KJV Mistake Question

Scott J · Mar 15, 2006

<blockquote>quote:<hr />:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
I think the KJV is a good translation but, sit down, there ARE mistakes in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you give us some of the KJV renderings and explain to us why you think they are mistakes? Maybe that would help the discussion. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

In 1 Cor 11:29, "drinketh damnation" would seem to be a mistake. It is an allowable translation but it contradicts the context and should be "judgment" instead.

Perhaps "damnation" had a more flexible meaning then? Different connotation? If not, it seems pretty inconsistent to recognize context and translate a different form of the word as "judgment" in the same context but translate this "damnation".

Also, I have never seen how hard core KJVO's who are also once saved always saved overcome this verse. If you accept this verse by current definition then it can mean nothing other than a person can lose their salvation. If not, the only other options I can imagine are to deny that the KJV says what it says or strain out some hypothetical eisogesis.

Scott J · Mar 15, 2006

BTW, if a KJVO agrees that this word no longer means what it meant when the KJV was translated then they have just defeated their own case that the KJV is the God chosen Bible for today's English speaking people since the normal English reader today would completely misunderstand this verse without some appeal to an outside source.

Bob Dudley · Mar 15, 2006

I just want to say, up front, that I love the KJV and use it exclusively in my evangelism. So, having said that...

“Put away” verses “divorced”. Another place where I think the KJV translators let their cultural biases in is in Matthew 5:31-32:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (italics mine)

There are two words here that we need to look at: put away and divorce. The English translation seems to indicate (in verse 32) that any man that marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. This actually contradicts several passages in the Pentateuch that show a divorced woman can remarry with no sin attached (see, for instance, Deut 23:1-4; Num 30:3-9; Lev 21:7, 10-15; Lev 22:10-16).

And, in the Greek, there is no contradiction with the Old Testament. In verse 31 “put away” comes from απολυση and “divorcement” from αποστασιον. The problem is in verse 32. The word απολυση shows up twice. KJV translators rendered it “put away” once and “divorced” once. But that is not what the text says.

The Greek has a word for “put away” and a word for “divorce”. If Jesus had meant divorce in verse 32 He would have used it. He used the word for “put away”.
I'm still new here so I'm not sure how to get the Greek fonts to show up any better. BUt, any way, my point is that I think they should have been true to what Jesus actually said and not to try some sort of dynamic equivalence.

Salamander · Mar 15, 2006

Maybe the consequences of partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily matches damnation better.

But to offer limited and loaded hypotheseis is decpetive in practice.

The context demands that one examine/ judge himself before participation, so drinking "judgement" has alter-conotations that could mean that the participate has drunk something that will rid himself of certain uncleanness, or the alternative that he might have invited judgement of which is certainly damnation.

Limited choices promotes an agenda. Fairness in question receives all sources for consideration to the interogative.

As for the suggestion that it could be deduced as one losing their salvation? Come on! Don't you believe the rest of the Bible as not being contradictory and its being in perfect harmony?

Logos1560 · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Scott J:

In 1 Cor 11:29, "drinketh damnation" would seem to be a mistake. It is an allowable translation but it contradicts the context and should be "judgment" instead.

Perhaps "damnation" had a more flexible meaning then? Different connotation?

Click to expand...

Yes, the word was used differently in the late 1500's and early 1600's. The 1895 Sunday School Teacher's Bible noted the following concerning "damnation, or condemnation" in its list of obsolete or ambiguous words in the KJV: "These words were used as equivalent terms when the A. V. was made." KJV-only author Jack Moorman wrote that “there is not a great deal of difference between ‘damnation’ and ‘condemnation.‘ As ‘damn’ comes from the Latin damnare, so ’condemn’ does also” (Conies, pp. 7-8). Concerning this word at 1 Timothy 5:12, Vincent commented: “It should be said for the translators of 1611 that they used damnation in this sense of judgment or condemnation, as is shown by the present participle having. In its earlier usage the word implied no allusion to a future punishment” (Word Studies, IV, p. 263). Several of the early English Bibles had "damnation" at Luke 23:40, Romans 5:16, Romans 8:1, James 3:1, and James 5:24 while the KJV changes it to "condemnation."

Salamander · Mar 15, 2006

I just want to say, up front, that I love the KJV and use it exclusively in my evangelism. So, having said that...

So how many more times do you need to be evangelized?

You are attempting to discuss a doctrine, but fail to see that one put away is only given a bill of divorcement as God did Israel in Jeremiah, but the divorce is the completed act begun by that writing/bill.

