Featured KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

You may believe your stated opinions, but you do not prove them to be true.

I believe that in at least some places, another English Bible translation is clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV in its renderings of God's preserved words when compared to those words. My belief can be more soundly supported from actual verifiable facts than KJV-only claims for the KJV are.

 

I'm not trying to prove them to be true.
I'm simply stating my opinions, the same as you are.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

But we've been over this before, and to me, you've misidentified me as part of a group that holds to some unproveable claims...
I am not "KJVO" in the sense that I believe it to be the only translation in the English that contains the word of God.
I just happen to believe what I've stated in my prior posts...
I think that it's the best one available, at this current time, in my native tongue.


Thank you for your understanding sir,
and may God bless you with wisdom as you carefully examine the claims of others who post on this forum as well;
Whether they hold to modern English translations that make use of the Critical Text in the Greek, or if they are in agreement with men like Peter Ruckman.

While I value your opinions, I regrettably find that I don't always agree with them.
Good evening to you.

 

We differ in our views on the very nature of inspiration, something more fundamental than the KJVO position.
All these anti-KJV threads reveal an obsession, and therefore conviction.

 

Nothing dishonest about not satisfying your seeking a quarrel over something that is not relevant to the discussion. Whether I am KJ-Only or MV-All does not hinder you from making your case about Jeremiah 17:9.

My views are public and not hidden. However, I don’t think every post about the Bible and its words has to revolve around discussing KJVO. Were I convinced that you just want to know my position about the versions debate, I would have already pointed you to where I have discussed it. It has no place in this thread other than to give you what you might think is a talking point or argumentum ad hominem.

Now letʼs review the discussion a bit.

• In the OP, you asserted that the Hebrew word “ʼânash” (used in Jeremiah 17:9, et al.) only means “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased”. As such, the word “wicked” in the Geneva and King James Bibles wrongly translates the Hebrew word “ʼânash”.
• The logical extension of your point, if correct, also means that every Bible that does not translate “ʼânash” in terms of “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased” are also wrongly translated. If sick or incurable is the only correct translation, then corrupt, deep, depraved, disastrous, perverse, stubborn, and unsearchable must all be wrong as well.
• You have given the Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon as support for your definition, though it is not clear in your statement whether that the BDB says “ʼânash” only means what you say, and/or whether those meanings exhaust the entire semantic range of the word.
• Your point relates to the agreement or disagreement of the Hebrew and English words. It has been shown from the OED that in the time period in which the Geneva and King James Bibles were translated, the English word “wicked” includes the same connotation as you give for the Hebrew word. (Yet you have said that does not matter.)
• If the meaning of the English word “wicked” does not matter, then your entire argument falls to the ground, and it would not matter how any Bible translates the word “ʼânash”. That is, if the English word does not matter, why are we discussing an English word as if it matters?

I have had the same question in my mind. Since the thread was originally published in the “Baptist Theology & Bible Study” forum, and since the creator of the thread seems only troubled by the word “wicked,” I have wondered whether this (the heart being wicked) is something he considers a theological issue. Only the original poster can answer that.

 

You are not remembering correctly, as a review of the thread will prove. You twice are me if I were KJVO (see posts 39 and 45), before I asked if you were a KJV-hater (in post 48). My intent was a rhetorical retort, and like your question, has no bearing on whether or not you can or will make the case about the translation and word choice in Jeremiah 17:9.

I differ with the conclusion that the same English word must be used to translate the same Hebrew word in every case where it is used. To suggest such drains all range of meaning or connotation from a word in the contextual uses. For example, very few translations agree with using the idea of sick or incurable in reference to a day (Jeremiah 17:16).

 

And yet you singled out the KJV for something that a host of other versions do, as has been pointed out.

Your title is "KJV Wrongly Translates".

c-o-n-v-i-c-t-i-o-n

 

Bull's eye.

 

Think Dr Wallace point was that on every case where the Rule is applied as intended to be, would always be shown as being proven correct...

 

So would be all English translations then that were accurately translated, such as the Kjv, but also Nkjv/Esv/Nas!

The real truth is that inspiration ONLY would be accorded to the Originals themselves!

 

NONE here are anti Kjv, just anti KJVO!

 

KJV-only advocates have failed to demonstrate from the Scriptures that the very nature of inspiration leads to a modern KJV-only theory.

The Bible doctrine of inspiration connects the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Therefore, that indicates that the process of inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament.

The Bible does not suggest that the process of giving of the Scriptures by inspiration continued after the completion of the New Testament.

 

I will not try to speak for George, but what I have pointed out several times is that there are a number of versions which are not, in your words, faithful to the Hebrew, “desperately sick.” Translations do not have to specifically use “wicked” to be using a word that does not mean “desperately sick.”

Not for sure what you want us to see in this link, but...

Corrupt

• American Standard Version
• New Heart English Bible
• World English Bible

Deep

• Brenton Septuagint Translation

Fool yourselves

• Contemporary English Version

Hard

• Peshitta Holy Bible Translated

Incurably bad *

• NET Bible

Stubborn

• Bishops’ Bible
• Lamsa Bible

Unsearchable

• Coverdale Bible
• Douay-Rheims Bible
• Catholic Public Domain Version

Wicked

• A Faithful Version
• Geneva Bible of 1587 (the 1560 & 1599 Geneva have the same)
• King James Version (I didn’t list the British and American KJs separately, as they do)
• King James 2000 Bible
• New King James Version
• New Living Translation
• Webster’s Bible Translation

There are about 38 varying translations on this site, if I counted correctly, of which about half (19) use a connotation not clearly related to sickness.

* The NET Bible has “incurably bad,” which sort of mixes the ideas. Bad might refer to our health, or more often to someone’s character. I find this interesting since according to John Parkhurst's Hebrew and English Lexicon of 1828 (p. 9) the word that seems to tie the word “ʼânash” together in its various range of meaning is the word “bad.”

 

You must haven’t looked too far.

MEV: The heart is more deceitful than all things and desperately wicked; who can understand it?

NKJV: “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?