KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

[Jerome]

Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"

So, much ado about nothing. I've come to see that's typical for those who try to make a cottage industry manufacturing purported KJB 'errors'. I hope the OP isn't going down that path.

 

[rlvaughn]

Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"

And even somewhat similarly today, as Dictionary.com gives as "3. distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold:" [emp. mine]

 

[Conan]

Jeremiah 17:9

“The heart is deceitfull aboue all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?”(KJV 1611)

Why did the KJV use the English “desperately wicked”, when the Hebrew does not mean this?

The Hebrew verb is, “ʼânash”, and means, “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased”.

So which is it? "Be weak, sick"? Or "incurably diseased"? If it can mean both things then why can it not also mean "desperately wicked"?

Can you list every occurrence of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament for us, since most of the other bibles you listed were not from the Hebrew but other languages?

“Deceitful is the heart above all things, and sick: who can know it?” (Isaac Leeser Jewish Bible)

Ok. This bible follows your definition.

Apart from the Geneva Bible, no other English translation around this time, uses “wicked”.

What about Coverdale and Matthew's Bible and Great Bible? "Desperately wicked" and "deceitful" could be considered equal.

 

[Yeshua1]

Spoilers!!

Conclusion: Modern versions are just as bad as the JW's New World Translation (NWT) and want to remove core Christian beliefs from scripture. To undermine the true faith.

It's classic KJVO argument;
1)KJV is the (*only) word of God so any differences is satanic, with the purpose to change the word of God.
2)Verses are "removed" from new translations rather than verses were added to KJV (not purposely so)
3)grouping modern translations with the NWT, then connecting this with JW beliefs was derogatory. (tactic to attempt gulit by association)

Additionally the only time Greek manuscripts were mentiond, was to say that the video will not be dealing with greek manuscripts. Since bible translations should be compared to the manuscripts rather than to one another, his argument was lacking.

VERY circular reasoning by KJVO, as they claim that the modern version delete much of the Bible, but that assumes that their TR is best to what the originals stated!

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct. Granville Sharpe did not write his monograph revealing his research until 1798.

Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule | Bible.org

His rule is still valid, as those who state otherwise are not using the comparison as was intended!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Hebrew "ʼânash" is translated in the KJV as follows:

2 Samuel 12:15, "And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick"
Job 34:6, "Should I lie against my right? my wound is incurable without transgression"
Isaiah 17:11, "In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow"
Jeremiah 15:18, "Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?"
Jeremiah 30:12, "For thus saith the LORD, Thy bruise is incurable, and thy wound is grievous"
Jeremiah 30:15, "Why criest thou for thine affliction? thy sorrow is incurable for the multitude of thine iniquity: because thy sins were increased, I have done these things unto thee"
Micah 1:9, "For her wound is incurable; for it is come unto Judah; he is come unto the gate of my people, even to Jerusalem"

 

[SavedByGrace]

His rule is still valid, as those who state otherwise are not using the comparison as was intended!

those who argue against Sharp's "rule", really don't understand Greek grammar. It has been tried and tested.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"

So, much ado about nothing. I've come to see that's typical for those who try to make a cottage industry manufacturing purported KJB 'errors'. I hope the OP isn't going down that path.

what you have shown is not the point. It makes little difference that the English usage at the time might have so defined "wicked". the fact of the matter is, that "wicked" is NOT what the Hebrew verb says. See #26, where I have listed the other places where the KJV translated this same verb, and in no other place is "wicked" used.

 

[SavedByGrace]

So which is it? "Be weak, sick"? Or "incurably diseased"? If it can mean both things then why can it not also mean "desperately wicked"?

Can you list every occurrence of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament for us, since most of the other bibles you listed were not from the Hebrew but other languages?


Ok. This bible follows your definition.

What about Coverdale and Matthew's Bible and Great Bible? "Desperately wicked" and "deceitful" could be considered equal.

see #26

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Hebrew word "rasa", is used about 260 times in the OT, as a noun or adjective, where it is used to denote, "wicked, ungodly, guilty". Like in Psalm 10:4, "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts". Proverbs 29:2, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn"

The LXX uses three words for the Hebrew "rasa", a, "asebes", meaing, "godless, impious"; b, "hamartolos", "sinner, sinful"; and, c, "anomos", "lawless".

 

[SavedByGrace]

Looking as the LXX translation, they seem to be translating “ʼânash” with βαθεῖα, which Brenton translates into English as “deep”

this Greek word can also have the meaning "violent", and "profound".

 

[Yeshua1]

those who argue against Sharp's "rule", really don't understand Greek grammar. It has been tried and tested.

"Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp's rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^ [1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions."
ttps://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule

 

[SavedByGrace]

"Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp's rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^ [1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions."
ttps://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule

I am not certain that these "rules" can hold up 100%. Like the case made by Wallace in John 3:16, specifically by the use of the adverb οὕτως followed by a clause denoting purpose with ἵνα. I have seen this not to be the case in every use. etc

 

[rlvaughn]

The Hebrew "ʼânash" is translated in the KJV as follows:

According to Young's Concordance it is also found in:
Jeremiah 17:16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.

this Greek word can also have the meaning "violent", and "profound".

What about sick and incurable?

 

[rlvaughn]

The Hebrew verb is, “ʼânash”, and means, “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased”.

Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"

what you have shown is not the point. It makes little difference that the English usage at the time might have so defined "wicked".

Of course it matters what the English word meant at the time it was used, and is especially relevant when it can refer to disease that is severe or malignant -- similar to the very meaning you give for “ʼânash”.

Also, are you suggesting that “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased” exhausts the entire semantic range of the Hebrew word “ʼânash”?

 

[Conan]

Perhaps a word from the 1611 Translators themselves should be heard. This is only a snippet from the section titled.......

Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously

The Translators to the Reader

 

[baptistmemes]

How do you know what the Hebrew means except through uninspired modern men and uninspired dictionaries?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Of course it matters what the English word meant at the time it was used, and is especially relevant when it can refer to disease that is severe or malignant -- similar to the very meaning you give for “ʼânash”.

Also, are you suggesting that “be weak, sick” or “incurably diseased” exhausts the entire semantic range of the Hebrew word “ʼânash”?

why would the English matter, when the Hebrew, the language of the OT, and the LXX, Latin, Syriac, etc, never use words that mean "wicked!. Just because the KJV uses wicked does not mean they chose the right word? The KJV is only a translation and not Inspired or perfect.

 

[SavedByGrace]

What about sick and incurable?

yes, but not as the KJV has, "wicked". This is my point here. Are you KJVO?

 

[Conan]

The truth of this matter was posted by Jerome in post number 21.
"
Wicked, the Oxford English Dictionary gives meaning current then: "2. †c. Of wounds, disease: severe; malignant", also links to historical meaning in Middle English of "4. c. infected, diseased; also in fig. context; also, unwell"


The 1611 Translators were excellent here. SBG prefers a different translation? So there is no actual mistranslation, but a difference on choice of words. There will always be differences on word choices even by the same translator.