[Cody1611]

After stating that I am a KJVO, someone linked me to this website. What do you guys that about this and what would you tell that person about this article?

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong[

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Cody1611

After stating that I am a KJVO, someone linked me to this website. What do you guys that about this and what would you tell that person about this article?

You're not going to like my response.

After running this web site for 13 years, I no longer bother with such questions. I learned early on that if I make it my job to give account for every minutia of translation in the KJV, I would be able to do nothing else. Nor do I care to spend the time in "the originals" (their copies) that would entail. No matter how many verses you defend in the KJV, they will have yet more rabbit trails of translation they demand you traverse.

Instead, I recommend reading Crowned With Glory, because it tackles the most well-known "errors" in translation in the KJV. It hits the "big ones" and shows why the KJV is not mistranslating or wrong in various passages.

It is usually more profitable to focus on the transmission of the text and the unholy reliance upon corrupt humanistic texts that modern translators have. We can prove that the text underlying the modern versions is corrupt. Once that is done, we can show why the KJV is correct on several "problem texts" -- and this is done in Crowned With Glory. But at some point, faith must reign supreme over our intellectual pursuits. You are not going to convince a modernist that the KJV is God's word without error no matter how many of his challenges you answer. And time spent doing so is time not spent studying the perfect words of God.

Don't get me wrong. I think apologetics is great -- obviously I run an apologetics website. But personally, I have better things to do than run down a list of so-called "mistakes" in the KJV every time someone emails me a list. Such emails go right into the trash bin and have for many years now. I just don't have the time.

Ditto Diligent,
That is what I was thinking when I read this laundry list of so called mistakes. I have no desire to fall into this unbelievers trap and waste my time either, he will no doubt find more, even if every point was answered. I did, howeve, relay this to another forum just in case some one there has the time and wants to follow this trail and deal with some of these. Some one on the edge of believing the KJB might get the idea that KJB defenders by not responding are admitting that the KJB is not what we claim it is. Your suggestion of Crowned WIth Glory" is an excellent approach.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Clyde Harris

Your suggestion of Crowned WIth Glory" is an excellent approach.

By the way, Dr. Holland gave me permission to post excerpts of his book on this website. The KJBP Faq page has quite a few of them under "Answers to criticisms of specific verses in the KJV." Crowned With Glory is also part of the SwordSearcher Bible Software library.

Why don't the scholars have a bible they think is absolutely correct after the hundreds of years of Bible translating? You'd think one of them would have produced one by now. Maybe they would fear being out of a job? The KJB's longevity alone attests to the fact God has honoured it, and still honours it.

[Luke]

The problem they are having is easily fixed. They are looking at a Westcott and Hort text, and then noticing there are all these things in the KJB that aren't in the westcott and hort greek text.

Luke, they don't even agree with each other. Final Authority scares some people.

[bibleprotector]

they don't even agree with each other

Yes, there is really no final authority in the original languages today, and even all the editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with each other. As for Codex Aleph (Sinai) and Codex B (Vatican), they are disagreeing with each other more so. I am glad that God has produced one Bible version that is fit to be the worldwide standard!

[Debau]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Yes, there is really no final authority in the original languages today, and even all the editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with each other. As for Codex Aleph (Sinai) and Codex B (Vatican), they are disagreeing with each other more so. I am glad that God has produced one Bible version that is fit to be the worldwide standard!

I was surprised this did not get a response.
I'd like to know what standard of Received Text you believe your Bible is based on, and clarification on "no final authority in original languages". Is the Bible you read based on a faulty text? If not, what principles of textual criticism was used to arrive at this conclusion?
It was disturbing as your wording makes the comparison of the TR to the W+H, with the TR just not disagreeing "more so".
Are you also claiming double inspiration?
Maybe you answered some of these in your other posts. If you have a synopsis, short-condensed answer if possible, that would be appreciated. You can refer me to your site or posts.
Just curious.

[geologist]

Originally Posted by Diligent

After running this web site for 13 years, I no longer bother with such questions. I learned early on that if I make it my job to give account for every minutia of translation in the KJV, I would be able to do nothing else. Nor do I care to spend the time in "the originals" (their copies) that would entail. No matter how many verses you defend in the KJV, they will have yet more rabbit trails of translation they demand you traverse.

I agree with your position. It is Biblical:

Ec*1:15 - That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.