-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the KJV's rendering the most accurate in these ten passages?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
Is the KJV's rendering the most accurate in these ten passages?
Compared to what?
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Good article.
From “?fbclid=“ to the end of the tracking code can be deleted to display a shorter link.
Here is all you need for the link:
The author claims a PhD from "International Seminary." It's website looks very much like a degree mill to me: some "adjunct professors" without even a BA (for example, "Pastor Mae Chester"), others with only a bachelor's (a seminary prof should have at least a master's). Again, it looks like a Charismatic institution, which means IMO inferior Bible knowledge and a low academic level.
I'll stop there before I get myself into trouble.
I'll stop there before I get myself into trouble.
Anyway, let's take a look at his first passage, Mark 6:20, " For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly." He objects "a just man and an holy." This is perfectly proper English grammar, even in 2026. "An holy" clear has an antecedent in "man." Also, in proper English we put "an" before a word starting with a consonant. At any rate, the KJV simply stuck to the word order of the KJV. I have no problem with that.
His other objection to the KJV puts "protected" instead of "observed." The Friberg lexicon (Tim and Barbara Friberg, and Neva Miller) has "1) (carefully) keep in mind, preserve in memory (LU 2.19); (2) guard, protect, keep safe and sound (MK 6.20); passive be preserved (MT 9.17)." It seems to me that "keep in mind" is close to "observe," so I can't say the KJV is wrong here.
When Lantz says, "The Greek term simply means 'to protect,'" he is incorrect, as can be seen by the Friberg lexicon entry. Lantz seems to have the typical non-translator view that translation is simply finding a one-for-one correspondence between the languages. Though he has a PhD, he shows little understanding of Greek in this article, though he refers to the Greek in the article.
His other objection to the KJV puts "protected" instead of "observed." The Friberg lexicon (Tim and Barbara Friberg, and Neva Miller) has "1) (carefully) keep in mind, preserve in memory (LU 2.19); (2) guard, protect, keep safe and sound (MK 6.20); passive be preserved (MT 9.17)." It seems to me that "keep in mind" is close to "observe," so I can't say the KJV is wrong here.
When Lantz says, "The Greek term simply means 'to protect,'" he is incorrect, as can be seen by the Friberg lexicon entry. Lantz seems to have the typical non-translator view that translation is simply finding a one-for-one correspondence between the languages. Though he has a PhD, he shows little understanding of Greek in this article, though he refers to the Greek in the article.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
There is usually nothing wrong with the way the King James Bible is translated.
The problems arise (and they have brought it up here) when one tries to adapt a "2026 understanding" to English that was in use back in 1611.
KJVO types get really wacky-do over their reading and understanding of the "King's English" written way back then!
The problems arise (and they have brought it up here) when one tries to adapt a "2026 understanding" to English that was in use back in 1611.
KJVO types get really wacky-do over their reading and understanding of the "King's English" written way back then!
Our understanding of Biblical Hebrew has advanced since the KJV was introduced.
The author of the article called these verses "Problem Passages"
They're not necessarily mistranslations, (I have my own list of those), but mis-communication - not entirely conveying the meaning to today's readers. Mark Ward would call some of these passages, "false friends."
Passages that use words that no longer mean what they did when they were originally used.
Other passages are translational choices of the translators.
For example...
The author mentions a passage of the KJV translated in Isaiah:
Isaiah 65:11–12 (AV 1873)
11 But ye are they that forsake the Lord,
That forget my holy mountain,
That prepare a table for that troop*,
And that furnish the drink offering unto that number**.
12 Therefore will I number you to the sword,
And ye shall all bow down to the slaughter:
Because when I called, ye did not answer;
When I spake, ye did not hear;
But did evil before mine eyes,
And did choose that wherein I delighted not.
The words are actually proper names of Phoenician gods, (Gad [mentioned along with Baal as a location in Joshua 11:17; 12:7; 13:5] and Meni [a god of fate or destiny] in the Hebrew tongue). The CEB (Common English Bible) mentions this in their translation but misses the connection in the following verse.
