KJV Errors

[zach_dunn]

On many occasions I’ve read and heard people say that the KJV contains numerous errors, or the the Textus Receptus has known errors. I’ve seen some people give one or two errors but never as many as people claim there are. So I was just wondering if we could start compiling a list of the errors in the KJV, it can be from the 1611 or one of the newer KJVs (no NKJVs, please); please say which version of the KJV (1611, etc.) your error is from!

Thank you!!

 

[bill_Karabinus]

This should be interesting. I will begin my research today!!!

 

[bpbasilphx]

The 18th century Roman Catholic theologian Alexander Geddes said of the KJV something to the effect that “if scrupulous accuracy be said to make an excellent translation, this is of all translations the most excellent.”

 

[GeorgeSword]

1 Samuel 17; the height of Goliath is vastly inflated in the Textus Recepticus compared to earlier, more accurate manuscripts.

Contains the doxology in Matthew’s version of the Our Father.

 

[Rightlydivide]

1 Samuel 17; the height of Goliath is vastly inflated in the Textus Recepticus compared to earlier, more accurate manuscripts.

Contains the doxology in Matthew’s version of the Our Father.

The RSV has the same height as the KJV…right? In fact, what Catholic Bibles do not make the same error you state about the KJV?
Is it possible that some older manuscripts (DSS primarily) record the 4 cubits and others do not. However, that does not make an error. That makes a disagreement. For example, if we summise that all older manuscripts are more reliable; what do we do when the critical texts disagree? Same with the doxology; different streams have it, others do not. The Didache agrees with us…does it not?

 

[Robert_Michael]

This website shows a list of some KJV (and NIV) errors: thedevineevidence.com/bible_contradictions_translation.html

 

[GeorgeSword]

The RSV has the same height as the KJV…right? In fact, what Catholic Bibles do not make the same error you state about the KJV?

The NAB places his height at six foot six, and I believe the NJB does the same, but I can’t check for sure (the website that hosts it keeps crashing my browser). This is much more realistic and within non-supernatural bounds, and would have been fairly tall a thousand or so years before Christ.

Same with the doxology; different streams have it, others do not. The Didache agrees with us…does it not?

The Church does not use the doxology in the Our Father. It is a different prayer used in the Mass, and started out as a different prayer. Over time people began to mesh the two, and once this became so common, the people copying the manuscripts may have assumed that it was an error that they were left out to begin with, and added them in. No Catholic Bible that I am aware of has the doxology, and no manuscript of Luke includes it.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

You know it’s pretty hard really to call things errors.

For instance do you want to call the use of unicorn an error? They didn’t know the meaning of the one Hebrew term. Going back to the Septuagint, people followed the literal translation of the single horn. You can follow it in the Vulgate, Luther, Tyndale whatever. All the translators I’m aware of followed the literal Greek.

Today people read it and think it’s referring to the mythical horse with a single horn which the translators did not, the even said rhinocerous in a footnote thinking it most likely to be the single horned rhinocerous. The Vulgate used the Latin rhinocerous and unicorn both. Well, we know it as a species of extinct oxen today.

Now was it an error in translating? I guess so, but don’t call it an error unless you also want to say the Septuagint and the Vulgate are also in error.

So, is that an error?

How about the parphrasing of Helal son of Shakarr as Lucifer, son of the morning. They likely weren’t too up on their Bablylonian mythology so again they followed the Vulgate. Is that an error?

And some places they perfectly translated the text they received, only the text is wrong. Should we call that an error in the KJV?

Or the insertion of the Johannine Comma from the Latin manuscript family, is that an error?

I really don’t like to call many of these things errors because they were reasonable for them to do with the information they had at the time. Now we’ve got knowledge they didn’t have and so have changed those things, but were they really errors? I’m not to comfortable saying they were.

And other ‘errors’ are where the language has changed. It was accurate at the time, but creates a misunderstanding when read in today’s English. Things like the word “let” come to mind.

In any case there are errors, but there are also errors in every translation. But things like the “swallow a camel and strain at a gnat” is clearly an error. Not sure if it’s a translation error, which seems unlikely. Rather is seems to be a printing error were “out” was printed as “at” and has never been corrected.

Anyway, let me know what you mean by error.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=GeorgeSword;6049083]The NAB places his height at six foot six, and I believe the NJB does the same, but I can’t check for sure (the website that hosts it keeps crashing my browser). This is much more realistic and within non-supernatural bounds, and would have been fairly tall a thousand or so years before Christ.

