If you believe that the KJV is inerrant and inspired, the onus is on you to make that case. Meanwhile, Christians for 2,000 years have believed that the original autographs (written by the Bible writers) were inspired - not human translators or fallible translations (including the KJV). With all due respect, you are departing from what we have held to be true for 2,000 years.
You know, it's funny that the phrase "inerrant" didn't come about until recently.
As a matter of fact, "inerrancy" may be implied, for the most part, since the 1640's, the term used was "infallible".
If I had to chose between "inerrant" and "infallible" (Infallible is just a stronger form of inerrant) I would use "inerrant.
Why?
If you follow what the scriptures teach us from the New Testament, there is no way possible you can "fail". Along with that, there is the view that "inerrant" allows for mistakes, while "infallible" allows for none.
I have been involved in a debate in another thread, where the OP is definitely a "KJV Onlyist"!
In the 1500's, when "textual criticism" was in its "infancy", not long after Erasmus issued his edition, the debate started. Perhaps one of the most famous is the "Comma Johanneum". (1 Jn. 5:7-8)
It wasn't until somebody produced a Greek MSS that contained the passage, that Erasmus conceded and included it. (Even though it was generally believed that 1 Jn. 5:7-8 and the Greek MSS that contained it, was only about 200 years old)
But, with or without those two verses, would the doctrine of the "trinity" stand or fall?
No, simply because the doctrine is seen in some many other places.
And as late as the 1970's, the debate on 1 Jn. 5:7-8 was still raging.
Lets also not forget the last nine verses of Mark 16.
At least two of the oldest Codices, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Vatican's own Codex Vaticanus, (complete NT) neither contain them. That is still being debated today!
There are several scriptures in the King James Version of the Gospels where the phrase "Holy Ghost" is used.
Fact, in the gospels, in the Greek, the phrase "Holy Ghost" cannot be found.
In reference to the "Comforter", the Third Person of the God-head, He is always referred to as "pneuma". We have this term from Luke's account in Acts at Pentecost. Acts was, for all intents and purposes, written before all the Gospels except maybe Mark, which was written around AD 63-66, when Luke was 3/4 through writing Acts.
"Pneuma" meaning "air" is where we get our term "pneumatic" anything "air driven". Luke uses this term when he describes the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost. (a mighty rushing wind)
In Luke 4:1, we have the phrase Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost.
Luke, writing his gospel, uses the right term. (pneumtoi)
The KJ translators, rendered it wrong. Period!
While "technically" it is an error, it is only an error in rendering. It does not change any fact.
And here is another fact.
Erasmus, when he submitted one of his editions to be printed, the printers did not agree to some of it. They made additions. And to this day, those "additions" are still to be found in the KJV.
"Erasmus did not compile his own Greek text from the manuscripts at his disposal, few as they were; instead, Codices 2e and 2ap themselves served as the printer’s copy for all the NT except Revelation. They still contain Erasmus’ corrections written between the lines of the text and occasionally in the margins, which came from the other four manuscripts, though he made little use of some of them.(50) A comparison between the manuscripts used by the printer and the printed text indicates that the printer did not accept every correction that Erasmus proposed, and that the printer made some revisions not authorized by Erasmus.(51)
For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r). Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.(52) For example, in
Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word ajkavqarta (“impure”), but Erasmus’ text reads ajkaqavrthto", a word unknown in Greek literature. In a similar fashion, the words kai; parevstai (“and is to come”) in 17:8 were misread as kaivper e[stin (“and yet is”).(53) These and other errors produced by the scribe who made the copy of Revelation for the printer are still to be found in modern editions of the TR, such as the widely used version published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.(54)
"
50) Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” p. 751; Bo Reicke, “Erasmus und die neutestamentliche Textgeschichte,”
Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (July–August 1966): 259.
51) Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” p. 755.
52) Rummel,
Erasmus’ Annotations
on the New Testament, p. 38. Some of these errors can conveniently be found in Frederick H. Scrivener,
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1874), pp. 382–83, n. 2.
53) The marginal note in the old
Scofield Reference Bible corrects this error (p. 1346).
54) H KAINH DIAQHKH. This version is subtitled
The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611. My copy is not dated, though it was published in 1976. See Andrew J. Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations: A Brief History of the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1831–1981 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981), p. 130.
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, William Combs, Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 1, Spring 1996, p.46
It just staggers the imagination what lengths some people go to to justify the KJV Only position.
God Bless
Till all are one.
