Biggest errors in the KJV?

[Dachaser]

MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?

You gave what my understanding of the scriptures being translated exactly.

 

[Dachaser]

David,

Which describes what you are asserting?

Error is to be expected in all translation endeavors.

or

Error is to be expected in all translation endeavors requiring a lengthy process of time.

The process of translation involves working from a source text that is not perfect copy of the Originals, so when we translate off them, there would be by necessity a small amount of time when some copying mistakes/scribal additions were carried over in the translation process.
Just was saying there we have no perfect, no mistakes/errors at all, translations.

 

[Dachaser]

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
​

This quotation is from the Preface to the Reader of the King James Version. It was talking about translations done at the time, not more modern translations, obviously, but the thrust of it is clear: we have the word of God even with an imperfectly translated version of it. Presumably they would have said the same thing about more modern translations had they been available, though, of course, that is somewhat speculative. But the tenor of the Preface is generous to other translations, not parsimonious. One could wish that modern advocates of any translation, be it KJV or otherwise, who think that other translations are rot, would take these words to heart.

I am just suggesting that there cannot be the KJVO position, or applied towards any other translation, as none of them were inspired by God, as the Originals were from Him.

 

[KMK]

I am just suggesting that there cannot be the KJVO position, or applied towards any other translation, as none of them were inspired by God, as the Originals were from Him.

It sounds like you are saying that, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them."

This is something that all of us wholeheartedly affirm.

I think it is time to put the brakes on this merry go round.