Translation ERROR in KJV bible.

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother HankD -- Preach it!

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Well said, Hank!

 

[Dr. Bob]

When is an "error" not an "error"? That is the question.

I have no problem with calling an "error" an "error". INTENTIONAL errors especially.

 

[HankD]

When is an "error" not an "error"? That is the question.

When it is "inspired" like "easter" for instance.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
When is an "error" not an "error"? That is the question.

New Double Standard detected:

An error in a KJV is a boo-boo;
an error in a MV is the unforgivable sin.

 

[Cix]

An error is an error. Either it's translated correctly or it isn't. It's not kind of sort of right. I have no problem reading from the KJV and even using it from time to time along with a bunch of other translations that I regularly use. However, I'm merely pointing out the fact that this translation has it's share of problems. I stopped at 9 errors which were of translation, but there are many more that I chose not to include here which are even more serious doctrinal errors.

 

[HankD]

An error is an error. Either it's translated correctly or it isn't.

I'm not debating that point, I'm only questioning the terminology I/we use.
I've used the word "error" myself concerning the KJV translator blunders.

I now choose words like "mistranslation" or "blunder" because IMO this reflects directly upon the translators themselves rather than a possible implication that the error exists in the original language text.

In addition there are words which are incorrect usage but are not "errors" due to mistranslation (in 1611) such as the word "prevent" in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 but the ever changing English language.

Then there are words which have fallen out of usage today such as "anon".

Last, we are accused by the KJVO constantly of saying that there are "errors" in the Bible.

That is why I now choose the word "mistranslation". Then there is no doubt as to what I am saying. That's all.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Same with the "Easter" thing. Although Easter and Passover MAY have still been used interchangeably in 1611, the AV translators clearly knew the differences, as they indicated by their definition of Easter in their list of Holy Days in the AV 1611. And the MOST CORRECT translation should convey what LUKE said, not what men believed in 1611. Therefore, Easter, while not entirely incorrect, is a POOR rendering in Acts 12:4 as Luke couldn't POSSIBLY have been talking about Easter as known in 1611.

Trying to say the AV men were expressing a DEEPER MEANING by saying "Easter" is horse feathers. Then they'd REALLY have been off-track in expressing in English what Luke wrote in Greek.

Now, is this an error, mistranslation, oversight, accident, goof, booboo, or what?(With all due respect)

 

[HankD]

IMO, it was a concession to King James.

I'de rather not go into the details.

HankD

 

[psr.2]

<post full of personal attacks deleted>

[ August 22, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[natters]

psr.2 said "My how ignorance abounds in the hearts of gnat staining KJV OPPOSERS!!"

There are no KJV opposers here.

 

[psr.2]

Oh don't kid me read the post. I didn't just show up today. I've read plenty of their post to know one when I see one.

 

[natters]

psr.2, there are no KJV opposers here. Really. Until you understand that, you don't even understand who and what you are debating against.

 

[psr.2]

I understand all I need to. As I said I have read these threads for quite a while. You can try to paint a skunk white but you can't hide the smell. Someone can pretend to not be a KJB opposer but I can tell.

 

[natters]

OK then. Your mastery of interpretation has been duly noted.

 

[psr.2]

Thank you now let's move on to the issue at hand shall we?
If you have any other questions come to me and I'll give you THE VERY WORDS OF GOD FROM THE KJB.

 

[natters]

psr.2 said "If you have any other questions come to me and I'll give you THE VERY WORDS OF GOD FROM THE KJB."

Yes, I have another question. Why did the KJV translators correct and replace the very words of God they already had?

 

[psr.2]

That is soooo elementary.
God inspired them to.
II Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Any more question?

 

[natters]

psr.2 said "God inspired them to."

There we have it. The very words of God did not exist until 1611. Reinspiration. Joseph Smith would be very proud.

 

[psr.2]

See how Satan twists things. You have come at the subject with such a slant to oppose the KJB that you cannot receive truth.
Do you have to have one side of your chair propped up to keep you from falling out?