A very silly KJVO argument...

[RAdam]

How then do you account for .... errors?

You mean like the NIV who changes the word seed to descendants in God's promise to Abraham in Genesis, thus destroying the argument of Paul in Galatians 3? Or perhaps the omitting of commas from Exodus 12 making the stay of Israel in Egypt 430 years, thus making Paul in error in Galatians 3 when he says from Abraham to the Exodus was 430 years? Those kinds of errors are all over the place in the modern translations and I firmly attribute them to know it all scholars who, rather than checking themselves against God's word, exalt their own knowledge above the book they are supposed to be faithfully translating. Let it also be known they have no authority to change numbers like those found in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 36:9.

Let it be known, I would not oppose a modern translation, were it faithfully translated by one who holds God's word in equal regard as translators such as Tyndale and the Geneva and KJ translators. I've yet to find one modern english translation that meets that standard.

 

[annsni]

Nah RAdam - I mean like this:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

1 Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

1 Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

2 Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

1 John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. . ."

from http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

 

[annsni]

You mean like the NIV who changes the word seed to descendants in God's promise to Abraham in Genesis, thus destroying the argument of Paul in Galatians 3?

The NIV doesn't say "descendants". No where in verse 15 does it say that - you might want to double check your "facts". It says "offspring" which is one of the meanings of the word. Of course the fact that the KJV translators also translated that word as "child" twice flies in the face of your argument. But let's see what the NIV translators themselves said regarding the issue with Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 24:7 and Galatians 3:16:

Both the Hebrew and Greek words for "seed, offspring" (zera and sperma respectively) are open to either a collective or an individual nuance. "Seed" is proper in Galatians because of Paul's stress on the individual sense. However, the NIV translators believed that in Genesis the term had a more generic, collective, and comprehensive scope, which Paul then applied to the ultimate Seed, Christ, as the final, complete fulfillment.
Thus the NIV used "offspring" in Genesis, while providing "seed" in the footnote to help the reader make the connection. It is a case of generic, typological prophecy being progressively fulfilled.

Or perhaps the omitting of commas from Exodus 12 making the stay of Israel in Egypt 430 years, thus making Paul in error in Galatians 3 when he says from Abraham to the Exodus was 430 years?

Oh, so there were commas in Hebrew? Didn't know that!

However, in this passage, the KJV is in error. You can read more here:

http://www.purposeoflife.org.uk/stuff/chronology doc.htm

Those kinds of errors are all over the place in the modern translations and I firmly attribute them to know it all scholars who, rather than checking themselves against God's word, exalt their own knowledge above the book they are supposed to be faithfully translating. Let it also be known they have no authority to change numbers like those found in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 36:9.

Wow - you know the heart of every person who works on translating the Bible? Interesting. I'd say they have a higher view of Scripture than you do and undertook their translating as a VERY serious issue since they were working with the very Word of God.

As for changing numbers, when the manuscripts prove a different number, they have every authority to change those numbers. Of course the KJV has two different numbers for Ahaziah's age. Which is it? How about Jehoiachin? Was he 18 or 8? The KJV contradicts itself in both of these instances?

 

[Trotter]

Let it be known, I would not oppose a modern translation, were it faithfully translated by one who holds God's word in equal regard as translators such as Tyndale and the Geneva and KJ translators. I've yet to find one modern english translation that meets that standard.

How many have you met and interviewed? I haven't met any myself. however, I have red up on the efforts to translate the NASB, ESV, and HCSB and feel that these would measure up to such a standard, but only if such a standard were laid out and accurately portrayed those who have gone before and not some pious pipe dream version of them.

There are many scholars who have worked on these translations (and others) who have devoted their entire lives and careers to the purpose of God's word. there have been a few down through the years who have taken a part who would not fit the bill, but then I don't think too much of the KJV translators due to their doctrinal stance (Anglican = English Catholicism).

The bottom line is that today's literal translations were done by men who were devoted to God, the scriptures, and the work. You could use one of them and know that it is the work of godly men who have done the best they could.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, you are redefining the word preserved. God not only promised to keep his word, he promised it was pure, without error and corruption.

