KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

[SavedByGrace]

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.

So tell me why the KJV translators are right in choosing wicked only once, which is not what the Hebrew or Greek or Syriac means? The actual Hebrew word does not mean wicked. Regardless of what the meaning in English might have been at the time.

 

[Conan]

The English meaning matches the Hebrew meaning. The 1611 translators were brilliant. They, like every translator do not always choose the same word or words to translate the original. See the preface to the 1611 Version of the bible, under the section called .......
Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing.

Its the last section at the bottom of the page.

The Translators to the Reader

 

[SavedByGrace]

The English meaning matches the Hebrew meaning. The 1611 translators were brilliant. They, like every translator do not always choose the same word or words to translate the original. See the preface to the 1611 Version of the bible, under the section called .......
Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing.

Its the last section at the bottom of the page.

The Translators to the Reader

the KJV got it wrong, but some cannot imagine this to be true. Look for yourself and see how many follow their reading

Jeremiah 17:9 Parallel: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[rlvaughn]

why would the English matter, when the Hebrew, the language of the OT, and the LXX, Latin, Syriac, etc, never use words that mean "wicked!.

You ask why would the English matter, yet complain about the English word choice of wicked in the KJV as if it matters!! Since the English does not matter, why does it matter that they used wicked? Why are we even having this discussion if the English does not matter?

 

[SavedByGrace]

You ask why would the English matter, yet complain about the English word choice of wicked in the KJV as if it matters!! Since the English does not matter, why does it matter that they used wicked? Why are we even having this discussion if the English does not matter?

I am responding to your defense of the KJV's choice of "wicked", at this place only. It is the wrong English word, regardless of whether it was used this way when the KJV was made. Are you KJVO?

 

[Jerome]

The actual Hebrew word does not mean wicked. Regardless of what the meaning in English might have been at the time.

Recap:

SBG: the Hebrew verb means sick or diseased, so why did KJV use wicked in Jer. 17:9?
J: the English word wicked did have the meaning of sick or diseased then, per the Oxford English Dictionary.
SBG: Doesn't matter.

Huh?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Recap:

SBG: the Hebrew verb means sick or diseased, so why did KJV use wicked in Jer. 17:9?
J: the English word wicked did have the meaning of sick or diseased then, per the Oxford English Dictionary.
SBG: Doesn't matter.

Huh?

you don't get it? The KJV is WRONG in choosing "wicked" here, because the HEBREW does NOT mean WICKED! Simple

 

[rlvaughn]

I am responding to your defense of the KJV's choice of "wicked", at this place only.

SBG: Doesn't matter.

Actually, the main point of my posts is to question your entire premise that the Hebrew word only means sick or incurable. Various translators apparently have not thought so, such as those who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. They use a word that means deep, violent, or profound, but not sick or incurable. Did they wrongly translate it?

It is the wrong English word, regardless of whether it was used this way when the KJV was made.

SBG: Doesn't matter.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that this word has no range of meaning and that a word in the donor language must always be translated with the same word in the receptor language.

Are you KJVO?

SBG: Doesn't matter.

Are you a KJV-hater?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Actually, the main point of my posts is to question your entire premise that the Hebrew word only means sick or incurable. Various translators apparently have not thought so, such as those who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. They use a word that means deep, violent, or profound, but not sick or incurable. Did they wrongly translate it? You seem to be laboring under the assumption that this word has no range of meaning and that a word in the donor language must always be translated with the same word in the receptor language. Are you a KJV-hater?

First of, As I have already shown in the OP, the KJV with the Geneva, are the only two versions during this time that render the Hebrew as "wicked". Why? The leading Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, says the Hebrew means "be weak, sick", and has "incurable" for Jer. 17:9. The LXX is an imperfect translation and has in places chosen the incorrect Greek word for the Hebrew. I use the KJV, but not deluded into the KJVO stance!

 

[Van]

I have just looked through the first page of this thread, so if this is repetitive, my bad.

The Hebrew word translated as "crooked" by YLT is "aqob" (H6121) which appears to be best translated as polluted. The Hebrew word "anas" (H605) appears to be best translated as mortally ill.

Thus the heart is polluted and mortally ill, who can understand it?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have just looked through the first page of this thread, so if this is repetitive, my bad.

The Hebrew word translated as "crooked" by YLT is "aqob" (H6121) which appears to be best translated as polluted. The Hebrew word "anas" (H605) appears to be best translated as mortally ill.

Thus the heart is polluted and mortally ill, who can understand it?

Sounds better than the KJV

 

[Van]

Sounds better than the KJV

Yes, poor translations often support mistaken doctrines, thus careful and accurate translation efforts are very important.

 

[Conan]

you don't get it? The KJV is WRONG in choosing "wicked" here, because the HEBREW does NOT mean WICKED! Simple

It does mean wicked according to early modern english. Again, see post # 21.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It does mean wicked according to early modern english. Again, see post # 21.

you mean "wicked" was also used for "desease" at the time the KJV was written. I am not disputing this. What I am saying, is that the Hebrew verb used by Jeremiah in 17:9, does not mean "wicked". So the KJV translators had a choice of either "deseased", or "sick", or "wicked", and yet, along with the Geneva Bible, opted for "wicked", even though in none of the others occurrences of the Hebrew verb, do they so translate it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

These days if a Bible translation used "wicked" the youth will take it to mean "good"

 

[Conan]

you mean "wicked" was also used for "desease" at the time the KJV was written. I am not disputing this. What I am saying, is that the Hebrew verb used by Jeremiah in 17:9, does not mean "wicked". So the KJV translators had a choice of either "deseased", or "sick", or "wicked", and yet, along with the Geneva Bible, opted for "wicked", even though in none of the others occurrences of the Hebrew verb, do they so translate it.

What you are saying is that it would not be a good translation decision in todays time. I think everyone would agree. But in Early Modern English days, it was excellent, acceptable and correct.

 

[SavedByGrace]

What you are saying is that it would not be a good translation decision in todays time. I think everyone would agree. But in Early Modern English days, it was excellent, acceptable and correct.

Yeah but even then only in the KJV and Geneva Bible? Why did the other English versions not translate the Hebrew by "wicked"

 

[robycop3]

Guess this is where the Kjv "inspiration:" kicks in! The "Holy Spirit" revealed to them out of the blue to add it in!

Yup ! Just ask a ruckmanite or Will Kinney !

 

[Jerome]

These days if a Bible translation used "wicked" the youth will take it to mean "good"

These days if a Bible translation used "sick" the youth will take it to mean "good"

 

[rlvaughn]

First of, As I have already shown in the OP, the KJV with the Geneva, are the only two versions during this time that render the Hebrew as "wicked". Why?

Yet, you have shown that some of the other translations used words that do not mean sick or incurable, such as deep, stubborn, unsearchable. Why?

The leading Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, says the Hebrew means "be weak, sick"...

Is that all they say it means?

The LXX is an imperfect translation...

In your opinion, is that true only of the LXX? If not, how many translations do you believe are imperfect translations?