fwnhv mou akousousin kai genhsetai mia poimnh (<-- translated flock) eiv poimhn (1894 TR)

kai alla probata exw a ouk estin ek thv aulhv tauthv kakeina me dei agagein kai thv fwnhv mou akousousin kai genhsetai mia poimnh eiv poimhn (1991 TR)

A flock and a fold are two different things.

... An important emblem in the parable is the fold itself. A fold is a compound or enclosure. It keeps the sheep together by creating a barrier that they cannot cross. The barrier is visible, tangible, and external to the sheep. Both kinds of sheep (those that belong to the shepherd and those that do not) are inside the fold....

... Jesus designed the parable to contrast the flock (poimne) with the fold (aule). The fold, national Israel, includes both believers and unbelievers. They are held together by the external marks of participation in visible Israel. The flock, however, includes only believersâ€â€only those who know and follow the shepherd’s voice. These, He says, He intends to lead out of national Israel. When we understand all of this, we will be prepared for the most surprising truth of all. In verse 16 Jesus gives the parable its punch line. He states that He has other sheep that are not of the fold (aule). Since the fold represents Israel, these sheep have to be Gentile believers. These sheep also hear the shepherd’s voice. What Jesus says next is breathtaking: there shall be one poimne (flock) with one poimen (shepherd).

http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/09/02/t ... for-unity/

 

[Atonement]

Sounds like something good for the One On One debate forum. We are trying to get that forum off the ground...

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, I'm not interested in a one on one debate, especially with my bud, AV.

This one example of a mistranslation bothered be, so I had to get it off my chest. lol ;-) The only other one I could think of is the unicorn one and that is meaningless as far as doctrine goes.

 

[Atonement]

No.. Vic I'm not saying that you debate him there. The Topic itself should have been started there and left for bait for someone to challange it..

 

[Oscar3]

This is way out of my leage.

 

[ChristineES]

Since I cannot read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, or whatever, I cannot take this challenge. But... are there errors in the KJV? How about the NIV, RSV, NRSV, The Good News Bible, The Living Bible, The Amplified Bible and so on, are there errors in those as well? :wink: :wink:

 

[unred typo]

Actually, I'm not interested in a one on one debate, especially with my bud, AV.

This one example of a mistranslation bothered be, so I had to get it off my chest. lol ;-) The only other one I could think of is the unicorn one and that is meaningless as far as doctrine goes.

What one is that? You don't believe in unicorns, Vic? :o :wink:

What is a unicorn anyways? Just an animal with only one horn...isn't that what the name means? Sounds like a rhino to me but even if it were more of a horse, so what? Extinct animals are plenty common. Stranger animals exist today, and if you want to see really wierd beasts, go to Revelation and Ezekiel. :o :o

 

[unred typo]

Here is the challenge - prove there are errors in a King James Bible.

The only rule - you can only use a current King James Bible as your source - No 1611 to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day King James Bible.
Yes, I understand that even today there are differences between King James Bibles due to modern-day typos, misprints and publishers taking liberties.

Again - use only a King James Bible to show there is error or errors.

Enjoy...
God bless

Why would anyone want to do that? Just to tear down someone’s weak faith? Personally, I have an infallible God, so I don’t need an infallible book but the Bible has certainly been proven to be more accurate and trustworthy than the average daily newspaper.

 

[AVBunyan]

B, it would be futile for me to try and explain this without quoting the Greek TR or the brief commentary. Sorry bro. Please forgive me. :wink:
John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
The second fold should read flock.

Oh Vic – I’ll be gracious here but the rule said no outside sources but I forgive ya for I think I understand your heart in the matter. What you did was to help prove part of what my post was trying to demonstrate and that is one cannot find an “alleged error†in a King James Bible using the AV alone. Folks have to be taught there are “alleged errorsâ€Â.

I’ll tell you what I believe the scriptures to teach Vic…the answer lies within the verse and comparing this verse with Ezek. 37:

John 10:16 And other sheep (tribes of Israel - northern tribes) I have, which are not of this fold: (the enclosure that encloses Judah) them (tribes of Israel - northern tribes) also I must bring, and they (tribes of Israel - northern tribes) shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold (enclosure that holds both Israel and Judah), and one shepherd (Christ).