The NJB has the same height as does the other Catholic Bible I cited. So Catholic Bibles have the same “error”. Non-supernatural bounds?

The Church does not use the doxology in the Our Father. It is a different prayer used in the Mass, and started out as a different prayer. Over time people began to mesh the two, and once this became so common, the people copying the manuscripts may have assumed that it was an error that they were left out to begin with, and added them in. No Catholic Bible that I am aware of has the doxology, and no manuscript of Luke includes it.

No manuscript? Until when says you? Lets look at it.

 

[William1964]

1 Corinthians 7:9

“But if they ***do not ***contain themselves…”

Notes in the DRV: Ver. 9. If they do not contain, etc. This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency, Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain.

 

[geometer]

I believe that the textus receptus has quite a few major errors so whether or not the KJV is accurate is moot.

The KJV does give a translation of the old testament which is very word for word in relation to the hebrew, but the new testament leaves a lot to be desired.

See this video:

Rabbi speaks out on biblical error

 

[Rightlydivide]

The concluding doxology of the Lord’s Prayer is not without considerable testimony in its favor of a very ancient sort. It is found in three Syriac versions, the Peshitta, the Harclean, and the Palestinian. Whether the doxology occurred in the Sinaitic Syriac also is not certain, for the last part of the Lord’s Prayer is missing from this manuscript. It is found, however, in the Curetonian manuscript, the other representative of the Old Syriac in the following form, Because Thine is the kingdom and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen. The Sahidic also has the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, and so do some manuscripts of the slightly younger Bohairic. In the Sahidic it runs like this, Because Thine is the power and the glory, unto the ages, Amen. And in the Old Latin manuscript k (which is generally thought to contain the version in its oldest form) the Lord’s Prayer ends thus, Because to Thee is the power for ever and ever. And the doxology is also found in its customary form in four other Old Latin manuscripts.

Thus the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer occurs in five manuscripts of the Old Latin (including the best one), in the Sahidic, and in all the extant Syriac versions. Normally the agreement of three such groups of ancient witnesses from three separate regions would be regarded as an indication of the genuineness of the reading on which they thus agreed. Hort ( 1881 ), (29) however, endeavored to escape the force of this evidence by suggesting that the doxologies found (1) in k, (2) in the Sahidic version, (3) in the Syriac versions and the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts were three independent developments which had no connection with each other. But by this suggestion Hort multiplied three-fold the difficulty mentioned above. If it is difficult to believe that the early Christians chose for their most familiar prayer a conclusion which made no mention of Christ it is thrice as difficult to believe that they did this three times independently in three separate regions. Surely it is easier to suppose that these three doxologies are all derived from an original doxology uttered by Christ and that the variations in wording are due to the liturgical use of the Lord’s Prayer, which will be described presently.

The Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles, a work generally regarded as having been written in the first half of the 2nd century, also bears important witness to the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer. This ancient document was not known until 1883, when Bryennios, a Greek Catholic bishop, published it from a copy which he had discovered at Constantinople in 1875. It is a manual of Church instruction in two parts, the first being a statement of Christian conduct to be taught to converts before baptism, and the second a series of directions for Christian worship. Here the following commandment is given concerning prayer. And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, pray thus: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven so also upon earth; give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. (30)

 

[GeorgeSword]

The NJB has the same height as does the other Catholic Bible I cited. So Catholic Bibles have the same “error”. Non-supernatural bounds?

Catholic Bibles can hardly be called perfect, either. Josephus also records his height at six foot six, by the way. I question if he could have been nine foot five. No recorded person has ever reached that height, so it seems unlikely in the extreme that someone three thousand years ago could be expected to do so without it being some sort of supernatural occurance.

No manuscript? Until when says you? Lets look at it.

I’ve never seen any version of Luke that includes the doxology at the end of the prayer, so I assume that no manuscripts do so.

 

[patrick457]

The two things I’m going to post are not ‘errors’ per se, but rather small, trivial ones which are potentially confusing (gotta love the small and trivial stuff).

