This is not an error, IMO, but one of the most interesting facts that I know about the KJV, or the Authorised Version, is that it was never actually officially authorised.
Maybe not that interesting to others, but to a sad Bible lover like myself it is.
There really are so many historical errors in all Bible's not just the KJV, that to claim inerrancy is to admit that you haven't really studied the Bible at all.
One historical inaccuracy in the KJV that has been corrected in many other versions is the claim in Judges 4:2
So the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.
As any one remotely familiar with near eastern history knows, there was never a 'king of Canaan', the area has never been a single polity ruled over by one king.
Other Bibles correct this error, for example, the NIV has:
So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.
The NIV inserts an 'a' into the verse to make it at least plausible.
Another feature of this thread is the actual lack of support for this alleged inerrancy. It appears that the KJV guys think that to make a statement is sufficient evidence.
For example, has anyone shown evidence of a census during the reign of Herod?
Regarding the age of the Earth, no one appears to acknowledge that the KJV has indeed given the age of the earth in its pages.
The 1701 version of the KJV included Bishop Ussher's chronology in its margins. His chronology gives a creation date of 4004 BCE, a date arrived at by genealogical calculations and other internal evidence.
If anyone is claiming inerrancy for any book they need to be able to provide evidence for all of its contents. Simply stating that there is no evidence to the contrary is no good. If you are claiming that some event happened, then what evidence do you have to support it?
An example of this would be the war described in Gen.14 between the allied forces of the five Cities of the Plain and the four king alliance led by king Chedorlaomer. No one has actually been able to identify any of the nine kings involved in the war in any extant external source, there is also no external evidence for this war.
Now, just because this war is invisible outside of the Bible does not make the Bible erroneous. But, if you are claiming accuracy then you need to provide evidence to support your claim.
The Bible is rife with historical errors, it is no big deal as it wasn't written primarily as a history book.
I think it would be a good idea to have a thread about the history and contents of the KJV, not a thread to argue in, but just to log the historical facts about the KJV. Interesting facts like the 'he' and 'she' versions of 1611, the 'wicked' version of the KJV, and how it continues to be the world's best-selling book.
Brian.