-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Translation ERROR in KJV bible.
- Thread starter Cix
- Start date
Personally, I'm pleased the printers retained what appears to be an anomaly of some sort, that they simply reproduced faithfully the material given them to print. Before the modern proofreading technology, printers depended upon human proofreaders who were as fallible as the printers themselves.
However, it's not unknown for a printer to question an author before beginning the printing run if the printer sees something that he thinks could be an error by the author. With the KJV, however, he doesn't have that option.
I don't believe we now need to be concerned with some printer changing any given BV.
However, it's not unknown for a printer to question an author before beginning the printing run if the printer sees something that he thinks could be an error by the author. With the KJV, however, he doesn't have that option.
I don't believe we now need to be concerned with some printer changing any given BV.
Tater Tot: I noticed today that in 2 Kings 21, what KJV calls a "grove", others called an "Ashera pole". There is a BIG difference between the two, but the latter makes a lot more sense in light of the context of that bad ol' Mannasa.
Got any thought on it?
Checking with the Hebrew, the VERY WORD translated "grove" 40 times in the KJV is...ASHERAH! Given that the Asherah pole was a phallic symbol which was usually erected(no pun intended) within a grove of trees, various other translators also said "grove". That term has been replaced with simply "Asherah" in most later versions. The NKJV says'wooden image' with "Asherah" in a footnote. I cannot say "grove" is entirely incorrect, as a grove was the usual setting for Asherah-worship...and men could "make a grove" by simply selecting a group of trees & clear-cutting around it.
Got any thought on it?
Checking with the Hebrew, the VERY WORD translated "grove" 40 times in the KJV is...ASHERAH! Given that the Asherah pole was a phallic symbol which was usually erected(no pun intended) within a grove of trees, various other translators also said "grove". That term has been replaced with simply "Asherah" in most later versions. The NKJV says'wooden image' with "Asherah" in a footnote. I cannot say "grove" is entirely incorrect, as a grove was the usual setting for Asherah-worship...and men could "make a grove" by simply selecting a group of trees & clear-cutting around it.
psr.2Grove is the exact word that God intended.
No, it isn't.
He had His penmen write "Asherah" in the Hebrew, & He had this word written long before English or the KJV existed.
In Gen. 21:33, Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba AND CALLED ON THE NAME OF THE LORD THERE. The word rendered "grove" here is 'eshel', which means, a tamarisk or a grove of them. Nothing to do with Asherah.
Have you ever seen what devout Catholics do around their statues?
Groves are what you see around them. Look for a "mary in an upright bathtub" in someones yard and you will see a grove.
Look at any small group of trees standing apart from other trees & you'll see a grove. Like anything else, a grove can be used for good or evil.
No, it isn't.
He had His penmen write "Asherah" in the Hebrew, & He had this word written long before English or the KJV existed.
In Gen. 21:33, Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba AND CALLED ON THE NAME OF THE LORD THERE. The word rendered "grove" here is 'eshel', which means, a tamarisk or a grove of them. Nothing to do with Asherah.
Have you ever seen what devout Catholics do around their statues?
Groves are what you see around them. Look for a "mary in an upright bathtub" in someones yard and you will see a grove.
Look at any small group of trees standing apart from other trees & you'll see a grove. Like anything else, a grove can be used for good or evil.
psr.2MV's change John 3:16 from begotten to only.
That is a doctrinal change.
"For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
(John 3:16, Tyndale's Bible, 1534)
The KJV adds 'begotten'.
That is a doctrinal change.
That is a doctrinal change.
"For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
(John 3:16, Tyndale's Bible, 1534)
The KJV adds 'begotten'.
That is a doctrinal change.
psr.2:The NIV omits 1 John 5:13 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
That is a doctrinal change.
The NIV changes the doctrine in Eph.3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
They leave out "by Jesus Christ"
Can you PROVE this material wasn't ADDED to the KJV? Seems there's a better case it was earlier ADDED than later OMITTED.
That is a doctrinal change.
The NIV changes the doctrine in Eph.3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
They leave out "by Jesus Christ"
Can you PROVE this material wasn't ADDED to the KJV? Seems there's a better case it was earlier ADDED than later OMITTED.
Michelle:Just like the Hebrew and Greek, only Hebrew and Greek we (the common faithful English speaking believer) cannot understand. We CAN UNDERSTAND the English of the KJB (Gods words -the scriptures) however.
And we can understand them BETTER in OUR language.
Your logic and excuses fail and will always fail, if they are not grounded on this truth.
And the TRUTH is: KJVO is a man-made myth.
Michelle, you said we have no need of the Greek or the Hebrew. How, then, can you judge the MVs are corrupt? Just saying "they aint the KJV" won't cut it.
And we can understand them BETTER in OUR language.
Your logic and excuses fail and will always fail, if they are not grounded on this truth.
And the TRUTH is: KJVO is a man-made myth.
Michelle, you said we have no need of the Greek or the Hebrew. How, then, can you judge the MVs are corrupt? Just saying "they aint the KJV" won't cut it.
Rooster:You know I don't read the corrupted NIV, so I can not point out allll the changes, perhaps if you contacted the publishers they will tell you were they made their changes at.
In other words, you're casting stones while blindfolded, or are that most dangerous and unsuccessful of all hunters...a SOUND-SHOOTER?
In other words, you're casting stones while blindfolded, or are that most dangerous and unsuccessful of all hunters...a SOUND-SHOOTER?
Originally posted by natters:
Rooster, the KJV is copy protected in England, it's just that North America law chooses to ignore that.
Rooster:Thats not true. I don't know were you get your info from , but they are misleading you, unless you are making it up yourself.
Better take the time to STUDY a little, Rooster, before you try to fly.Here's a link where you can ACTUALLY SEE the copyrights STILL IN FORCE in the U.K. for the KJV. Just click on the images to magnify them.
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/Copyrighted_king_james_version.htm
And again, the whole copyrights thing is moot for either point of view in this discussion. Printers aren't gonna print something that isn't selling, copyrighted or not. The KJV and NIV both sell well, so printers print'em...bottom line.
Rooster, the KJV is copy protected in England, it's just that North America law chooses to ignore that.
Rooster:Thats not true. I don't know were you get your info from , but they are misleading you, unless you are making it up yourself.
Better take the time to STUDY a little, Rooster, before you try to fly.Here's a link where you can ACTUALLY SEE the copyrights STILL IN FORCE in the U.K. for the KJV. Just click on the images to magnify them.
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/Copyrighted_king_james_version.htm
And again, the whole copyrights thing is moot for either point of view in this discussion. Printers aren't gonna print something that isn't selling, copyrighted or not. The KJV and NIV both sell well, so printers print'em...bottom line.
--------------------------------------------------
psr.2MV's change John 3:16 from begotten to only.
That is a doctrinal change.
"For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
(John 3:16, Tyndale's Bible, 1534)
The KJV adds 'begotten'.
That is a doctrinal change.
--------------------------------------------------
You are wrong robycop. Begotten is the accurate rendering. Tyndale translated it inaccurately. This is why God saw to it, that it was eventually rendered accurately. Begotten is the full and true meaning of the truth as "only" isn't:
begotten: ('n)vt. alt. pp. of BEGET
beget: 1. to be the Father of 2. to produce; cause
Hence, Jesus Christ is the ONLY to be of the Father, produced, caused by the Father. Jesus Christ came from God the Fathers bosom, and He is also eternal from the Father.
John 1
18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
psr.2MV's change John 3:16 from begotten to only.
That is a doctrinal change.
"For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
(John 3:16, Tyndale's Bible, 1534)
The KJV adds 'begotten'.
That is a doctrinal change.
--------------------------------------------------
You are wrong robycop. Begotten is the accurate rendering. Tyndale translated it inaccurately. This is why God saw to it, that it was eventually rendered accurately. Begotten is the full and true meaning of the truth as "only" isn't:
begotten: ('n)vt. alt. pp. of BEGET
beget: 1. to be the Father of 2. to produce; cause
Hence, Jesus Christ is the ONLY to be of the Father, produced, caused by the Father. Jesus Christ came from God the Fathers bosom, and He is also eternal from the Father.
