Featured KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Yup ! Just ask a ruckmanite or Will Kinney !

 

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

 

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?

Is that all they say it means?

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