Isaiah 65:11–12 (CEB - Common English Bible)
11 But you who abandon the Lord,
who forget my holy mountain,
who set a table
for a god of good fortune,
and fill cups of mixed wine
for a god of fate:
12 I will offer you to the sword.
You will all bow down for slaughter,
because I called
and you didn’t answer;
I spoke and you wouldn’t hear.
You did what I considered evil,
and chose what I didn’t want.
But most modern translations as early as the Douay-Rheims Bible have been using "fortune" as the pagan god's name.
Isaiah 65:11–12 (ESV 2025)
11 But you who forsake the Lord,
who forget my holy mountain,
who set a table for Fortune
and fill cups of mixed wine for Destiny,
12 I will destine you to the sword,
and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter,
because, when I called, you did not answer;
when I spoke, you did not listen,
but you did what was evil in my eyes
and chose what I did not delight in.”
The KJV was translated well but has aged poorly when it comes to a modern reader's understanding.
And when it comes down to it, if the translation cannot communicate the originally intended message to the audience, it is a fatal flaw.
Or... if there's a better way to translate a passage, it's time for another version.
Rob
The author of the article called these verses "Problem Passages"
They're not necessarily mistranslations, (I have my own list of those), but mis-communication - not entirely conveying the meaning to today's readers. Mark Ward would call some of these passages, "false friends."
Passages that use words that no longer mean what they did when they were originally used.
Other passages are translational choices of the translators.
For example...
The author mentions a passage of the KJV translated in Isaiah:
Isaiah 65:11–12 (AV 1873)
11 But ye are they that forsake the Lord,
That forget my holy mountain,
That prepare a table for that troop*,
And that furnish the drink offering unto that number**.
12 Therefore will I number you to the sword,
And ye shall all bow down to the slaughter:
Because when I called, ye did not answer;
When I spake, ye did not hear;
But did evil before mine eyes,
And did choose that wherein I delighted not.
- or, Gad.
- ** or, Meni.
The words are actually proper names of Phoenician gods, (Gad [mentioned along with Baal as a location in Joshua 11:17; 12:7; 13:5] and Meni [a god of fate or destiny] in the Hebrew tongue). The CEB (Common English Bible) mentions this in their translation but misses the connection in the following verse.
Isaiah 65:11–12 (CEB - Common English Bible)
11 But you who abandon the Lord,
who forget my holy mountain,
who set a table
for a god of good fortune,
and fill cups of mixed wine
for a god of fate:
12 I will offer you to the sword.
You will all bow down for slaughter,
because I called
and you didn’t answer;
I spoke and you wouldn’t hear.
You did what I considered evil,
and chose what I didn’t want.
But most modern translations as early as the Douay-Rheims Bible have been using "fortune" as the pagan god's name.
Isaiah 65:11–12 (ESV 2025)
11 But you who forsake the Lord,
who forget my holy mountain,
who set a table for Fortune
and fill cups of mixed wine for Destiny,
12 I will destine you to the sword,
and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter,
because, when I called, you did not answer;
when I spoke, you did not listen,
but you did what was evil in my eyes
and chose what I did not delight in.”
The KJV was translated well but has aged poorly when it comes to a modern reader's understanding.
And when it comes down to it, if the translation cannot communicate the originally intended message to the audience, it is a fatal flaw.
Or... if there's a better way to translate a passage, it's time for another version.
Rob
Last edited:
Lantz's 2nd example is "pineth away" in Mark 9:18. He appears to have never heard "pine away" in modern English, but it is definitely still in use, and anyone who knows English well will recognize it. There is even a webpage: Understanding “Pine Away” — Meaning, Usage, and Practical Tips - English Words Champs.