Yet it is amazing that for 7,000 or so years God's people were without His word because it was not pure according to you. Simply amazing.

 

[Winman]

God did not promise that He would preserve His word only in the original languages. He promised He would preserve His word period. What good does that do for an english speaking child of God if He only preserved His word in the original languages?

Exactly. He promised to preserve his word to all generations. Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away but his words would not pass away.

No one on earth has the original autographs. If God can only preserve his inerrant word in the original languages, then God's word is long since lost and he did not keep his promise.

Can anyone here even prove if all the original NT books were written in Greek? Many scholars say some were not (Matthew for one). If so, then the Greek texts are not the original autographs and cannot be preserved if we are to believe the ridiculous arguments some here make.

This argument that the true meaning of scripture is impossible to translate into other languages without error is non-sensical. If that were the case, the church should teach everybody the original languages, and missionaries should do the same.

 

[Winman]

Yet it is amazing that for 7,000 or so years God's people were without His word because it was not pure according to you. Simply amazing.

What kind of illogical reasoning is that? God's word was revealed over a period of roughly 1500 years or more. This is not the same as error.

And don't you think there were so called "scholars" in Jesus's day who questioned the scriptures? After all, Moses had written scripture somewhere between 1200-1400 years earlier. The land had been invaded numerous times and the temple destroyed. There were almost certainly critics who made the same attacks on scripture that you make today. And not all of the OT was written in Hebrew, I am sure they attacked that too.

 

[TomVols]

Such twaddle. I'll take God's Word over the sophistry of the KJVOs any day.

 

[Winman]

Nah RAdam - I mean like this:

from http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

Ann, are you aware this article was written by a member of Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God? A cult if there ever was one. Very similar to the Mormons, they teach that man becomes a god.

Hardly a good source for information on the scriptures.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:Exactly. He promised to preserve his word to all generations. Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away but his words would not pass away.

And that's why we have MODERN-LANGUAGE translations, as well as archaic-language ones. We must imply that His PRESERVING His word includes keeping it readable to today's people.

No one on earth has the original autographs. If God can only preserve his inerrant word in the original languages, then God's word is long since lost and he did not keep his promise.

Can anyone here even prove if all the original NT books were written in Greek? Many scholars say some were not (Matthew for one). If so, then the Greek texts are not the original autographs and cannot be preserved if we are to believe the ridiculous arguments some here make.

The oldest copies of the Scriptures we have are written in Hebrew & Koine Greek. Therefore we must conclude that those are the languages in which GOD choseta preserve His word unto this day.

This argument that the true meaning of scripture is impossible to translate into other languages without error is non-sensical. If that were the case, the church should teach everybody the original languages, and missionaries should do the sa

Actually, the argument is QUITE sensible. Neither Hebrew nor Koine Greek will translate 100 % of its subtleties & nuances into English or any other modern language. Also, many, MANY Hebrew or Greek words/phrases have many possible correct English renderings. Now, while context often governs which of those meanings is correct, this contextual help is absent as often as it is present. Thus, the AV translators wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

 

[Winman]

And that's why we have MODERN-LANGUAGE translations, as well as archaic-language ones. We must imply that His PRESERVING His word includes keeping it readable to today's people.

I would agree with you, except the MVs are not the same as the KJV as some here have argued. The MVs are very different from the KJV (and each other) in numerous places.

The MVs are not just saying the same thing in a modern way, they are often contrary to the understanding given by the KJV for the same verse. IMO they lean heavily toward Catholic doctrine.

I will have to get back tomorrow with examples.

 

[Trotter]

The MVs are very different from the KJV (and each other) in numerous places.

Of course thy are different from the KJV. otherwise they would only be a copy of it. Translations based uon different source texts or that follow a certain strain will be different in some points as well. That's just the way translations work.

The MVs are not just saying the same thing in a modern way, they are often contrary to the understanding given by the KJV for the same verse. IMO they lean heavily toward Catholic doctrine.

That's funny considering that the KJV is an Anglican, or English Catholic, translation.