John 1
18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
They leave out "by Jesus Christ"
Can you PROVE this material wasn't ADDED to the KJV? Seems there's a better case it was earlier ADDED than later OMITTED.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes. The proof is in church history as well as present. There is more proof also, if only you would listen - John 16,17.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
They leave out "by Jesus Christ"
Can you PROVE this material wasn't ADDED to the KJV? Seems there's a better case it was earlier ADDED than later OMITTED.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes. The proof is in church history as well as present. There is more proof also, if only you would listen - John 16,17.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
And the TRUTH is: KJVO is a man-made myth.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes. The truth is: the KJVO label that is put upon the truth, is a man made myth and a lie to blind the naive. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you said we have no need of the Greek or the Hebrew. How, then, can you judge the MVs are corrupt? Just saying "they aint the KJV" won't cut it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can I judge an English translation from another English translation? You must be seriously joking, or making a mockery of my faith, intelligence, and spiritual discernment. John 16,17.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
And the TRUTH is: KJVO is a man-made myth.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes. The truth is: the KJVO label that is put upon the truth, is a man made myth and a lie to blind the naive. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you said we have no need of the Greek or the Hebrew. How, then, can you judge the MVs are corrupt? Just saying "they aint the KJV" won't cut it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can I judge an English translation from another English translation? You must be seriously joking, or making a mockery of my faith, intelligence, and spiritual discernment. John 16,17.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
In other words, you're casting stones while blindfolded, or are that most dangerous and unsuccessful of all hunters...a SOUND-SHOOTER?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sadly sounds eerily similiar to the drug addict who can't see, nor admit to his problem, and when faced with the truth of his situation retorts "Man, don't knock it till ya try it". No, I do not need to try the poison, to know it is poison and deadly.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
In other words, you're casting stones while blindfolded, or are that most dangerous and unsuccessful of all hunters...a SOUND-SHOOTER?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sadly sounds eerily similiar to the drug addict who can't see, nor admit to his problem, and when faced with the truth of his situation retorts "Man, don't knock it till ya try it". No, I do not need to try the poison, to know it is poison and deadly.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
And again, the whole copyrights thing is moot for either point of view in this discussion. Printers aren't gonna print something that isn't selling, copyrighted or not. The KJV and NIV both sell well, so printers print'em...bottom line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is however, that there is a 300 word limit to use the NIV, until you need permission from the copywrite owner, to which in that case they charge you for your use. This does not happen with the KJB. The NIV is making money off from the word of God. This is inexcusable.
Guess who gets this money? Yep, Murdoch (sp.), the satanist.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
And again, the whole copyrights thing is moot for either point of view in this discussion. Printers aren't gonna print something that isn't selling, copyrighted or not. The KJV and NIV both sell well, so printers print'em...bottom line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is however, that there is a 300 word limit to use the NIV, until you need permission from the copywrite owner, to which in that case they charge you for your use. This does not happen with the KJB. The NIV is making money off from the word of God. This is inexcusable.
Guess who gets this money? Yep, Murdoch (sp.), the satanist.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, you continually cite this scripture. I have read it and have not found anything concerning the KJV, perfect translations, Anglican translators (unless you are referring to 16:2- the KJV era Anglicans persecuted Baptists thinking they were doing God's service), a guarantee of perfectly worded Bibles, or that YOU would be endowed with some special revelation concerning this subject.
Would you mind expounding a little more as to how you think these chapters support the notion that the KJV is the "very words of God"?
There are many Non-KJV translations that are in public domain, which people can reprint in entirety. For your copyright arguement to hold water, you'd have to admit that these other translations are as much the Word of God. Add to that the fact that when the KJV was originally published, it too was under copyright, and the proceeds went to the Crown.
Generally speaking, on written material, copyrights in the US expire 75 years after their publication.
Since 99.9% of the threads on the Version Forum go "far off track" after 5 pages, when they hit that number they will be shut down.
Everyone feel free to start another thread (and watch it be hijacked) on a cognate question or part of this that was left unanswered.
Would ask someone please start a thread on the John 16-17 that keeps being thrown around and see if it supports the AVonly position.
Thank you.
Everyone feel free to start another thread (and watch it be hijacked) on a cognate question or part of this that was left unanswered.
Would ask someone please start a thread on the John 16-17 that keeps being thrown around and see if it supports the AVonly position.
Thank you.