• The two kheruvim on the kapporet/‘Mercy-seat’ are referred to as ‘cherubims’, with cherubim being used to refer to one cherub. Since -im in Hebrew already expresses plurality, having -s attached to it is actually redundant. This is hardly the KJV’s fault however: most English Bibles which existed before it also had the same grammatical mistake. And while we’re at it, ‘mercy-seat’ is actually a paraphrase: the actual meaning of the word kapporet is uncertain, with many looking to other languages to ascertain its meaning (for example, the Egyptian kp n rdwj ‘sole of the feet’, the Hebrew kaphar literally ‘to cover’ or figuratively ‘to atone’, or even the Akkadian kapāru ‘to purify cultically’). We actually get ‘mercy-seat’ from Myles Coverdale’s 1535 translation, which in turn was taken from Luther’s gnadenstuhl/gnadenstuel (“seat of grace”). Coverdale was not proficient in Hebrew or Greek and instead used ‘five soundry interpreters’ in Latin, English and German as source text.
• In John 19:39, Nicodemus is reported as bringing “a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight]” to anoint the corpse of Jesus. Indeed, some complain that such an amount is too many - the body would have been literally buried within the myrrh and aloes, not to mention that the account would have necessitated Nicodemus carrying sacks and sacks of the mixture. The answer to this problem actually lies in the Greek text: the word translated as ‘pound’ in the KJV is the Greek litra, which actually - and obviously - refers to the Roman, instead of the English, pound (the Latin term is libra, from whence we get the abbreviation for pound, lb.). Since one Roman pound weighed about approximately 11.5 to 12 ounces - approx. 325 grams, “a hundred litras” would be equivalent to the more mundane amount of approximately 75 English pounds (approx. 32.5 kilograms), exactly the amount that some modern translations give it!

Again, this is not (just) the KJV’s fault: English translations since Wycliffe already had the tradition of rendering litra or libra literally as pound, at the expense of obscuring the text for later English speakers (who will, of course, think that the “pound” refers to an English pound).

 

[EnterCanaan]

This is called a translation error. This is only because the scribes did not have all the information we now possess in trying to understand the bible. They correctly translated the preposition as for, however the context is all wrong, and only by comparing scripture to scripture do we learn that this verse is more accurately translated as to ever and ever, which signifies an end, rather than for ever and ever which signifies infinity.

KJV
Rev 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night **for [to]*ever and ever.

*This verse has been mistranslated, where it reads 'for’ever and ever, it should read 'to’ever and ever. Implying duration through a time, as opposed to infinite time.

*Root from (Greek) : εἰς
Transliteration: eis
Part of Speech: preposition.
Definitions: into, unto, to, towards, for, among.
Lexicon: eis, a Prep. Governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among. ie: duration through a time; of the time in which a thing is done.

We can know that this is correct because as we listen to the bible, we get harmony, and so the context is that the lake of fire is the second death, which signifies a complete end

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
1Cor 15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Thus we can be assured that the verse is correctly translated as “to” ever and ever, because the second death is the final death and that signifies a complete end. Rather, we can understand this as the final day and night here on earth. which is to’ ever. because the last day is the end of time, which is the end of day and night and time and so on that day the lake of fire swallows up the remaining sin in the universe and God creates a new heaven and earth

Another translation error common in all bibles is the use of the word messenger and angel.

Angle and messenger is the same word

However in some cases, the word angel should have been translated as messenger but again the information they had, meaning the understanding they had, was not as complete then as it is now.

Christ is a messenger, man is a messenger, an angel is a messenger. All messengers of the good news

However, Christ is not an angel, man is not an angel, and an angel is not a man, and an angel is not Christ, yet the common word messenger is accurate for all.

When the bible teaches about a “chief messenger or archangel” well this isn’t speaking of an angel, such as Michael the archangel, This is speaking of Christ, because Christ is the chief messenger of the good news. for example in the book of Jude

1:9 (King James Version)
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

This is speaking of Christ, Michael is another name for Christ in this context. And we can know this is true because nobody is above Christ, and a archangel would be the chief angel, and sense no angel is above another angel, we know that the top, the chief, the leader, the king, the ONE TRUE messenger is always Christ.

Well this is a bible translation error. And we can be assured of it because we also have the original in which to compare the translation to. As well as the Strongs or Youngs concordance to define archaic words to us.

 

[zach_dunn]

Thanks for your replies everyone! This isn’t quite close to the “hundreds of errors” that I’ve been reading about, but maybe we’ll get there eventually!

Anyway, let me know what you mean by error.