Pitting ideals against clear teachings of Scripture are not advised, not matter how deep you go into the Greek or Hebrew, you will always have the same end result of one who marries a divorced person just as Jesus declares, committing adultery.

If you care to promote the letter of the Law, you should look deeper into the spirit of the law and understand that the hardness of one's heart is endangering the posesser of being hardened and that without remedy. Jesus commands forgiveness, of which divorce is a deliberate act to try and punish the offender, denying them grace, and making them subject to man's law rather than God's Law.

Divorce also is an attempt to divide or put asunder that which by the marraige vow has join together as it is an institution introduced by God and under His complete authority.

The KJB translators have it right.

PastorSBC1303 · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Salamander:
[The KJB translators have it right.

Of course you are going to say this, if you say otherwise your whole system falls down.

Scott J · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Logos1560:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

In 1 Cor 11:29, "drinketh damnation" would seem to be a mistake. It is an allowable translation but it contradicts the context and should be "judgment" instead.

Perhaps "damnation" had a more flexible meaning then? Different connotation?

Click to expand...

Yes, the word was used differently in the late 1500's and early 1600's. The 1895 Sunday School Teacher's Bible noted the following concerning "damnation, or condemnation" in its list of obsolete or ambiguous words in the KJV: "These words were used as equivalent terms when the A. V. was made." KJV-only author Jack Moorman wrote that “there is not a great deal of difference between ‘damnation’ and ‘condemnation.‘ As ‘damn’ comes from the Latin damnare, so ’condemn’ does also” (Conies, pp. 7-8). Concerning this word at 1 Timothy 5:12, Vincent commented: “It should be said for the translators of 1611 that they used damnation in this sense of judgment or condemnation, as is shown by the present participle having. In its earlier usage the word implied no allusion to a future punishment” (Word Studies, IV, p. 263). Several of the early English Bibles had "damnation" at Luke 23:40, Romans 5:16, Romans 8:1, James 3:1, and James 5:24 while the KJV changes it to "condemnation."

Your last statement would indicate that it is then in fact an error.

If they knew it could and should be changed but didn't change it...

Scott J · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Salamander:
Maybe the consequences of partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily matches damnation better.

I disagree but that is an opinion- that one can be damned for eating communion unworthily. The context by the way is dealing with believers and not unbelievers.

But to offer limited and loaded hypotheseis is decpetive in practice.

It is also something I didn't do. This is a sincere question. I am not looking for propaganda. I am looking for genuine reasons "damnation" should have a) been the word to begin with and b) does not constitute an "error" against English understanding today.

If one argues that the KJV is God's perfect word for "today" then it is imperative that its wording be understood in the current popular sense.

the alternative that he might have invited judgement of which is certainly damnation.

You're obfuscating. I acknowledge that the word may have meant something different in the past... but damnation has a clear connotation to the modern reader and it isn't simple judgment.

Limited choices promotes an agenda. Fairness in question receives all sources for consideration to the interogative.

I am willing to discuss thoughtful, fact based, reasonable answers... anything that amounts to "I said so" or "The KJV is perfect therefore this cannot be an error" is not acceptable since such reasoning is inherently dishonest.

As for the suggestion that it could be deduced as one losing their salvation? Come on! Don't you believe the rest of the Bible as not being contradictory and its being in perfect harmony?

Yes. It is the fact that this word seems to contradict the rest of the Bible that makes me question it... since "judgment" is a legitimate translation of the word that fits the context better. The KJV itself uses "judgment" for the plurality of the uses of this particular Greek word.

If I have a general complaint about the KJV it would be that there seems to be some inconsistency in translating the same Greek word in similar contexts differently.

One situation that I would consider an "error" though not one of substance is the use of Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit for the same Greek words. It introduces completely unnecessary confusion.

Bob Dudley · Mar 15, 2006

Salamander said:

The KJB translators have it right.

I guess that was the whole point of what I wrote. They didn't get right. I'm not trying to point out any great mysteries of the faith. I'm just sayin' they mistranslated a word.

Bob Dudley · Mar 15, 2006

maybe this one will be less controversial. ειδους is translated as "appearance" in 1 Thes 5:22 and should be translated "form".

obstain from all appearance of evil

or

obstain from all form of evil

It's all pretty black and white. They either translated the word correctly or they didn't.

