KJV Mistake Question

PUT AWAY

To cleanse oneself of; to remove; to discard from one's life (Ge 35:2; Ex 12:15; De 22:22,24; Jos 24:14; 1Co 13:11). This phrase is used to describe divorce (Le 21:7; Ezr 10:3; Jer 3:1; Mal 2:16; Mt 1:19; 5:31-32; 19:3,8-9; 1Co 7:11).

Way of Life Encyclopedia


Divorce
The dissolution of the marriage tie was regulated by the Mosaic law (De 24:1-4). The Jews, after the Captivity, were reguired to dismiss the foreign women they had married contrary to the law (Ezr 10:11-19). Christ limited the permission of divorce to the single case of adultery. It seems that it was not uncommon for the Jews at that time to dissolve the union on very slight pretences (Mt 5:31-32; 19:1-9; Mr 10:2-12; Lu 16:18). These precepts given by Christ regulate the law of divorce in the Christian Church.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Doc here 100%. I am to abstain every time evil appears. It seem to be grasping at straws to call this a KJV mistake.

 

Hi Linda,

I think they are two different concepts. I think the “putting away” is the sin. And divorce was the “remedy” that God instituted through Moses because of our sinful nature. With this in mind, and a proper translation of the Matthew passage, it makes a lot more sense what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount and when the Pharisees came to question Him about this subject.

Lev 21:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them…

Rules for a priest (note “put away” woman – nothing about divorce):

Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

Rules for a high priest (note widow and “divorced” woman included - stricter rules):

Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Rules for the daughter of a priest (note widow and “divorced” treated the same):

Lev 22:13 But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.

“put away” means “put away” in the Hebrew and Greek. This was the sin.

Divorce” means “divorce” in Hebrew and Greek. This is the corrector to the sin so that the people who sin by being separated from each other (for what ever reason) can continue in life without being under sin for the rest of their time on earth.

Ezra felt that he could tell the Israelites to “put away” their wives (without the writ of divorcement) since they were breaking Jewish law by marrying them in the first place.

Malachi restates that it is “putting away” that God hates.

I’m not trying to write doctrine here (although I obviously have an opinion). I’m just saying that the KJV translators translated “put away” as “divorce”. Now, whether you argue that they are essentially the same thing or not, the KJV translators still didn’t translate it the way Jesus said it.

 

Leviticus 21:7 'put away'
1644. garash
vrg garash gaw-rash' a primitive root; to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce:--cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, X surely put away, trouble, thrust out.

Leviticus 21:14 'divorced'
1644. garash Same Hebrew Word, Same Definition.

And you know this because? Were you there when Jesus spoke? Or when the Levitical Laws were handed down?

 

I would respond with a question:

So what? The KJV is a good and faithful translation. It's not perfect, and does not claim to be. Nevertheless, it is a very good translation, and worthy of use for scriptural study and teching. The issues of "mistakes", "errors" etc, are issues of split hairs. So long as one does not subscribe to any unscriptural single-translation-onlyism, I see no reason to get all worked up over translational/entymological errors or the like.

 

Except, of course, for the fact that KJVOism is false doctrine.

 

I'm not trying to point out gross errors in the KJV. I don't think there are any. I think the KJV is the best English translation around today. My only point was that it is not inspired, it uis JUST a translation. The original autographs are what are inspired. The KJV is the ONLY English version I ever preach from or use in my own personal devotions.

 

For your presumption to hold water, God would have to be less than God in His ability to preserve His Word that He holds above His very name.

Can't anyone see the danger in what the ideal of "only the originals" being inspired means?

If the King James Bible isn't inspired then NONE are inspired and God isn't Omniscient, but I have news for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes, we know that, but my point is that you cannot fight a false doctrine with more falsehood. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure you can, happens all the time in this arena!

 

Yes, and they would be equally wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope, as I explained, judging onesself is judgement, not damnation.

If I judge myself and am saved, then when I partake of the fruit of the vine as representative of the Blood of Christ, then I cannot be drinking damnation to my soul.

If an unsaved person judges himself and then drinks unworthily, he does invite judgement, but definitely drinks damnation that will result in pending judgement to come.

I love the preciseness of the King James Bible, don't you?

Well you would, if you'd take time to think about these things!

 

I'm sorry, brother, but I just don't see your logic. I don't see how saying the KJV isn't inspired leads to God not being omniscience. I mean, couldn't the NIV people say the same thing of their translation?

 

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." </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, I suppose your opinion would decide what is a good dictionary, and since the two different times can be on the same day, you would then be correct, but the two different events don't always fall on the same day.

Easter is correct chronologically to Luke's penning down the Word of God. Easter is the time set aside by the ecumenicalists and the religionists as the time to recognise the Ressurection which has nothing to do with the Jewish Passover except that the Passover is only a shadow of things to come, namedly the Ressurrection.

Now if Luke had said, "..after Easter, when Christ arose", and he didn't, then the arguement against the use of Easter would hold water, and it still doesn't.

 

I'm sorry, brother, but I just don't see your logic. I don't see how saying the KJV isn't inspired leads to God not being omniscience. I mean, couldn't the NIV people say the same thing of their translation? </font>[/QUOTE]No, your arguement against the King James proves the NIV wrong for not using the word "damnation" and instead leaving the reader to think because he drank the fruit of the vine therefore he judged himself and will not be judged.

The King James is very precise, the NIV leaves to much open for misguidence.