Here is the Friberg lexicon entry for the Greek word: "ξήρανιω 1aor. ἐξήρανα ; pf. pass. ἐξήραμμαι; 1aor. pass. ἐξήρανθην; (1) literally dry out, parch, cause to wither (JA 1.11); passive become dry, dry up ( RV 16.12); of the flow of blood stop (MK 5.29); of plants wither, dry up (MT 13.6 ); of grain that has finished growing ripe; metaphorically, of conditions for judgment ready (RV 14.15); (2) figuratively and passive, of a damaged human body; of the whole body stiffen (up), become rigid (MK 9.18); of a limb shrivel, wither, become useless (MK 3.1)."
According to BAGD, there is evidence from secular mss for the modern version rendering "become stiff." However, it is certainly possible to understand the KJV, "pineth away" as being correct. A disease can certainly make one pine away. Note the meaning "to suffer" given in the webpage I linked to.
Here is the Friberg lexicon entry for the Greek word: "ξήρανιω 1aor. ἐξήρανα ; pf. pass. ἐξήραμμαι; 1aor. pass. ἐξήρανθην; (1) literally dry out, parch, cause to wither (JA 1.11); passive become dry, dry up ( RV 16.12); of the flow of blood stop (MK 5.29); of plants wither, dry up (MT 13.6 ); of grain that has finished growing ripe; metaphorically, of conditions for judgment ready (RV 14.15); (2) figuratively and passive, of a damaged human body; of the whole body stiffen (up), become rigid (MK 9.18); of a limb shrivel, wither, become useless (MK 3.1)."
According to BAGD, there is evidence from secular mss for the modern version rendering "become stiff." However, it is certainly possible to understand the KJV, "pineth away" as being correct. A disease can certainly make one pine away. Note the meaning "to suffer" given in the webpage I linked to.
Thankfully, our salvation is not hampered by a mistranslation/misunderstanding of Hebrew.
Praise God!!
Praise God!!
Lantz's third objection to the KJV is Acts 5:30. He gives the following quotes:
Acts 5:30 (KJV) says, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”
Acts 5:30 (NASB) says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.”
Acts 5:30 (NKJV) says, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.”
Here is his objection: "The main problem I have with the way the KJV worded this verse is that it makes Peter say that the Jews first killed Jesus, or slew him, and then hung him on a tree. We know from all the Synoptic Gospel accounts that Jesus was nailed to the cross first, and then he died on the cross." The problem here is that he does not know the Greek. The verb for "slew/put to death" is διαχειρίζω, and there is no problem with translating it "murder." However, the second verb is κρεμάσαντες, an aorist participle. So the most literal translation would be: "whom you murdered (as he was) hanging on a tree." Or, as Young's Literal Translation has it, "whom ye slew, having hanged upon a tree."
The upshot is that there is interpretation going on in all three of the versions Lantz mentioned.
Acts 5:30 (KJV) says, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”
Acts 5:30 (NASB) says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.”
Acts 5:30 (NKJV) says, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.”
Here is his objection: "The main problem I have with the way the KJV worded this verse is that it makes Peter say that the Jews first killed Jesus, or slew him, and then hung him on a tree. We know from all the Synoptic Gospel accounts that Jesus was nailed to the cross first, and then he died on the cross." The problem here is that he does not know the Greek. The verb for "slew/put to death" is διαχειρίζω, and there is no problem with translating it "murder." However, the second verb is κρεμάσαντες, an aorist participle. So the most literal translation would be: "whom you murdered (as he was) hanging on a tree." Or, as Young's Literal Translation has it, "whom ye slew, having hanged upon a tree."
The upshot is that there is interpretation going on in all three of the versions Lantz mentioned.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Koine Greek. (God reinspired people to get it right.)
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
In this inexcusably irresponsible hack job, hit-piece, the author, Craig Lantz, ThD, PhD,
is not only dependent upon his creation of a Strawman to define anyone who makes use of the King James Version as being King James Only "people who have been indoctrinated their entire life into the KJV Only camp", as being those who "we have to realize that there is no “middle ground” with them...it boils down to this equation: THE KING JAMES BIBLE ALONE = THE WORD OF GOD", but also finds it necessary to pretend to define, find, and rescue the World from KING JAMES BIBLE "problems"
This is, of course, one of the most belabored tactics of those who would like to insist that the decision by men to "Reconstruct" and rewrite the Bible, from some precious few and highly suspect original language manuscripts, which employ their all-encompassing Translation Philosophy to "treat the Bible like they would any other book", can only continue to pretend to have any degree of salability, by attacking the latest in a Centuries-long line of Bibles, whose Translators were devote believers in the "Divine Inspiration and Preservation of the Bible".
