GuySmiley
Well-known member
You keep telling us there are errors in this Bible, where is the inerrant version?
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You need to understand that inerrant does not mean free from typographical errors. Some errors are errors while other errors are not errors. It's double think required to hold a KJV-only position.
brandplucked
New member
Cabinet Maker's "inerrant" bible - Hah!
Cabinet Maker's "inerrant" bible - Hah!
Originally Posted by brandplucked
If any of you ever get around to actually identifying this "inerrant Bible" you sometimes pretend to believe in, you only show that you have no idea what you are talking about and you end up contradicting yourselves.
CabinetMaker. Your claim that the every changing NIVs, which alter their own texts again and again, is the inerrant words of God would mean that there never has been an inerrant bible until (you pick) 1977?, 1984 or 2011. Not even the people who keep churning out this Vatican Version believe it is the inerrant words of God. You might be the only one who does.
Many examples of how corrupt this comic book, Vatican version called the NIV really is.
What about the NIV 2011?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/whatabouttheniv2011.htm
Quote:
God Himself has born witness to this one Bible far more than to any other in all of history.
Lots of evidence. If you really want to see it (which I doubt) here are some examples -
God's Historic Witness to the Absolute Truth of The King James Holy Bible.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm
Cabinet Maker's "inerrant" bible - Hah!
Originally Posted by brandplucked
If any of you ever get around to actually identifying this "inerrant Bible" you sometimes pretend to believe in, you only show that you have no idea what you are talking about and you end up contradicting yourselves.
CabinetMaker. Your claim that the every changing NIVs, which alter their own texts again and again, is the inerrant words of God would mean that there never has been an inerrant bible until (you pick) 1977?, 1984 or 2011. Not even the people who keep churning out this Vatican Version believe it is the inerrant words of God. You might be the only one who does.
Many examples of how corrupt this comic book, Vatican version called the NIV really is.
What about the NIV 2011?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/whatabouttheniv2011.htm
Quote:
God Himself has born witness to this one Bible far more than to any other in all of history.
Lots of evidence. If you really want to see it (which I doubt) here are some examples -
God's Historic Witness to the Absolute Truth of The King James Holy Bible.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm
brandplucked
New member
Can you read English, sir?
Can you read English, sir?
Guy, can you read English, sir? I said that any Cambridge King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today is the inerrant words of God and so is the one that you will see at that site I posted.
Happy Trails,
Can you read English, sir?
Guy, can you read English, sir? I said that any Cambridge King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today is the inerrant words of God and so is the one that you will see at that site I posted.
Happy Trails,
As I said previously, you do not believe in an inerrant Bible either. The difference between us is that I don't claim to. The very Bible you stated was your inerrant Bible was shown to have a mistake in it. Mistake = error = not inerrant.
Possible Brandplucked responses to the above:
1. The mistakes in the KJB that I use are not errors, just printing errors.
2. The mistakes in the KJB that I use are not errors, just unimportant spelling, syntax or idiom edits.
3. There are mistakes in my KJB (whether important or unimportant) but the original, correct version is pure. I know this by faith and faith alone.
4. Other Bible translations are much worse than my KJB. And no one else has or lays claim to a 100% inerrant version.
5. OK, my Bible has mistakes in it. I agree there hasn't been a 100% inerrant KJB available to the general public until today and if the presently available one is inerrant, I have no means of verifying that.
In case you or anyone else reading this doesn't understand the significance of the above, let me spell it out:
1. A printing error is still an error.
2. 'Unimportant' is a hugely subjective term. A lower case or an upper case S makes a big difference. Betwen the 1611 and the 1769 versions, there were tens of thousands of changes. Even if you could prove that these were all cosmetic, you can no longer say that the KJB was the work of the original translators only. It simply wasn't. Right up to the present day, it is the work of the translators, the translators of the Bishops Bible before it, the work of editors and correctors after it.
3. The fact is that you are unable to point to ANY version which is pure.
4. What other Bible translations are like has nothing to do with anything. Instead it only adds to the perception of double-standards on your part because you criticise the many revisions these other versions appear to be going through whilst failing to recognise that the KJB also is a work of ongoing revision and correction.
