Errors in the Bible

[Kiffin]

Thomas,

I already pointed out 2. Some more,

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.

John 1:31, 33 should say or "baptizing IN water" not with water. This shows the Anglican bias of slanting the text to favor sprinkling or affusion.

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

A. R. FAUSSETT points out this translation error in saying,
“rather, "as a first-fruit." Not merely a "first-fruit" in the sense in which all believers are so,”

Matthew 27:35
they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they
cast lots.

John Gill
“All this, Beza says, is not in any of the ancient copies; nor is it in the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, but stands in the Vulgate Latin, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel; “

Jude 4 in the KJV says, "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." By adding an "and," the KJV makes it appear like God and the Lord Jesus are different persons. The NIV says, "deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

In Titus 2:13, the KJV inserts the word "our" and makes it sound like God and Jesus are different. It says, "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV and NASB are clearer, "Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." while the KJV is unclear.

Thomas you remain unclear whether you are from the KJV only School of Ruckman, Riplinger, Chick (Who distort the Word of God) or if you are in the Wilbur Pickering Camp of Defending the Majority text but who realize claiming inerrancy for the KJV is silly.

You have shown in your replies the inconsistency in translation of the KJV in various spots and many of it's archaic renderings. Yes people can buy a Dictionary of Old English Words but Christ has not commissioned the Church to teach Shakespeare's English.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[Kiffin]

Thomas I asked you the question,


Do you hold as many Ruckmanites do that the KJV is perfect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You reply,

"Only in the sense of it being "telion" or complete, mature."

In What way? What basis? The same statement could be made for the much improved NKJV.

 

[Chris Temple]

While I do not always agree with Dr. C, let me come to a limited defense of his view

As I understand him, Dr. C is not a Ruckmanite or any other type of extreme KJVO view. He does not believe that the KJV is reinspired, and he believes that the original language autographs alone are inspired of God.

He does believe, however, that the underlying texts that the KJV is based on are the best and most reliable, and that the KJV is the best translation of those texts. While he admires the good qualitites of some MVs (NKJV, NASB) he personally believes that the KJV has not yet been surpassed in quality of translation.

Is that a fair assessment of your position, Dr. Cassidy?

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
I already pointed out 2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And both were adequately dealt with. The first dealt with the word "churches" which had a wider meaning in days past than it does now, and the second was just an error on your part regarding the Greek word. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's deal with one at a time. Unfortunately for your position, the Greek word "epiphosko" translated "dawn" means "to grow ligther, to dawn." Have you personally looked these words up in a good Greek lexicon? That is twice you have said it was wrong with the Greek word meaning exactly what the KJV says. In fact every English version says about the same thing, all translating "epiphosko" as "dawn." See the ASV, NASV, NIV, etc.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Is that a fair assessment of your position, Dr. Cassidy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fairly close. At least close enough that I won't quibble.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
In What way? What basis? The same statement could be made for the much improved NKJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe the KJV is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, perfect word of God in the English language. But as with all such statements, it rises or falls on the definitions of the words used. (Before one can claim to be a theologian, he must first become a philogian!)

Inspired: In the derivative sense. The KJV can only be called "inspired" insofar as it correctly transmits the meaning of the inspired original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words.

Inerrant. This is a word that was not historically used to define any bible, but was borrowed from astronomy in the early years of this century. In astronomy it means "does not deviate from its course" and was used to describe the orbits of planets. The KJV is inerrant in the sense that it does not deviate from factual truth. That is, there are no proven errors of fact in the KJV.

Infallible. The promises and prophecies of the KJV will never fail to come to pass.

Perfect. In the original meaning of the word, the KJV is complete, mature, nothing lacking. All that was contained in the autographa is contained, in some form, in the KJV.

 

[Kiffin]

Dr. Thomas,

We can qibble on this for as long as you wish though I don't have the time today. You know that John 1:31 is an inaccurate translation and that the NASB corrects the KJV mistake here. The KJV has mistakes. That is not an attack on the KJV for so does the NIV and NASB. All translations have mistakes Could not what you said regarding the KJV 's infallibilty apply to them all. The Byzantine tradition of manuscripts may be proven to be better than the Alexandrian but that is open for debate. I personaly am in the middle though I lean slightly toward the Alexandrian copies. Regardless, it gives no ammunition for KJV defenders. The NKJV, KJV21 are noble attempts at keeping the KJV tradition alive and of clariying many of the 1769 KJV translations.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
We can qibble on this for as long as you wish though I don't have the time today. You know that John 1:31 is an inaccurate translation and that the NASB corrects the KJV mistake here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are not quibbling (at least I am not). I pointed out your error regarding your claims that "ktaomai" does not mean "posses" and then shed some light on Acts 19:37. After which I corrected your error regarding "epiphosko." I also asked you to just post one verse at a time, and we will deal with them in that manner. If you wish to now deal with John 1:31, that is fine with me, but I will take your silence regarding my postings as acceptence that the greek supports the KJV translation.