So, they have to pretend to define, find, and rescue the World from "problems", with God's Fulfilled Promise to Supernaturally Preserve His Word in the Universally Recognized version of The Holy Bible of over Four-Hundred years, by first framing their marketing ploy into associating anyone who uses the King James Version, with the Cult of Ruckmanism, and "lie in wait to deceive", in the exact same manner in which Peter Ruckman was, in his day, "traveling about with the sole intention to deceive."*
*Peter Ruckman - Dangerous Deceiver and False Prophet - Part 1
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine,by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
But speaking the Truth in Love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ:" (Ephesians 4:14)
After showing their dependence upon their deception of unceremoniously placing all Bible readers who prefer the Supernaturally Inspired Superiority of the King James Bible**, into the "King James Only Camp" of Peter Ruckman's heresies, and presumably dismissing them all, "Like shooting fish in a barrel", they next proceed to embarrass themselves by bragging on their ignorance, if not just being illiterate, of the English Language and others, also.
**(remind me to illustrate this to you).
What would you do if you were them?
They have books to aggressively and persistently hawk, promote, market, and $ell.
"The love of money is the root of all evil," I Timothy 6:10.
So, they Decree to you their suggestions as Manifestly Self-Evident Determinations
in sensationalized exaggerations of tired, old, boring Alleged Discrepancies from the King James Version, that have been pitched for increased sales of alternative versions, since the late-19th-century and answered thousands of times.
Do you find efforts like "Problem Passages in the King James Version" legitimate in their concern?
Then you should be Praising God Almighty for innumerable articles and books on any number of 'versions of the Bible' which contain glaring and alarming inadequacies and that weaken, change, or delete certain Doctrines of the Word of God concerning God, the Pre-existence of Jesus, the Lordship of Jesus, Jesus Virgin Birth, and Jesus' Incarnation in general, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the The Godhead's Eternal Plan of Salvation, Heaven, Hell, Separation, Study, the Christian Life, Sexual Immorality, and many more.
And you should be thrilled to hear of those that arbitrarily change the meaning of certain Bible texts, removes vital words and phrases from certain passages, and diminish the Authority of the Bible.
And how about those that freely bring in pure, bonafide, contradictions to the Bible text?
Then, wouldn't you also love to be shown where they fail to significantly update the KJV in a positive manner.
After all, did you know the most "Modern" versions use certain words such as palanquin, curds, eczema, gad (not the prophet found in the KJV, but rather an archaic form of ‘go’), kors, offal, parapet, pinions, rivulets, satraps, terebinth, verdant, verdure, wend, Keva (linen yarns in the KJV), pim, sloops, citron, dappled, hoopoe, prow, quadrans, and sistrums, among many others that drastically obscure and cloud the meanings intended by those words, rather than clarify the Biblical text, when they could have MORE EASILY BEEN UPDATED TO A MORE CURRENT RENDISION WHILE THEY WERE AT IT, by most any grade school child, or old lady with a Concordance.
To me, all of these difficulties, and more, ALONG WITH ALL THE OPPURTUNITIES UTTERLY BLOWN FOR THEIR ALLEGED CONCERNS THEY CRY ABOUT WHILE ONLY MAKING THEM WORSE, are cause for great concern because God does not change.
U?
When Bibles change so does Christianity.
Not God.
"For the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful, and Sharper than any two-edged sword,
Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,
and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart", Hebrews 4:12.
"So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth: it shall not Return unto Me Void,
but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it," Isaiah 55:11.
"It is the Spirit that Quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the Words that I Speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life," John 6:63.
