how can Christians say that the kjv has no errors?

Question

take a look at it

According to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. But Luke also wrote that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem for a census by Quirinius while she was still pregnant, and this event has been dated at 6 A.D., or ten years after Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. There have been no historical records to indicate that any Roman census was held prior to 6 A.D.

now many will say it was heords son not Herod's the great but if u read Matt 2:22 saying that jesus did not return from Egypt till his son Herod took over so how can u say that there is no error in it

Answer 1

KJV was not based on early manuscripts, and is not considered to be the most accurate Biblical translation bu anyone other than certain fundies. Most Biblical scholars recommend the New Revised Standard Version.

If the KJV is so accurate, how come God did not prepare similar translations for non-English speakers?

Answer 2

The KJV does have errors due to errors in translation. But your example is not an error in the Bible, it is an error in knowing history.

To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.

But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.

There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."

A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.

Scholars have advanced a number of other altogether viable explanations which would allow Luke's record (and therefore the Bible) to continue to be regarded as 100% trustworthy.

Answer 3

There are errors of translation. If not why are there so many versions of the Bible (I know of 26 alone). I believe the Bible to be the work of God as long as it is translated correctly. I believe that because man translated the Bible the the KJV was not the 1st translation so there are errors, but I believe that God did give guidance for the translation but the because the Bible was not compiled until the 4th Century BC that some records were lost and some things while may have given one meaning when Jesus was alive but by the time Alexander the Great had the Bible compiled some things held different meaning (look at us know compared to just 100 yrs ago and from England to the US). I know many Christian who feel the same way. But the Bible does give us the word of God and while there may be errors it is still an inspired book of his word.

Answer 4

I evaluate PaulCyp, bill and TLS. mutually as the KJV became as quickly as the usually going on available translation available in 1611, it truly did not grab on till the 1800s. The Pilgrims and distinctive American colonists used the Geneva Bible, completed in 1560. It wasn't till approximately 1780 some concern mutually as the accepted printing in united states of america of america of the Oxford replace to the KJV, which completed in 1769 that the KJV truly began to snatch on. From the 1780s till the Nineteen 1940s, the KJV became as quickly as the usually going on available translation. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that for the rationalization that then lots older manuscripts were located, which could be extra effective than a million,000 years older than the KJV translators had get right of entry to to, were the inspiration of modern translations such as a results of fact the RSV, NASB, NIV and ESV. countless who've spoke back this question by using saying KJV is the usually going on as a results of actuality that is located on the gained text textile. everybody who has studied the Bible's formed languages is easily-known with of that the gained text textile isn't an particularly properly Greek text textile. and those that spoke back this question claiming that the KJV is high quality as a results of actuality that is located on the gained text textile, ought to not be conscious that the gained text textile is in elementary terms a duplicate of the Greek New testomony and says not something approximately what the 39 books of the old testomony is located upon. I come to a variety upon NIV and ESV.

Answer 5

Because they are too concerned with trying to hold onto a failed literal interpretation of a spiritual, poetic, and metaphorical text which was never intended to be taken literally in the first place.
How about the fact that Yahweh sent the flood waters to kill all the Nephilim (and the people they influenced if we are to believe the typical Christian interpretation) but the Nephilim are mentioned as living in Canaan in the post-Exodus period???
How about God is love... except!!!...
The KJV is a translation of a translation of several other translations... it's very obvious that 'ol Seamus got the Reed Sea and the Red Sea mixed up for starters!
We're talking about a man who could barely speak English, and he's going to have it translated INTO English???

Answer 6

Ever read Philo or Josephus?There are no errors whatsoever in the 1611 King James Bible...which is God's Word.Thousands of seemingly contradictions or errors,but none truly exist.Each and every one of them can be factually and historically explained to any intelligent individual willing to accept truth and correction.Based on the pure Antioch texts the King James needs no help from compromisers saying it is spiritually sound,but has errors.I wouldn't give it the time of day if that were true.All the false bibles are based on trashcan[literally found in a monastery wastebasket] corrupted texts from Alexandria.

Answer 7

They just take it on faith. I think the KJV is most pleasing to the ear, but it is a terrible translation. ( If I recall correctly it is an english translation of erasmus's greek translation of an inferior 12th centruy manuscript.)


idaho girl - Alexander the Great? You mean the guy who lived three or four hundred years before christ?

Answer 8

The KJV is an English translation of a set of specific manuscripts. Key word: TRANSLATION! Discoveries have been made over the years and more reliable translations have been made, and even then, translations are just that: translations; they will never perfectly transfer over the idioms, figures of speech, and words into English contained in the original languages.

Answer 9

There are errors and inconsistencies in the Bible historically, scientifically and logically that can be pointed out upon request.

Most people don't actually study it in detail...too bad. I would sincerely urge people to do so.

Answer 10

those are not errors of translation, the kjv is an true and 100 per cent authentic translation, guided by God with the Secretaries of King James.