 

[RAdam]

How many have you met and interviewed? I haven't met any myself. however, I have red up on the efforts to translate the NASB, ESV, and HCSB and feel that these would measure up to such a standard, but only if such a standard were laid out and accurately portrayed those who have gone before and not some pious pipe dream version of them.

There are many scholars who have worked on these translations (and others) who have devoted their entire lives and careers to the purpose of God's word. there have been a few down through the years who have taken a part who would not fit the bill, but then I don't think too much of the KJV translators due to their doctrinal stance (Anglican = English Catholicism).

The bottom line is that today's literal translations were done by men who were devoted to God, the scriptures, and the work. You could use one of them and know that it is the work of godly men who have done the best they could.

Then why do they change God's word? Why do they change numbers in the bible? Do they not believe God preserved His word? Do they not believe anyone before them was smart enough to realize that 2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 when he began to reign and 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he was 8 (or a son of 8 years)? Why do they change the numbers? They say it was a copyist mistake. If so, God didn't preserve His word. Were the Jews not smart enough to see this difference? Were the old translators?

Why, if they are so dedicated to faithfully translating God's word, do they change passages thereby introducing contradictions into the bible? In their bibles they have Paul in Galatians 3 making an argument based off the fact that a particular noun in an OT passage is singular. Well, when the person goes and looks up the OT passage in question, the scholar has a plural noun such as "descendants". This is just one example of many. This is why the old translators are far superior and why the classic english translations, even with the difficulty of language change, are superior.

If these people were so faithful to God's word they wouldn't change numbers in God's bible (even though they say they believe in preservation) and word passages and translate words such that they introduce errors and contradictions into God's word? Oh I forgot, they have the old easy out of "well God did preserve His word in the original languages, but all the english have errors." Sorry, that doesn't work.

 

[Trotter]

We don't have an answer why 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chr 36:9 don't match up. They don't match up in the Hebrew. Some translations fudge the date to make it match up, but I believe in laying it out like it is. Again, when I get to heaven I will ask about it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in Galatians 3 as it is late and mowing today took a lot out of me. If you are talking about Abraham's seed, "seed" is not necessarily singular. I could be off base here as I am not sure which verse(s) you are talking about.

Since you are so tore up about it, what would you have done with the situation? The KJV is as full of holes as any other translation. should we burn them all? Burn the Greek and Hebrew too since it doesn't offer a simple answer? you keep going on and on but you haven't offered a solution yet. Well, here's your chance.

 

[RAdam]

Well, I'm glad that you believe it should be presented the way it is. Unfortunately, those modern translators you are arguing in favor of don't agree with you. They think they are smarter than every other bible reader that came before and "fix" what they perceive is an error. Again, this shows what they truly believe about preservation of scripture and how faithful they are to properly translate God's word.

Paul in Galatians 3:16 Paul wrote this: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith no, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to they seed, which is Christ."

His argument is based on "seed" in the promises of God to Abraham in Genesis to be singular. The modern scholars who are so faithful to God's word and know so much about original languages contradict Paul by placing a plural noun here. They know so much about Greek and Hebrew but so little about scripture.

Again, I say this shows the way modern translators treat the scriptures. Again, I'm not opposed to a modern english translation, but not in the way these modern translations have come about.

By the way, what holes does the KJ have? I'm curious.

 

[Trotter]

Gal 3:16 refers back to Gen 22:17-18. Looking at it in INOT, it uses the word 'zera' [figuratively fruit, plant, sowing, time, posterity]for seed in verse 17. From what I can tell, zera can be singular or plural. It looks like Paul is speaking as an oracle of God in this particular matter.

The KJV is a translation and as such it falls into the same shortcomings as any other translation. The language of the KJV hinders the understanding of it. The KJV also suffers from poor word choices in some instances, but so do all translations. If a preacher has to re-translate or correct a translation then there is a problem. All have this problem and the KJV is not immune. As for examples I would have to send them to you as I encounter them. I tend to not record them at the time.

 

[TomVols]

You can tell the arguments are getting weak when the KJV is the benchmark because all others are Catholic Bibles. KJVO stops at nothing to attack the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3)

Again, human sophistry has won in the KJVO circles, but as for me and my house, the battle has already been won by the Word of God.

