To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The revision of the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, undertaken towards the end of the Babylonian exile, a revision much more thorough than is commonly assumed, condemns as heretical the whole age of the Kings.
The admission of one man, either hereditarily or for life only, into the place of chief of a country, is an evidence of the infirmity of man. Nature has set up no difference between a king and other men; a king, therefore, is purely the creation of our own hands.
I'm now an agnostic but I grew up on the King James version, which I'm eternally grateful for.
The work of Henry James has always seemed divisible by a simple dynastic arrangement into three reigns: James I, James II, and the Old Pretender.
Scripture is not inerrant; believers are called to interpret biblical texts in light of tradition and reason.
These Scriptures, therefore, are infinitely far from justifying the slavery under consideration; for it cannot be made to appear that one in a thousand of these slaves has done any thing to forfeit his own liberty.
I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying, 'This is fiction.'
The goal of Bible translation is be transparent to the original text - to see as clearly as possible what the biblical authors actually wrote.
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian.