Yes,the KJV has mistakes too

[Rippon]

The King James Bible after 400 Years edited by Hamlin and Jones has some interesting material.

One chaper is by Robert Alter. It's called The Glories and the glitches of the KJB.

"Consequently,one repeatedly encounters small misconstructions of idioms,syntax,and lexical values in the 1611 version,and there qare more than a few real howlers...[In Genesis 15] it is said of Abraham,'and,lo,a horror of great darkness fell upon him.' The actual meaning of the Hebrew is 'a great dark horror [or dread fell upon him.'...the seventeenth-century translators confused the syntax and made Abraham our forefather afraid of the dark...[[In Job 3:8],'Let them curse it that curse the day,who are ready to raise up their mourning.'...The 1611 translators miscontrued livyatan,Leviathan,for a homonym that means 'their mourning'.

Misconstructions of this sort reflect the limitations of knowledge of the era..." [page 46]

[The author speaks of the book of Ecclesiastes and says that the KJV translators based the word "vanity" on the Latin Vulgate's vanitas.]"The Hebrew hevel means 'breath' or more precisely,'exaled breath.'...The metaphor thus conveys the whole package of overlapping attributes,not just vanitas,and representing it as a single abstractiondilutes the richness of what is said. [Page 51]

"...there are moments when,for all its justly celebrated eloquence,it sounds altogether awkward...Stylistic pratfalls of this sort are scattered through all the books of the king James Bible..." [page 54]

 

[Yeshua1]

The King James Bible after 400 Years edited by Hamlin and Jones has some interesting material.

One chaper is by Robert Alter. It's called The Glories and the glitches of the KJB.

"Consequently,one repeatedly encounters small misconstructions of idioms,syntax,and lexical values in the 1611 version,and there qare more than a few real howlers...[In Genesis 15] it is said of Abraham,'and,lo,a horror of great darkness fell upon him.' The actual meaning of the Hebrew is 'a great dark horror [or dread fell upon him.'...the seventeenth-century translators confused the syntax and made Abraham our forefather afraid of the dark...[[In Job 3:8],'Let them curse it that curse the day,who are ready to raise up their mourning.'...The 1611 translators miscontrued livyatan,Leviathan,for a homonym that means 'their mourning'.

Misconstructions of this sort reflect the limitations of knowledge of the era..." [page 46]

[The author speaks of the book of Ecclesiastes and says that the KJV translators based the word "vanity" on the Latin Vulgate's vanitas.]"The Hebrew hevel means 'breath' or more precisely,'exaled breath.'...The metaphor thus conveys the whole package of overlapping attributes,not just vanitas,and representing it as a single abstractiondilutes the richness of what is said. [Page 51]

"...there are moments when,for all its justly celebrated eloquence,it sounds altogether awkward...Stylistic pratfalls of this sort are scattered through all the books of the king James Bible..." [page 54]

i am still trying to imagine what easter in Acts must have been like in the time of the Roman Empire! for they translated easter as being the celebrated festival!

 

[Rippon]

From the same book as referenced above was another chapter entitled The KJB and its reception history by Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones.

"...the KJB was not particularly well received in 1611 or for some decades thereafter...The KJB was now read in English churches,but there was widespread grumbling,from all corners,about both its scholarship and its style. Ambrose Ussher,brother of of the more famous James,Bishop of Armagh...criticized the KJB as being a rushed job,scholarly fast-food,in which 'the cook hasted you out a reasonable sudden meal.' Those criticizing the KJB style also included the polymath John selden,the poet samuel Butler,and the scientist Robert Boyle,among many others[pages7,8]

John Seldon,for instance,himself a brilliant Hebraist,criticized the KJB translators for rendering the Bible 'into English words rather than into English phrases,' which resulted,he claimed,in mockery from the common reader.' [p.10]

 

[Baptist4life]

Why is it OK for you to post these kinds of threads, but when someone posts something negative about the NIV, you go ballistic, and demand an apology?

People did not like the gender neutral NIV2011. That's common knowledge, but you get all upset when someone pointed it out in another thread. I daresay that is your entire reason for this thread.

 

[Amy.G]

Why is it OK for you to post these kinds of threads, but when someone posts something negative about the NIV, you go ballistic, and demand an apology?

People did not like the gender neutral NIV2011. That's common knowledge, but you get all upset when someone pointed it out in another thread. I daresay that is your entire reason for this thread.

Where is the "like" button? :tongue3:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I Just Have To Say.....

