I
Ignatius
Guest
Where can I find a detailed list of the errors if the original King James 1611 version? Does the modern King James version have those same errors?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
lak611
Guest
Are you referring to copyist errors, differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, or something else?Where can I find a detailed list of the errors if the original King James 1611 version? Does the modern King James version have those same errors?
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
Well I don’t know there is a comphrehensive list easily available. The English publishers probably haveone, I’m just not sure that it’s easily available.
And to have a chance to get a list, you need to define error.
There are printer’s errors, many of which have been corrected. One of the famous such actually is why the very first 1611 KJV’s are called “He” bibles. Because they have a “she” as a “he”. And there are other famous ones like the version that came out with “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
Anyway there’s been a lot of correction to printers errors, though one famous one still is in the KJV that where the KJV says “strain at a gnat” instead of “strain out a gnat”.
In any case the vast majority of those have been corrected.
Then there is where the words have been changed in spelling, I really wouldn’t consider them errors, the majority of corrections consist of that type.
Then there are changes in the underlying text. I don’t know whether you would consider them an error. The most famous of that would be the Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7-8. That was inserted into the Erasmus text that stands behing the KJV when Catholic critics of Erasmus’ text pointed out that it was missing. Erasmus said the reason it was missing is he didn’t have a Greek manuscript with it, well just before his third edition such a manuscript was produced. Evidently made to order. It’s not an error in translation, it’s there in Erasmus’ text. And there are verses and such throughout the KJV that we really don’t believe are original. So whether they are what you want to consider an error or not I don’t know.
Then there are translator’s choices in words. This is where we could actually consider them translation errors. Often this is a matter of opinion. There are some where the error is more an insertion of how people understand the work today. For instance the KJV talks of unicorns, which people read and think of the mythical horse with one horn, but what they meant was the single horned rhinocerous.
The DRB and Vulgate also use rhinocerous or unicorn. It’s an error that goes all the way back to the Septuagint. People did not know what was being referenced so they followed earlier translations. Thanks to study we know today it was a now extinct oxen.
Anyway, in comparison to more modern translations, you can see a lot of the differences, (I’m not sure I would say errors) at bibletexts.com/bt.htm
bible-researcher.com/canon10.html gives some useful information.
And you could always get a copy of a 1611 KJV and compare it with whatever you desire.
JJ
And to have a chance to get a list, you need to define error.
There are printer’s errors, many of which have been corrected. One of the famous such actually is why the very first 1611 KJV’s are called “He” bibles. Because they have a “she” as a “he”. And there are other famous ones like the version that came out with “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
Anyway there’s been a lot of correction to printers errors, though one famous one still is in the KJV that where the KJV says “strain at a gnat” instead of “strain out a gnat”.
In any case the vast majority of those have been corrected.
Then there is where the words have been changed in spelling, I really wouldn’t consider them errors, the majority of corrections consist of that type.
Then there are changes in the underlying text. I don’t know whether you would consider them an error. The most famous of that would be the Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7-8. That was inserted into the Erasmus text that stands behing the KJV when Catholic critics of Erasmus’ text pointed out that it was missing. Erasmus said the reason it was missing is he didn’t have a Greek manuscript with it, well just before his third edition such a manuscript was produced. Evidently made to order. It’s not an error in translation, it’s there in Erasmus’ text. And there are verses and such throughout the KJV that we really don’t believe are original. So whether they are what you want to consider an error or not I don’t know.
Then there are translator’s choices in words. This is where we could actually consider them translation errors. Often this is a matter of opinion. There are some where the error is more an insertion of how people understand the work today. For instance the KJV talks of unicorns, which people read and think of the mythical horse with one horn, but what they meant was the single horned rhinocerous.
The DRB and Vulgate also use rhinocerous or unicorn. It’s an error that goes all the way back to the Septuagint. People did not know what was being referenced so they followed earlier translations. Thanks to study we know today it was a now extinct oxen.
Anyway, in comparison to more modern translations, you can see a lot of the differences, (I’m not sure I would say errors) at bibletexts.com/bt.htm
bible-researcher.com/canon10.html gives some useful information.
And you could always get a copy of a 1611 KJV and compare it with whatever you desire.
JJ
I
Ignatius
Guest
I was hoping to find a comprehensive list of all errors.Ignatius;3202100:
Are you referring to copyist errors, differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, or something else?Where can I find a detailed list of the errors if the original King James 1611 version? Does the modern King James version have those same errors?
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I suggest you Google “problems with the KJV” and see what you can find.Where can I find a detailed list of the errors if the original King James 1611 version? Does the modern King James version have those same errors?
This is the first thing the search found (a MS Word document):
journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/Translation_Problems_in_the_KJV_New_Testament.doc
It appears to be pretty fair and compares the 1611 with the ‘modern’ KJV. Overall the KJV is a good translation but the article says there were quite a few errors here and there.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Thanks CD. That’s exactly what I was looking for. I didn’t get anything like this from my searches. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. Half the time I get nothing but useless results from a search. It’s awfully random as to how effective it is.I suggest you Google “problems with the KJV” and see what you can find.