Thank you, Jolly Joe, for your well written and thought out answer. When I say errors, I mean translations, “facts,” etc., that we know now to be completely false. They may have been “true” at the time, but I want to know what things that appeared in the 1611 KJV (and possibly newer versions if it as not been fixed) that we know to be undeniably and utterly false. By the way, what is the “Johannine Comma?” Thanks again!

Root from (Greek) : εἰς
Transliteration: eis
Part of Speech: preposition.
Definitions: into, unto, to, towards, for, among.
Lexicon: eis, a Prep. Governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among. ie: duration through a time; of the time in which a thing is done.

Don’t you kind of defeat your argument right here? You say that the word “for” is an inaccurate translation for the Greek word “εἰς” yet you say that “for” is a definition of “εἰς.” I think one way to help understand how to translate the phrase is to look how it was translated into other ancient languages; I can only speak for Latin, though! In Latin, Revelation 20:10ff ends with the words “in sæcula sæculorum” which simply means “forever and ever.” With that in mind, it’s seems clear that the verse is meant to be translated the way it normally is. Besides that, the translation “for ever and ever” makes much more sense than, “to ever and ever,” which makes me think that that’s what John was trying to say.

We can know that this is correct because as we listen to the bible, we get harmony, and so the context is that the lake of fire is the second death, which signifies a complete end

If you believe that the Bible does not teach the orthodox Christian doctrine of Hell, then you simply are not obeying what the Bible teaches. The Bible repeatedly teaches of everlasting punishment . . . to ignore the weighty testimony of Scripture is, essentially, to not be the Christian you claim to be.

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
1Cor 15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Thus we can be assured that the verse is correctly translated as “to” ever and ever, because the second death is the final death and that signifies a complete end. Rather, we can understand this as the final day and night here on earth. which is to’ ever. because the last day is the end of time, which is the end of day and night and time and so on that day the lake of fire swallows up the remaining sin in the universe and God creates a new heaven and earth

Could you possibly be a Jehovah’s Witness? I’m curious because you deny Hell, and say that Michael the Archangel is another name for Christ, which is peculiarly close to Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching. BTW, you are way off on your idea of what happens after death, we are judged and go to heaven, hell, or purgatory. Purgatory will pass eventually and cease to exist but heaven and hell will remain forever, this is all the testimony of Scripture!

 

[Jolly_Joe]

If the standard is things that we know to be completely false, then I don’t believe there is anything that rises to that level.

I could use the Johannine Comma to demonstrate.

If you take 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This is not a part of the original, that is fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is present in one manuscript family to any extent, the Latin. There is about a dozen Greek manuscripts where it shows, all of them late, only a couple actually have it in the text. One of those is manuscript 60 which seems to have been produced for exactly that reason.

Erasmus made his Greek text, with it his intention was to show the superiority of his Latin translation to the Vulgate. If you say give me a Vulgate today, you would get a copy that wouldn’t have this, but it was so common among the copies in use that it set off quite a bit of criticism of Erasmus that it wasn’t in his Greek text. Well evidently he said he didn’t include the well known passage because he had no Greek text. Before one of his early editions the manuscript was produced with it so he included it, with a huge footnote that questioned it.

We can see it in Wycliff’s translation as well. His translation was directly from the Latin.

And from Erasmus’ text we see it transmitted into Tyndale’s and the translations that followed Tyndale, which include the KJV.

The passage in a modern translation based on the critical test is: 1Jn 5:7-8 ESV
(7) For there are three that testify:
(8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Notice that the direct reference to the persons of the Trinity is missing.

This is about as certain as is worldly possible that the words of the persons of the Trinity are not a part of the original text; however, it is not false. As such it doesn’t rise to the standard you set. Non of the others do either. So you could really say of the KJV it teaches no error of doctrine, just as was said of the Vulgate, even though the Vulgate is not perfect either. And that’s speaking of the original, the manuscripts in use had the introduction of scribal variants.

As for the errors in the Vulgate, Erasmus’, Greek text with his own translation would likely be the best source to show what was the case in his day. We have the disadvantage as far as it goes in that we do not have the original text it is translated from so it’s difficult in some cases to say whether Jerome errored of if he was accurately following the text he used.

The Nova Vulgata corrected many of what the translators thought were errors of Jerome’s.

In any case, errors tend very much to be in the eyes of the beholder, seldom is there a perfect translation that completely contains a thought without adding anything to it. To take a translators imperfection, and substitute one’s own and claim the other is in error reflects a bit too much ego for my tastes.