 

[Amy.G]

You can tell the arguments are getting weak when the KJV is the benchmark because all others are Catholic Bibles. KJVO stops at nothing to attack the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3)

How many times has the KJV been accused of being a translation of Catholics and baby baptizers?

It's interesting that the RC wanted nothing to do with the KJV and therefore made their own translation. :sleep:

 

[RAdam]

Gal 3:16 refers back to Gen 22:17-18. Looking at it in INOT, it uses the word 'zera' [figuratively fruit, plant, sowing, time, posterity]for seed in verse 17. From what I can tell, zera can be singular or plural. It looks like Paul is speaking as an oracle of God in this particular matter.

The KJV is a translation and as such it falls into the same shortcomings as any other translation. The language of the KJV hinders the understanding of it. The KJV also suffers from poor word choices in some instances, but so do all translations. If a preacher has to re-translate or correct a translation then there is a problem. All have this problem and the KJV is not immune. As for examples I would have to send them to you as I encounter them. I tend to not record them at the time.

Galatians 3:16 refers back to Genesis 13:15. Regardless, though the Hebrew word can be taken singular or plural, Paul tells you what God meant and the way we should translate it. Again, lack of dilligence creates an internal inconsistency.

I want to know what shortcomings it has. You say language. I say the language is archaic, but not a complete roadblock. One thing about the KJ that modern versions lack, though they do use modern language - it is internally consistent. You may come to a word or wording that is awkward in 2010. However, you'll see the KJ using these words or phrases consistently and thus this problem is easily overcome with dilligent study.

The only argument against the KJ is one of archaic language. However, I'll take the difficulties of the KJ language over having a modern language translation that takes it upon itself to correct numbers, that is internally inconsistent, and one into which the translators introduced contradictions. I'll take accuracy with a few archaic words than inaccuracy with modern words. By the way, I've never had to re-translate the KJ. I've had to define an archaic word or two while preaching, but I'd rather do that than worry about where the translators "fixed" things.

 

[Winman]

Galatians 3:16 refers back to Genesis 13:15. Regardless, though the Hebrew word can be taken singular or plural, Paul tells you what God meant and the way we should translate it. Again, lack of dilligence creates an internal inconsistency.

I want to know what shortcomings it has. You say language. I say the language is archaic, but not a complete roadblock. One thing about the KJ that modern versions lack, though they do use modern language - it is internally consistent. You may come to a word or wording that is awkward in 2010. However, you'll see the KJ using these words or phrases consistently and thus this problem is easily overcome with dilligent study.

The only argument against the KJ is one of archaic language. However, I'll take the difficulties of the KJ language over having a modern language translation that takes it upon itself to correct numbers, that is internally inconsistent, and one into which the translators introduced contradictions. I'll take accuracy with a few archaic words than inaccuracy with modern words. By the way, I've never had to re-translate the KJ. I've had to define an archaic word or two while preaching, but I'd rather do that than worry about where the translators "fixed" things.

In many instances the archaic language makes the KJV far superior to the MVs.

The KJV gets a lot of its criticism for its archaic "thees" and "thous". Truth is, the "thees" and "thous" make it easier to understand: unlike most other languages, modern English does not have a second person plural distinct from a second person singular, so its never clear if someone is speaking to one person or many. The "archaic" words clarify this.

And this may sound like a silly reason to support the KJV, but the KJV is easier to memorize than the MVs.

Funny how the KJV is so much easier to memorise than any of the modern versions! ;-) I figured I needed a "sticky" Bible (one that "stuck" in my head!) rather than a "slippery" Bible (ever tried to memorise the NIV? It's exceedingly difficult, believe me). Of course, memorising God's word is a POWERFUL weapon against Satan and sin (Psalm 119:11: "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." ), so NO WONDER the evil one doesn't want us to memorise God's Word! This argument alone ought to convince anyone who is truly serious about living for God and overcoming sin to use the KJV.

I think anyone who tries to memorize the KJV and the MVs will easily find the KJV much easier to memorize.