See OT where Christ gets this from –

Ezek 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

Ezek 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

Ezek 37:18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?

Ezek 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Issue is not bringing together Israel and Gentile unbelievers but is talking about rejoining the 10 tribes of the north (Israel) with the two tribes of the South (Judah).

The "should be" is based upon the TR? It appears that there are different TR"s - different Greek? Could it be that men who translate and come up with TR's can take liberties just like modern-day publishers of King James Bibles take some liberties?

Vic - this is why I stick with the AV as my final authority.

Summary - fold works fine.

God bless

 

[Free]

What you did was to help prove part of what my post was trying to demonstrate and that is one cannot find an “alleged error†in a King James Bible using the AV alone.

:o

 

[ChristineES]

Why would anyone want to do that? Just to tear down someone’s weak faith? Personally, I have an infallible God, so I don’t need an infallible book but the Bible has certainly been proven to be more accurate and trustworthy than the average daily newspaper.

That is the truest statement on this thread. :fadein:

 

[AVBunyan]

Why would anyone want to do that? Just to tear down someone’s weak faith? .

One of the reasons for the thread is that in churches, colleges, forums, etc. folks are going to lexicons, the "originals", "LXXs", professors, modern versions, Bishops. Geneva bible, etc. and saying there are errors in the AV.

These folks are creating doubts and confusion whether they mean to or not and some really mean to - Gen. 3:1

All I am saying is without using outside sources show me the errors - nobody has done this yet.

Take an AV alone and prove error.

For the record - I do not believe it was Vic's intent to create confusion or doubt - I think I know Vic well enough.

God bless

 

[Solo]

The ole devil has attacked the Word of God from the Garden of Eden onward, and has attempted to keep the Word of God from the people throughout history. The latest attempt is the onslaught of modern translations that attack the truth through a Westcott Hort perspective. I appreciate the time and skill in which AV puts forth the truth of the versions of scripture and which is to be trusted and which is a devise of the enemy.
Thanks AV! :D

 

[AVBunyan]

The ole devil has attacked the Word of God from the Garden of Eden onward, and has attempted to keep the Word of God from the people throughout history. The latest attempt is the onslaught of modern translations that attack the truth through a Westcott Hort perspective. I appreciate the time and skill in which AV puts forth the truth of the versions of scripture and which is to be trusted and which is a devise of the enemy.Thanks AV! :D

Thanks Solo for the kind words and your short post summed it up quite well.

Folks often misunderstand why I do what I do regarding this issue. I vehemently believe that outside of scriptural justification the issue of authority is the most important for:

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If one does not have the real words of God then their Christian walk is lacking. And you are right – the devil has been counterfeiting and deceiving in this area since Gen. 3.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

Here is the challenge - prove there are errors in a King James Bible.

The only rule - you can only use a current King James Bible as your source - No 1611 to show spelling errors, typos, etc. - No manuscripts, Bishops, Geneva, etc. no "My professor says", etc. - You can only use an average modern-day King James Bible.

Yes, I understand that even today there are differences between King James Bibles due to modern-day typos, misprints and publishers taking liberties.

Again - use only a King James Bible to show there is error or errors.

Enjoy...

God bless

My, my. What a potent, yet impotent, Catch22 you've created. You have effectively (potently) rendered any legitimate authority outside of the KJV impotent. That's a loop-hole standard basing it upon itself, and it is a fallacy. You cannot remove the KJV from its resources from which it was translated, if you do you create a fallacy. And thus you cannot discredit other versions which have done similarly.

On another note, why do you care? Version disputes for any version are largely useless unless you can appeal to scholarship and not an arrogant claim to infallibility and inspiration for one's own version.

 

[cyberjosh]

But as for a translation that I believe the KJV got wrong is Habakkuk 2:6 which says, "Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay".