 

[zach_dunn]

If the standard is things that we know to be completely false, then I don’t believe there is anything that rises to that level.

I could use the Johannine Comma to demonstrate.

If you take 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This is not a part of the original, that is fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is present in one manuscript family to any extent, the Latin. There is about a dozen Greek manuscripts where it shows, all of them late, only a couple actually have it in the text. One of those is manuscript 60 which seems to have been produced for exactly that reason.

Erasmus made his Greek text, with it his intention was to show the superiority of his Latin translation to the Vulgate. If you say give me a Vulgate today, you would get a copy that wouldn’t have this, but it was so common among the copies in use that it set off quite a bit of criticism of Erasmus that it wasn’t in his Greek text. Well evidently he said he didn’t include the well known passage because he had no Greek text. Before one of his early editions the manuscript was produced with it so he included it, with a huge footnote that questioned it.

We can see it in Wycliff’s translation as well. His translation was directly from the Latin.

And from Erasmus’ text we see it transmitted into Tyndale’s and the translations that followed Tyndale, which include the KJV.

The passage in a modern translation based on the critical test is: 1Jn 5:7-8 ESV
(7) For there are three that testify:
(8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Notice that the direct reference to the persons of the Trinity is missing.

This is about as certain as is worldly possible that the words of the persons of the Trinity are not a part of the original text; however, it is not false. As such it doesn’t rise to the standard you set. Non of the others do either. So you could really say of the KJV it teaches no error of doctrine, just as was said of the Vulgate, even though the Vulgate is not perfect either. And that’s speaking of the original, the manuscripts in use had the introduction of scribal variants.

As for the errors in the Vulgate, Erasmus’, Greek text with his own translation would likely be the best source to show what was the case in his day. We have the disadvantage as far as it goes in that we do not have the original text it is translated from so it’s difficult in some cases to say whether Jerome errored of if he was accurately following the text he used.

The Nova Vulgata corrected many of what the translators thought were errors of Jerome’s.

In any case, errors tend very much to be in the eyes of the beholder, seldom is there a perfect translation that completely contains a thought without adding anything to it. To take a translators imperfection, and substitute one’s own and claim the other is in error reflects a bit too much ego for my tastes.

Ok, I think I did a poor job of explaining the “error” I was talking about. By error I don’t mean doctrinal error, I simply mean having something in the text that was not in the original texts, based on what we know today. An example of this would be the Johannine Comma: it is not a doctrinal error, but the Johannine Comma was (most likely) not what John actually wrote and was added much later. Those are the kinds of errors I am looking for. Thanks for your reply!

 

[Jolly_Joe]

If you get “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” by Bruce Metzger, it would have commentary on many of the passages and even a rating as to how certain we are about them.

I don’t know of any comparable reference for the Old Testament.

I’d also suggest getting the NET Bible. It’s many thousands of translators notes speak often of the textual questions the translators deal with.

Those deal with the text. You might want also a Greek New Testament with critical apparatus. The Diglot at bible.org has the apparatus in combination with a special set of footnotes from the NET translators.

For translator errors, those tend to be in the eyes of the beholder, not all of them would be appreciated here.

zianet.com/maxey/Ver1.htm speaks of some of those types of things.

I would think cataloging the things you find in those would take you a couple of months.

There is another error that is quite interesting and actually is reflected in the Creeds, are you familiar with the monogenes (translated in KJV as “only begotten”) error? We also see this error in the Vulgate and the DRB faithfully reproduced it.

 

[patrick457]

1 Samuel 17; the height of Goliath is vastly inflated in the Textus Recepticus compared to earlier, more accurate manuscripts.

To add on this: critics already know that the Masoretic 1 and 2 Samuel has much textual corruption. For example, the Masoretic version is shorter than the text as preserved in the Septuagint and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Cave 4 near Qumran (4QSam[SUP]a[/SUP]); has improper word division, metathesis, and other orthographic problems; while certain phrases and clauses go against rules of Hebrew grammar.

The Masoretic text as it is today does have shesh 'ammot ve’zeret: “six 'ammot (cubits) and a zeret (span)”, a reading supported by later Septuagint manuscripts. However, Josephus, 4QSam[SUP]a[/SUP], and some Greek witnesses put Goliath’s height at four cubits and a span. The discrepancy is explained as being either caused by exaggeration as the story was retold in later ages or confusion of the Hebrew letters dalet (ד, numerical value: 4) and vav (ו, numerical value: 6).