Featured KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"

So, much ado about nothing. I've come to see that's typical for those who try to make a cottage industry manufacturing purported KJB 'errors'. I hope the OP isn't going down that path.

 

And even somewhat similarly today, as Dictionary.com gives as "3. distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold:" [emp. mine]

 

So which is it? "Be weak, sick"? Or "incurably diseased"? If it can mean both things then why can it not also mean "desperately wicked"?

Can you list every occurrence of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament for us, since most of the other bibles you listed were not from the Hebrew but other languages?

Ok. This bible follows your definition.

What about Coverdale and Matthew's Bible and Great Bible? "Desperately wicked" and "deceitful" could be considered equal.

 

VERY circular reasoning by KJVO, as they claim that the modern version delete much of the Bible, but that assumes that their TR is best to what the originals stated!

 

His rule is still valid, as those who state otherwise are not using the comparison as was intended!

 

"Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp's rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^ [1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions."
ttps://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule

 

According to Young's Concordance it is also found in:
Jeremiah 17:16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.

What about sick and incurable?

 

Of course it matters what the English word meant at the time it was used, and is especially relevant when it can refer to disease that is severe or malignant -- similar to the very meaning you give for “ʼânash”.

Also, are you suggesting that “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased” exhausts the entire semantic range of the Hebrew word “ʼânash”?

 

Perhaps a word from the 1611 Translators themselves should be heard. This is only a snippet from the section titled.......

Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously

The Translators to the Reader

 

How do you know what the Hebrew means except through uninspired modern men and uninspired dictionaries?

 

The truth of this matter was posted by Jerome in post number 21.
"
Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"


The 1611 Translators were excellent here. SBG prefers a different translation? So there is no actual mistranslation, but a difference on choice of words. There will always be differences on word choices even by the same translator.