And I'm sorry but I have no choice to step out of Alice's wonderland and reference another version for comparison. The Hebrew word translated "thick clay" is now better known. It instead means "a pledge (for a loan)".

Newer endings to that verse:

NASB: "And makes himself rich with loans"

NKJV: "And to him who loads himself with many pledges"

P.S. Now if your thread was instead intended to determine if the KJV contradicts itself in its own terms then I would say no, because a Bible is a Bible and no matter what version it doesn't contradict itself. However errors can crop up upon mistranslation. Which type of proof for errors were you looking for?

 

[AVBunyan]

And I'm sorry but I have no choice to step out of Alice's wonderland and reference another version for comparison. The Hebrew word translated "thick clay" is now better known. It instead means "a pledge (for a loan)".

Yes, you did exactly what folks do - they wouldn't find "errors" except they look at other sources. Your source here is a NASB which is based upon a completely different set of manuscripts than what the AV is based upon. No wonder you found a different reading.

Why not study and pray over the passage. Simple enough to me - ever been loaded down with thick clay? I get the illustration.

Loans and pledges don't necessarily have to laden one down.

 

[Vic C.]

All I am saying is without using outside sources show me the errors - nobody has done this yet.

Take an AV alone and prove error.

For the record - I do not believe it was Vic's intent to create confusion or doubt - I think I know Vic well enough.

You are correct. No confusion was ever intended. You know by now that most my quotes are KJ and for good reason; I trust it's validity, but I don't trust it to a point of exclusiveness.

I quoted two versions of the TR for a reason, to show no variation in the text of John 10:16. I could quote from just about any of the Greek TR's revisions and still come up with the same results, fold and flock.

So what changed is my concern. My biggest problem is this; I don't believe that any English translation can be better than the manuscripts from which they were translated. Therefore, I don't feel the KJ is any better than the text(s) it was translated from. If I may use the words of Jesus:

Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Michael, I agree with what you said. I was never a fan of the Critical Text anyway and don't trust the world of Westcott-Hort either.

Peace all... fold or flock; relish the freedom you have, over the bondage of this world, through Jesus.

 

[cyberjosh]

Yes, you did exactly what folks do - they wouldn't find "errors" except they look at other sources.

Would you be kind enough to answer what I said about your proposition being a catch22 and a fallacy? If I'm wrong I'd like to hear a rebuttal. Also if you would answer my postscript on my second post perhaps you could clear up some confusion for me. Thanks.

Your source here is a NASB which is based upon a completely different set of manuscripts than what the AV is based upon. No wonder you found a different reading.

But the NKJV is based on the same TR that the KJV is and they both use the "laden" terminology also. Also how scholars found out about the change in the meaning of the Hebrew word was when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and they found the word in conjunction with a passage that demanded a translation of "loaning/a pledge to loan". The NKJV had confidence enough to make this change, and the only reason I know about it is because it is one of the largest changes (as in complete different meaning) made between the NKJV and KJV, other wise the NKJV is often closely adherent to the original meaning of the KJV.

Also the idea of loading one's self with thick clay is not contextually consistant with the reading of increasing that which is not yours, and it is rather confusing, while the newer readings make more sense, and thus the update.

And for the record I'm not here to point out that the KJV is a horrible translation (which it isn't). I love the KJV, and it is quite literal in the majority of places. I just don't agree that it is infallible.

Why not study and pray over the passage. Simple enough to me - ever been loaded down with thick clay? I get the illustration.

Loans and pledges don't necessarily have to laden one down.

Actually I could provide you several passages from Proverbs that say they do. Seriously, our church went through the majority of the book of Proverbs verse by verse (sometimes we would only get 5 or 6 verses in a night - it took several months) and I distinctly remember Proverbs condemning a man as a fool if he pledged to be a surety for another man.

But then again that may not even be the meaning of "laden" in this context. If the new reading is correct (which I believe it is) then it might imply that the people(s) were greedy, laying up wealth for themselves through many loans given to them (taking what was not theirs), not speaking of their wealth being a burden to them, and the newer translation seems to fit such an interpretation.