5. Yes, let's be honest.
Last edited:
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Yes, I read English. I can't seem to reconcile that the KJV has errors, and that I can hold an inerrant KJV in my hands. I learned both of those things from you in English.
You really need to get more specific because you keep telling people to go look at or buy versions that have errors.
The Cambridge Bible is the finest quality and binding in the world. Oxford is second.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Simply being the best isn't good enough for brandplucked, it must be inerrant.
They Holy Spirit has no control over people typing into a word processor for printing, only in written words with a pen and lamb skin.
It seems to have taken 400 years to get the KJB right. Just in time for when the language is once again so hard for ordinary people to read that a new 100% inerrant translation is needed. The downside for English supremacists is God has decided to do it in Mandarin...
Of your recent points DR, these stood out to me. And regarding your first point above, what do you think of this claim: A printing error is the same as a scribal or copyist error. Thus errors/differences between KJBs are conceptually similar to errors in original language manuscripts.
- Bob
I have family members that have recently left a KJVO church because of emotional abuse by mentally ill members in that church. The KJVO movement does seem to attract unbalanced people.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
KJVO believers should be quarantined, and possibly exterminated.
We are a dangerous bunch, protesting outside of "Christian" bookstores.
We are a dangerous bunch, protesting outside of "Christian" bookstores.
This could be taken to mean that you don't think a person that believes the many translations are a robust way to transmit God's word is not a Christian. Is that what you mean?
I guess that would depend on what constitutes an error in the bible. How do you define an error? Is it something that is a matter of degree? Wouldn't believing in the original autographs be believing in the inerrant words of God?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Would this be making "the originals" an idol?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually, no. The item previously linked, while speaking of contemporary notions of transmission and preservation, uses logic equally applicable to the received texts by the church at the time of the creation of the KJB.
If you would slow down a wee bit with the itchy-trigger vitriol, brother, you may discover some are actually on your side just a wee bit.
AMR
Yes, agree entirely. It's like today when you write something and yu make a mittake or two. And you call it a 'typo'. It's exactly like when children proclaim 'I didn't mean it!'
At the back of this is that old Platonic philosophy: ever the notion that there is a perfect example of everything in cyberspace somewhere. 100% inerrancy is just such a fundamentally Platonic idea. The perfect soul emprisoned in the dreadful and damnable physical body. In all areas of life, adherents of this philosophy must live in utter frustration. You can't so much as sit down on a chair without it being an imperfect one. Your thoughts are constantly drawn to how bad it is as a chair; you see all the imperfections in the grain of the wood, the creaking movements, the stains from spilt coffee and so on.
We, however, as opennists, (perhaps I should say realists, meaning that we believe in just one world, not two) take the world as God's very good creation. It is there to be enjoyed. It is after all, all we have. 100% inerrancy is an affirmation that the real world which God has made, and in particular his work of inspiration of men to make the scriptures, is not good enough.
And you would have to ask KJVOnlyists how far the concept of inerrancy goes. For example, if you have two words which in the context are synonymous such as 'Remain here until I tell you!' against 'Stay here until I tell you'. Now on what basis would you say that one version was inerrant but the other was not? This is very relevant to KJVO discussion because in 1611 it was a totally accepted feature of the language that written words did not need to be consistent in their spelling. But by 1769, the language had definitely changed. I mean, I would say that the notion that spelling should be consistent was a significant difference in the language. And not only were the spellings rationalised but vocabulary choices were also made. Clearly, the 1769 versions were not identical with the 1611 ones, no matter how much KJVOnlyists argue that only cosmetic changes were made. If they argue that a vocabulary change was not a significant change then that is an admission that inerrancy is limited to the underlying meaning of a text, not the actual words used to express it. And if the inerrant text can be happily altered to suit changes in the language, then why can it not again be altered? Once again, the Platonic principle in operation.
Last edited:
There may be a few typographical errors between the editions but that does not compromise the authority and accuracy of the NIV.
None of that is evidence, it is just assertions based on a preconceived conclusion. Try again. Show us where GOD Himself has born witness to the KJV.
That's a good question. If I answer this question calmly and straightforwardly, will you answer my questions calmly and straightforwardly?