Rippon...I just have to say how much I appreciate ALL YOU (and others here) DO to inspire confidence in the infallible, inerrant, preserved Word's of God here on the Baptist Board.:BangHead: I just don't know what we'd do without you.:tear:

Bro.Greg:tonofbricks:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

From the same book as referenced above was another chapter entitled The KJB and its reception history by Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones.

"...the KJB was not particularly well received in 1611 or for some decades thereafter...The KJB was now read in English churches,but there was widespread grumbling,from all corners,about both its scholarship and its style. Ambrose Ussher,brother of of the more famous James,Bishop of Armagh...criticized the KJB as being a rushed job,scholarly fast-food,in which 'the cook hasted you out a reasonable sudden meal.' Those criticizing the KJB style also included the polymath John selden,the poet samuel Butler,and the scientist Robert Boyle,among many others[pages7,8]

John Seldon,for instance,himself a brilliant Hebraist,criticized the KJB translators for rendering the Bible 'into English words rather than into English phrases,' which resulted,he claimed,in mockery from the common reader.' [p.10]

Sooooo.....ah, its accepted now by a ton of people who use it daily.....soooo why the history lesson? Please advise.

 

[Van]

All these threads that address the flaws in the KJV, are simply a counterweight to KJV onlyism. It is time for that fiction to join the dust bin of history.

 

[saturneptune]

The King James Bible after 400 Years edited by Hamlin and Jones has some interesting material.

One chaper is by Robert Alter. It's called The Glories and the glitches of the KJB.

"Consequently,one repeatedly encounters small misconstructions of idioms,syntax,and lexical values in the 1611 version,and there qare more than a few real howlers...[In Genesis 15] it is said of Abraham,'and,lo,a horror of great darkness fell upon him.' The actual meaning of the Hebrew is 'a great dark horror [or dread fell upon him.'...the seventeenth-century translators confused the syntax and made Abraham our forefather afraid of the dark...[[In Job 3:8],'Let them curse it that curse the day,who are ready to raise up their mourning.'...The 1611 translators miscontrued livyatan,Leviathan,for a homonym that means 'their mourning'.

Misconstructions of this sort reflect the limitations of knowledge of the era..." [page 46]

[The author speaks of the book of Ecclesiastes and says that the KJV translators based the word "vanity" on the Latin Vulgate's vanitas.]"The Hebrew hevel means 'breath' or more precisely,'exaled breath.'...The metaphor thus conveys the whole package of overlapping attributes,not just vanitas,and representing it as a single abstractiondilutes the richness of what is said. [Page 51]

"...there are moments when,for all its justly celebrated eloquence,it sounds altogether awkward...Stylistic pratfalls of this sort are scattered through all the books of the king James Bible..." [page 54]

You are one of the most destructive posters that has crossed this board in seven or eight years. Instead of nitpicking the Word of God, regardless of the version, be thankful you have the Word of God, and that the Lord chose you for salvation. I am sure someone sitting in eternal punishment does not care what the word "vanity" translates to more accurately in Ecclesiastes.

 

[Oldtimer]

You are one of the most destructive posters that has crossed this board in seven or eight years. Instead of nitpicking the Word of God, regardless of the version, be thankful you have the Word of God, and that the Lord chose you for salvation. I am sure someone sitting in eternal punishment does not care what the word "vanity" translates to more accurately in Ecclesiastes.

Well said, Brother.

As I've said before, my father couldn't read or write his name. Think it mattered to him whether the word was spirit or Spirit in various versions of the Bible? Since he's gone on before me, perhaps I can ask him when it's my turn to be called home.

One of the devil's goals has to be to destroy belief in God's word. Scriptures warn us there will be a famine in the land of hearing His word. Folks, IMO, "nitpicking the Word of God" is doing a pretty good job of bringing that about.

Folks, we're not talking about the works of Chaucer, Shakespear, or Margaret Mitchell. I don't give a hoot about how much "textual criticism" is applied to those. I do care, deeply, about the work that begins with "In the beginning" and ends with "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen".

Often, it makes me want to :tear: when God's Word is treated like yesterday's newspaper. Especially, by those professing to be members of the body of Christ who are waiting for the time to be with Him.

 

[Bro. James]

Are'nt we smart?

The originals of the Holy Writ were God breathed. We seem to have misplaced them. There are thousands of good copies. But most English speaking folk are not into Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic..

The gospel was preached for hundred of years before the English of King James, a universal church, pedobaptistic king, who thought he ruled by divine fiat. There was already a good English bible: the Geneva. See the charge given to the KJV translators. See also their dedication response.

Curious: some say the NT church on board the Mayflower which landed at Plymouth Rock had Geneva Bibles.