Once you peak open the King James Bible, or other faithfully translated Bible,
the Quick, and Powerful, Word of God
that is Sharper than any two-edged sword,
Goes Forth Out the Mouth of God,
and is Witnessed to by the Holy Spirit
whatever it Hits
and wherever it Lands
Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
AND since Jesus said,
"the Words that I Speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life,"
so they shall not Return unto Me Void,
but they shall Accomplish that which I Please,
and My Word shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it.
I'd check any Reader's Digest wannabe abridgements that have removed generous portions of THE WORD OF GOD
WHEN JESUS SAID THEY "ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE", as if we're supposed to believe the Holy Spirit Led them to play god.
Preservation through the Centuries, in its various versions look like God's Words have been Preserved.
Changes which Change the Word of God into ERROR WILL MEET WITH THE JUDGMENT OF GOD.
God does not change.
New thread will be titled "UNLETTERED EXAMPLE # 1: MARK 6:20 on "an Holy, and observed him".
atpollard
Well-Known Member
"Bring back the 88 book Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bible!" ... is that what you meant?
(We need the Book of Sinodos)
Sorry to be pedantic, but you meant "starting with a vowel," I think. The unique thing about the KJV is that it also puts an "an" before a word beginning with "h" as in 'a just man and an holy.' What an horrible thing to do!
Actually, it's just what people used to do in the 17th Century.Do you try an inexcusable, irresponsible hack job as you throw out misleading and incorrect accusations against believers who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching? Believers who disagree with KJV-only teaching do not treat the Bible like they would any other book. That misrepresentation may be a strawman. Rejecting non-scriptural KJV-only claims is not a rejection of the preservation of the Scriptures. The Church of England makers of the KJV did not believe that their translation decisions were inspired.
It is not claimed that everyone who uses the KJV is associated with Peter Ruckman. The accurate term KJV-only is not a strawman. The accurate term KJV-only does not apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers. I have read and used the KJV over 60 years. Perhaps some KJV-only advocates attempt to mislead or deceive others concerning the accurate term KJV-only.
Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages.
The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV. Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God translated into English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a Bible translation.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Well considering that h is silent in some dialects or accents in English, it might be more phonetic to say that it is an ‘orrible thing to do. And at that point it follows the rules.Sorry to be pedantic, but you meant "starting with a vowel," I think. The unique thing about the KJV is that it also puts an "an" before a word beginning with "h" as in 'a just man and an holy.' What an horrible thing to do!
I think it would be interesting to find out where the translators were from and what accents they ‘ad.
Oops! You are correct.Sorry to be pedantic, but you meant "starting with a vowel," I think. The unique thing about the KJV is that it also puts an "an" before a word beginning with "h" as in 'a just man and an holy.' What an horrible thing to do!
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I just read an article on grammar that discussed that ... the rules are trickySorry to be pedantic, but you meant "starting with a vowel," I think. The unique thing about the KJV is that it also puts an "an" before a word beginning with "h" as in 'a just man and an holy.' What an horrible thing to do!
Why “A Historic” and “An Historic” Are Both Technically Correct
Later KJV editors changed “a hundred” (Exod. 38:9, Jud. 20:10, 1 Kings 7:2) to “an hundred” while they kept “a hundred” once (Isa. 37:36). They revised “a house” (1 Chron. 17:5) to “an house” while “a house” was left at other verses (Exod. 12:30, Lev. 14:34, etc.). They changed “a hill” (Isa. 30:17) to “an hill” while “a hill” was kept once (Josh. 24:33). Later editors also left the inconsistencies of “an hairy” (Gen. 25:25) and “a hairy” (Gen. 27:11), “a harp” (1 Sam. 10:5) and “an harp” (1 Sam. 16:16, 23), “a heap” (Isa. 17:11) and “an heap” (Isa. 25:2), “an hammer” (Jud. 4:21) and “a hammer” (Jer. 23:29), “an highway” (Isa. 11:16) and “a highway” (Isa. 19:23), “an holy” (Exod. 19:6) and “a holy” (Isa. 30:29), and “an house“ (Mark 3:19) and “a house“ (Mark 3:25).