This is the first thing the search found (a MS Word document):
journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/Translation_Problems_in_the_KJV_New_Testament.doc
It appears to be pretty fair and compares the 1611 with the ‘modern’ KJV. Overall the KJV is a good translation but the article says there were quite a few errors here and there.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Translation Errors
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:
Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word “before” is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat” which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other’s sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.” The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
II Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little children.”
Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”
Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” God’s laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God’s laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.
Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad William Miller didn’t realize this.
Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." “Curse” doesn’t give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.
Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.” “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.” Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh be saved alive.”
Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood.” The Savior’s death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.
Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . .” should be translated literally, “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God’s good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God’s good will in their hearts.
Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong’s #3404, as “hate”, when it should be rendered “love less by comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and family!
John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.
John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. “By” should be “through”: “For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . .” Moses did not proclaim his law, but God’s Law.
John 13:2 should be “And during supper” (RSV) rather than “And supper being ended” (KJV).
Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word “Easter” which should be rendered “Passover.” The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.
I Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God”, rather than “perish” and “are saved.” Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be “are perishing” rather than “perish.”
I Corinthians 15:29 should be: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?”
II Corinthians 6:2 should be “a day of salvation”, instead of “the day of salvation.” This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.
I Timothy 4:8 should say, “For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . .”
I Timothy 6:10 should be, “For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . .”
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:
Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word “before” is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat” which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other’s sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.” The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
II Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little children.”
Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”
Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” God’s laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God’s laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.
Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad William Miller didn’t realize this.
Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." “Curse” doesn’t give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.
Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.” “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.” Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh be saved alive.”
Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood.” The Savior’s death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.
Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . .” should be translated literally, “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God’s good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God’s good will in their hearts.
Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong’s #3404, as “hate”, when it should be rendered “love less by comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and family!
John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.
John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. “By” should be “through”: “For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . .” Moses did not proclaim his law, but God’s Law.
John 13:2 should be “And during supper” (RSV) rather than “And supper being ended” (KJV).
Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word “Easter” which should be rendered “Passover.” The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.
I Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God”, rather than “perish” and “are saved.” Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be “are perishing” rather than “perish.”
I Corinthians 15:29 should be: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?”
II Corinthians 6:2 should be “a day of salvation”, instead of “the day of salvation.” This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.
I Timothy 4:8 should say, “For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . .”
I Timothy 6:10 should be, “For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . .”
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Hebrews 4:8 should be “Joshua” rather than “Jesus”, although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.
Hebrews 4:9 should read, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God.”
Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation.”
I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.
Revelation 14:4 should be “a firstfruits”, because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.
Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence “This is the first resurrection.” in verse five refers back to “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” in verse four.
Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be ‘were cast’ because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
Revelation 22:2 should be “health” rather than “healing.”
Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong
No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.
In Psalms 81:4, “was” is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.
We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized “are” is incorrect and that “were cast” in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), “I am he.” The “he” is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great “I AM” of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.
In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words “the son” are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.
Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words “it were”. It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!
Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words “to be.” The fact is, Christians are now saints.
I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God.”
Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word “is” in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don’t let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.
I Timothy 3:11 has “their” in italics, which is not implied in the original.
II Peter 2:5 should not have “person, a.” Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.
I John 2:23 has “[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.
Hebrews 4:9 should read, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God.”
Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation.”
I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.
Revelation 14:4 should be “a firstfruits”, because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.
Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence “This is the first resurrection.” in verse five refers back to “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” in verse four.
Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be ‘were cast’ because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
Revelation 22:2 should be “health” rather than “healing.”
Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong
No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.
In Psalms 81:4, “was” is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.
We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized “are” is incorrect and that “were cast” in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), “I am he.” The “he” is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great “I AM” of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.
In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words “the son” are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.
Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words “it were”. It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!
Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words “to be.” The fact is, Christians are now saints.
I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God.”
Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word “is” in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don’t let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.
I Timothy 3:11 has “their” in italics, which is not implied in the original.
II Peter 2:5 should not have “person, a.” Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.
I John 2:23 has “[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Punctuation Problems
Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The comma should not be after “thee”, but “day.” The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.
Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between “risen” and “early” and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .” Thus, it should say, “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .”
Written by: Richard Nickels
biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The comma should not be after “thee”, but “day.” The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.
Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between “risen” and “early” and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .” Thus, it should say, “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .”
Written by: Richard Nickels
biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Translating for King James;
being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible, the Authorized version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers’ Hall in London in 1610-1611.
Author: Bois, John, 1561-1644.; Allen, Ward,; Walker, Anthony,
Publication: [Nashville] Vanderbilt University Press, 1969, 1610
The book of Job :
the common English version, the Hebrew text, and the revised version of the American Bible Union, with critical and philological notes.
Author: Conant, Thomas Jefferson,
Publication: New York : American Bible Union, 1856
The word that is often translated as “hell” in the OT is actually the grave, or the underworld in Hebrew, Sheol.
being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible, the Authorized version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers’ Hall in London in 1610-1611.
Author: Bois, John, 1561-1644.; Allen, Ward,; Walker, Anthony,
Publication: [Nashville] Vanderbilt University Press, 1969, 1610
The book of Job :
the common English version, the Hebrew text, and the revised version of the American Bible Union, with critical and philological notes.
Author: Conant, Thomas Jefferson,
Publication: New York : American Bible Union, 1856
The word that is often translated as “hell” in the OT is actually the grave, or the underworld in Hebrew, Sheol.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.