The Wrong Standard of Error - Continued

Listening to Steve Schwenke, I came across an argument that echoed Jack McElroy's claim (rebutted here) that the King James translators made choices, not errors. Specifically, in his January 5, 2023, video ("Response to Mark Ward's Avoiding Ruckmanism"), Steve Schwenke states:

45:40-50:00

Why should I acknowledge that there are errors if there are none? Why should I acknowledge that? This is again an attempt to bully and intimidate people: 'You don't want to be a Ruckmanite do you?' Well I don't know about you I don't want to be a Martiniite. I don't want to follow this guy, I'd rather follow Ruckman than that guy.  I'm just saying you know there's vile and then there's vile.  Strange choice of bedfellows. 'Publicly acknowledge that there are errors.' Okay. What is an error? What is an error? Now I've been discussing and debating this with people for for the last 30 years and the people who have said that there are errors in the King James Bible have not really shown an error.  An error would have to be one of three things: that there is absolutely no manuscript support for a particular reading whatsoever, that there is absolutely no precedent set for the way that it was translated, or that there's absolutely no possible way for any given passage or reading to be translated the way that it was.  That would constitute an error. The errors that have been shown to me - so-called errors - are a preferential choice of a different reading. Meaning, instead of taking the Texas receptus they took the critical text. That does not constitute an error, that constitutes a preferential choice. Another so-called error is that they didn't like the way the King James translators translated a passage. Even though there may have been maybe precedent for the way that they translated it, they didn't like the way it was translated - that's a preference, that's a choice, that is not an error. Or, they didn't like the way that they defined a term. In other words, as in English some words have multiple definitions, so it is in Greek and in Hebrew: many words have multiple different ways that they can be translated and many of these so-called errors are basically choosing a different option. Instead of definition one, they choose definition five. That's not an error, that's a preferential choice. So in my 30 years of discussing this with people, I have yet to find anyone who actually can give an error - an actual error.  Now many people would say that - for instance - "1 John 5:7 is an error. It was added to the text." And this is one place where there is not a lot of manuscript support for that reading: 1 John 5:7.  But there is sufficient - and there is sufficient historical evidence to suggest that it was part of the text. And I'm not going to delve into all of the nitty-gritty details of it. And again this comes back to Faith: are we going to use rationalism are we going to use faith? There is sufficient reason for us to believe that it that it had a good probability of being part of the text and the uh the arguments used against it -- there's sufficient reasoning -- there is not enough evidence for me to say 'oh, the King James Bible translators made an error.' There is sufficient evidence to support the reading. Not liking the wording or syntax does not constitute an error. Not choosing an alternative definition does not constitute an error. And choosing an alternative reading from a different source does not constitute error. So no, I do not publicly acknowledge that there are errors in the King James, other than what we would call scribal errors. Yes, printing errors where a word is misspelled or something of that nature. That is the human hand. But we're talking about the translation itself and the translation itself is without error. 

First, if Steve is going to use this standard of "error" he's going to have to say that there are no errors in any of the modern versions (aside from printers' errors or errors that the KJV itself makes).  They too are making preferential choices.

Second, Steve should realize that a preferential choice can still be an error.  Look at the examples in the histories recorded in the Bible where people made preferential choices and those choices were errors. 

Third, the KJV at Revelation 16:5 is an example of the first category of error that Steve identifies.  This is a case where there is not just slim manuscript support, but no manuscript support.   

Fourth, the KJV at Hebrews 10:23 translates ἐλπίδος as "faith" instead of "hope," which seems to meet the "unprecedented" standard.

Fifth, the KJV at 1 John 5:7 has extremely limited manuscript support. If the insertion of the three heavenly witnesses is not an "error" because the manuscript support is sufficient, than it should be acknowledged that the phrase "και εσμεν" (and so we are!) in 1 John 3:1 is not an error in those modern versions that include it.  More paradoxically, if the support for the insertion is sufficient, then the support for the omission of 1 John 5:7 must be even more sufficient!  So, both leaving out the heavenly witnesses is not an error and including the heavenly witnesses must not be an error, by this bizarre standard of what is an error.

My suspicion is that this mischaracterization of what constitutes an error comes from a common source, presumably a well known advocate for the King James translation.