Now, John 1:31. "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." The Greek word is "en" and can be translated "in," "by," or "with." And the context clearly is drawing a distinction between baptism with water and with the Holy Ghost.

Now, I don't know about you, but when I baptize I always baptize with water.

 

[Kiffin]

Your anaylsis of Acts 19:37 may be correct for Shakespeare's (Ill give you that) day but is not accurate at all for today. The KJV gives the impression that "churches" are being robbed. You may be correct on your English history but that further shows the inconsistent way the the KJV often translates (such as EASTER for PASSOVER, Elijah, Elias).

The KJV Study Bible correctly points out the KJV weakness on Acts 19:37 by stating "Gr. hierosulous should be translated robbers of temples"

John 1:31-33 The meaning of the text was that John was baptizing them in water.

"ev" should be translated IN. Mouton's Analytical Greek Lexicon correctly defines the word "referring to place, in" Unfortunately the NKJV continues the error but the NASB which is more literal correctly translates it "in".

Now Doc, I don't know why we are having this conversation. You say you are not claiming inerrancy for the KJV but refuse to admit it has errors. That is like saying you believe we are all sinners but then state prove it. You are quick to point out an error on those of us who are not KJV only yet are silent when the KJV Only camp claims perfection for the KJV. I went to a school that was Textus Receptus Only and was in the Wilber Pickering School of defending the Byzantine text but was critical of Ruckman and others that practically claim extra Biblical Revelation for the KJV translators.

Why don't you state in layman's terms what you believe regarding the KJV. Do you believe it has errors or not? If you want clearly define your view then this thread is useless.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[DocCas]

Asked and answered. Read my prior postings including the first one on this page. And, as you have refused to allow access to your email address, I am unable to answer your question about why we are having this conversation and why I am doing what I am doing. However, as to your complaint that I "refuse to admit (the KJV) has errors" - you have yet to post any evidence which sustains your charge of error. I have defended the KJV reading three times. Once from history, and twice from the Greek words which you claim were incorrectly translated. Both times I showed that the words were translated correctly. If you would like to give another example, I will be glad to deal with it, or, if you would care to give me your email address I will gladly fill you in on a few things you may not be aware of which might help you to not judge me so harshly nor jump to unwarranted conclusions.

 

[Chris Temple]

From a website:

Heb 4:3,5 - the KJV misquotes Ps 95:1. The MV's don’t.

AV (3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
NKJV (3) For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

AV (5) And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
NKJV (5) and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest."

 

[Chris Temple]

1 Cor 14:4; etc. - the unwarranted insertion of the word "unknown" (the honest translators left in italics) before "tongue" has led (actually misled) many people to the conclusion that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are some kind on heavenly babbling. Since the translators of the KJV didn’t also insert the word "unknown" in Acts 2, this has allowed charismatics to claim that the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians are different, a claim which is fundamental to the tongues movement
since clearly the tongues of Acts 2 were real human languages, not babbling (Acts 2:6). The NIV and NASB make no such unwarranted insertion, thus teaching that the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians were the same kind.

 

[DocCas]

Chris, now we are getting somewhere! Let's look at the Hebrews passage first.

Hebrews 4:3 eisercometha gar eis thn katapausin oi pisteusantes kathws eirhken ws wmosa en th orgh mou ei eiseleusontai eis thn katapausin mou kaitoi twn ergwn apo katabolhs kosmou genhthentwn.

Verse 5 kai en toutw palin ei eiseleusontai eis thn katapausin mou.

As you can see, the word "not" does not appear in the Greek text, any Greek text which I am aware of. I checked the TR (3 different editions) UBS, and NA, and none of them have the word "not" (either "me" or "ou") in them.

It is indeed a puzzlement! But I submit it is a textual problem and not a translation problem. In fact, the NKJV translators "cleaned it up" by adding the "not" which they did not put in italics. But I will (grudgingly) give the NKJV two points for consistancy!

What I find even more puzzling is that Heb 3:11 quotes the same verse, and this time the "not" is in the English, translated from (ei) which the other verses translate, correctly, "if"! Go figure!

PS I don't want to be picky (uh, well, yes I do!), but that is Psalm 95:11 not 95:1.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[DocCas]

1 Cor 14:4 is an interpretation problem, not a translation problem. The "unknown" which was added in 1 Corinthians means, I assume, "unknown to the speaker" and not "unknown to any mortal." And I suspect the reason they did not add "unknown" in Acts 2 is the countries of origin of the people in question are listed so the language, although not understood, would still have been "known" in the sense of "I know it is Parthinian, but I can't understand it."