Basic paradigms: translators are not infallible nor are their translations. The scripture preceeded the church, not proceeded from her. Scripture cannot be discerned without being born from above--see Nicodemus, John 3. He was a Master of religion--outside the kingdom of God.

It is all quite simple: We must be born again. A little child can understand--many "most right reverend doctors" have not a clue.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Yeshua1]

Why is it OK for you to post these kinds of threads, but when someone posts something negative about the NIV, you go ballistic, and demand an apology?

People did not like the gender neutral NIV2011. That's common knowledge, but you get all upset when someone pointed it out in another thread. I daresay that is your entire reason for this thread.

I hold the originals ONLY as inerrant, hold that the CT is best available today, am nasP, do like both kjv/niv, but wonder what would happen if we did a "flaws of the Niv" thread?

 

[Oldtimer]

I hold the originals ONLY as inerrant, hold that the CT is best available today, am nasP, do like both kjv/niv, but wonder what would happen if we did a "flaws of the Niv" thread?

But did you read the article?

 

[Yeshua1]

But did you read the article?

which one?

 

[Oldtimer]

which one?

Apologies once again. Wrong thread.

:tonofbricks:

 

[HankD]

In AD1611 The Church of England was still awakening from her deep sleep of the doctrines of the Dark Age (and indeed still is a very sleepy church).

But one thing which we should all applaud is her history over 2-3 centuries of a meticulous effort to refine every single word of the AV.

Armed with a wide scoped dictionary including contemporary Elizabethan-Jacobean period English, I don't believe a better English Bible (based upon the Traditional Greek and Hebrew Texts) can be had.

Having said that I have no problem using Modern English texts (e.g. the NIV) to find the "sense" of the scripture in our 21st century English).

e.g.

1 Chronicles 26 KJV

12 Among these were the divisions of the porters, even among the chief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD.
13 And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate.
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.​

NIV
12 These divisions of the gatekeepers, through their chief men, had duties for ministering in the temple of the LORD, just as their relatives had.
13 Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.
15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons.
16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. Guard was alongside of guard:
17 There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse.
18 As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari.​

2 Corinthians 6 KJV
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.​

NIV
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.​

Then, combined with all the electronic tools of the day, we have at our fingertips the entirety of the Word of God
instantly accessible along with lexicons, grammars, Bible dictionaries, church histories, systematic theologies, commentaries,
ancient translations, archeological discoveries, etc, etc...​

We are blessed above all generations.​

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

...For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required...

HankD​

 

[Van]

The KJV has many flaws and better translations are available. It translates the same Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words willy nilly, sometimes using overlapping English words, thus obliterating the distinction presented in the underlying language. And it must be re-translated by the user using a dictionary that tells the archaic meaning of many words.

One the one hand, KJV only folks tells us of the many faults in the NKJV or the NIV, yet when others tell of the faults of the KJV, why they are undercutting the faith and tearing down the word of God.

It is time for KJV onlyism to be put on the dust bin of history, and fundamentalism's new direction is a step in that direction.

 

[Rippon]

The King James Bible after 400 Years edited by Hamlin and Jones has some interesting material.

Chapter one is by Stephen Prickett called Language within language.

"...this casade of delight really dates only from the beginning of the nineteenth century. As david Norton has shown,if we go back to the first two hundred years of the KJB the evidence suggests both that the new version was not at first seen as in any way distinctive,nor was it greatly admired stylistically. Indeed,there is a paradox here,in that this crescendo of praise has roots in a reaction against earlier eighteenth-century criticism suggesting that the language of the KJB was 'harsh,' 'uncouth,' and 'obsolete.' " [page 27]

"...given that it was the creation of a large committe,...it is hardly surprising that the result was a massive uniformity,...which flattened differences between Hebrew,Aramaic,and koine Greek into a single dignified amalgam.' [p.33]

 

[Rippon]

David Norton has two volumes A history of the Bible as literature.Chapter 14 is entitled :The eloquentest books in the world.

He says of the time period of 1636-1700: "The KJB,then,sounded bad in a time that was becoming accustomed to it,not just because it was in an English believed to be inferior to the English to come,but because it represented a literature that did not conform to the Restoration ideals of exactness,smoothness and clarity.' [page 260]

 

[Rippon]

Why is it OK for you to post these kinds of threads, but when someone posts something negative about the NIV, you go ballistic, and demand an apology?

# 1,because I am not lying.

People did not like the gender neutral NIV2011. That's common knowledge,

It's common ignorance. Many folks do refer to it as gender-neutral,but it actually gender-accurate. All sorts of false things are attributed to the NIV. As Christians truth should be a priority.