Bob Dudley · Mar 15, 2006

Or πασχα in Acts12:4 is tanslated "Easter" instead of "Passover". I don't think it changes any one's doctrine but it's still wrong.

robycop3 · Mar 15, 2006

Mr. Dudley, we've discussed the "Easter" thingie many times here. with Dr. Cassidy offering the only plausible explanation-that Easter for pascha was a carryover from earlier times when Passover was freely called Easter in English. In our discussions we've seen that all other explanations are incorrect. Given the earlier use of the word "Easter", we cannot say its use in the KJV is entirely incorrect, but it wasn't the best example of sound translating the AV men ever made.

Here's the last Easter discussion we've had:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2498.html#000000

James_Newman · Mar 15, 2006

How about, if you go around taking the Lord's supper unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body, you're going to go to hell? Yes, I think that is what he is saying.

robycop3 · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by James_Newman:
How about, if you go around taking the Lord's supper unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body, you're going to go to hell? Yes, I think that is what he is saying.

No, James, NO!(Respectfully)

That's ADDING to the meaning of God's word. The Greek word Luke used is pascha, and the account in Acts 12 has nothing to do with any observance but Passover.

TCassidy · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
I guess that was the whole point of what I wrote. They didn't get right. I'm not trying to point out any great mysteries of the faith. I'm just sayin' they mistranslated a word.

But, in fact, they didn't. The problem is not with their word choices but your somewhat limited understanding of word usage in the early 17th century.

TCassidy · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
maybe this one will be less controversial. ειδους is translated as "appearance" in 1 Thes 5:22 and should be translated "form".

obstain from all appearance of evil

or

obstain from all form of evil

It's all pretty black and white. They either translated the word correctly or they didn't.

Hmmm. The Greek word ειδους means "a view" and can signify "appearance," "fashion," "shape," etc. Again, I think the problem here is your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "appearance" rather than a mistake on the part of the translators.

If you will check a good English dictionary you will see that appearance still carries the meaning of "the act or an instance of coming into sight. The act or an instance of coming into public view. The action or process of becoming evident to the senses."

Perhaps the main problem is a misunderstanding of what the verse is saying. It is not saying to abstain from doing things that might look like they are evil, but every time evil makes an appearance we are to abstain from it.

TCassidy · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
Or πασχα in Acts12:4 is tanslated "Easter" instead of "Passover". I don't think it changes any one's doctrine but it's still wrong.

Again, if you will look up the word "easter" in a good dictionary you will see that it used to also mean "The Jewish Passover."

Bismarck · Mar 16, 2006

What is the difference between "PUT AWAY" and "DIVORCED"?

Linda64 · Mar 16, 2006

From Things Hard To Be Understood

Ac 12:4

This is the only place in which "easter" appears in the Authorized Version. Some say that this should be translated "passover" and they point to this as an error in the King James Bible, but they are wrong. The Easter of Ac 12:4 occurred after the Passover. We know this because Ac 12:3 says it was "the days of unleavened bread." The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover (Nu 28:16-25), but this Easter was after the feast of unleavened bread. It refers to a pagan holiday, probably the celebration of Tammuz, the sun god (Jack Moorman, Easter or Passover?). "Easter" is a proper translation to distinguish it from the Jewish Passover, and the KJV translators were wise in their choice of this word. In using the term "Easter" in Ac 12:4, The King James Translators merely left intact the reading of Tyndale, Matthews, and the Geneva Bible: "Then were the days of unleavened bread, and when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people" (The Newe Testament by William Tindale, 1526, John Wesley Sawyer, The Martyrs Bible Series).

Enlarging on this subject, Ken Johnson adds: "[Those who claim this is a mistranslation in the KJV] show a lack of two things. First, they neglect the context of the verse, for it is a season that is also noted. Second, in English the season or time of year marked as the Passover season has for years been expressed in English as 'Easter.' The KJV translators did not invent this usage nor were they wrong. The Geneva Bible of 1557 translates Ac 12:4 as 'Easter.' This is also true of the 1539 Cranmer Bible--—'Easter,' and the Tyndale Bible of 1534--—'ester.' This takes the time element back almost 100 years for the usage of 'Easter.' Alfric, at the beginning of the eleventh century, wrote a Homily using the term Easter: 'Fram dam halgan easterlican [Easter season] (A.C. Champneys, History of English, London: Revington, Percival and Co., p. 178). This calls the Passover season 'Easter' season and it is some five hundred years plus before the KJV saw its publication with 'Easter' in Ac 12:4" (Ken Johnson, A Response to J.H. Melton's Forum Regarding the King James Version and Inspiration, p. 12).

KJV Mistake Question

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Late-Administator Emeritus

Late-Administator Emeritus

Late-Administator Emeritus

New Member

New Member