 

[try hard]

Westcott and Hort? Must be. Really, do you really think Greek scholars of that day would not have seen this? Maybe todays versions are wrong or the Greek text you translate from is not the same one they translated from?


Most Likely Both.

 

[Blade]

Dr. Cassidy,

I have one for you, and I will limit it to only one at this time. I have bolded the portions I wish to address.

Mark 13:12 states:

KJV "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."

NASB "Brother will betray brother to death and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death."

The Greek word for "son" is 'teknon' which literally means, child. The KJV even translates it so in other passages. The NASB and others correctly translate it as "child." This is inconsistency in translation of the same word at best (the context doesn't demand 'son' vs. 'child') and mistranslation at worst (seems more likely).

Another quick note about the above (I don't have a copy of the TR, but from another source I am told) the Greek is missing the definite article both times it is used here. Therefore, "the father...the son" has no Greek basis and "the" should at least be italicized.

Is this a mistranslation or not? Should "the" be italicized (or even there at all) or not?

Just curious,

 

[Kiffin]

Thomas,

I am not judging you harshly. I am just asking a question on your position and do not mean anything personal towards you. I am pretty sure you are sharper on your Greek than I am and most people on this forum. I am curious why you think the KJV has no errors. You can email me any time at reformedbaptist@baptistmail.com

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
KJV "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."

NASB "Brother will betray brother to death and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death." . . . Is this a mistranslation or not? Should "the" be italicized (or even there at all) or not? Just curious,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is more a function of the vagaries of English grammar than a mistake of translation. In English, when gender is in doubt or unknown, the masculine is the accepted gender. We have gotten away from that in the past couple of centuries, but it was very common in the 17th century.

And the absense of the definate article does not necessitate the addition of the same in English, but does help. Greek, like Russian, often lacks articles. They are implicit in the nouns used and are often supplied by the translators as a grammatical device. They are not truly added, as they are implicit in the grammar of the Greek. The Jehovah's Witnesses try to make the lack of a definate article in John 1:1 an issue by claiming the indefinate article should be supplied. They are incorrect.

 

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
This is more a function of the vagaries of English grammar than a mistake of translation. In English, when gender is in doubt or unknown, the masculine is the accepted gender. We have gotten away from that in the past couple of centuries, but it was very common in the 17th century.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are playing on the fact that a son is a child. Still, the terms are not equivalent. While a son is a child, a child is not necessarily a son.

The KJV translators had no difficulty translating teknon correctly as "child" in Mat. 10:21, Lk 1:7, Acts 7:5, Rev. 12:4, 5. They knew how to translate it correctly. So, I doubt this was "just how they did it in 1611."

A separate Greek word for son, huios exists. A son is, by definition, a male offspring of a parent. A child, in the sense of teknon is either son or daughter.

Going strictly by English then and now, "child" is the correct choice. If "Son" were taken at face value, it would mean that fathers will not betray their daughters, only their sons. The Greeks suggests that either/both will be betrayed.

Son was not the correct choice then, nor is it the best choice today. This is a mistranslation. It gets close, but uses an unequivalent term to translate a word for which an equivalent term exists (both now and then).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And the absense of the definate article does not necessitate the addition of the same in English, but does help. Greek, like Russian, often lacks articles. They are implicit in the nouns used and are often supplied by the translators as a grammatical device.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the presence of the definite article here doesn't change the meaning; however, it doesn't serve to clarify it any more than leaving it out. At any rate, the words do not exist in the Greek and should at the very least be italicized.

As it stands in the KJV, there are two "the"s that aren't necessary (but don't detract from the passage) that do not exist in the TR and are not indicated by italics.

I know it is a picky point, but the MVs are more faithful to the text here than the KJV is.

Others fluent in Greek, please chime in with your 2 cents...

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
Son was not the correct choice then, nor is it the best choice today. This is a mistranslation. It gets close, but uses an unequivalent term to translate a word for which an equivalent term exists (both now and then).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I appreciate your attempt to prove the KJV wrong in its translation of "teknon" as "son" but, I fear you may have missed a few obvious passages that support my assertion. See Matthew 9.2; 21.28; Mark 2.5; Luke 2:48; 15.31; 16.25; 1Cor 4:17; Philippians 2.22; 1 Timothy 1.2; 1.18; 2 Timothy 1.2; 2.1; Titus 1.4; Philemon 10;. Now, just for kicks and giggles, check those verses in the NIV! Each and every one of them reads "son" as a valid translation of "teknon" instead of "child" as you claim is the only valid translation. Now, of course, I don't want to rub this in (uh, well, yes I do!) but check the ASV, NASV, NKJV, etc., regarding these same verses and note that virtually every one of them translates "teknon" incorrectly, according to your rules of translation. You won't mind horribly if I don't regard your monolythic rule too highly, will you?

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]