N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
So I have heard that the KJV has many errors
What exactly are the errors?
Inquiring minds want to know
What exactly are the errors?
Inquiring minds want to know
- Status
C
Crumpy
Guest
inquiring minds should go to www.bing.com and do a search for “errors in the king james version.”
inquiring minds would have a chance to look at “hits” like this one:
giveshare.org/BibleStudy/122.kjverrors.html
–offered here without comment
inquiring minds would have a chance to look at “hits” like this one:
giveshare.org/BibleStudy/122.kjverrors.html
–offered here without comment
J
John7
Guest
here’s an error, kind of a small one
Matthew 4:5 KJV
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Luke 4:9 KJV
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
The Greek in both Matt and Luke has the article before pinnacle…so both should read ‘the pinnacle’, not ‘a pinnacle’.
difference between ‘a’ and ‘the’, with ‘a’ there could be more than one pinnacle, whereas ‘the’ pinnacle gives idea of just one.
Pinnacle [EBD]
a little wing, (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9). On the southern side of the temple court was a range of porches or cloisters forming three arcades. At the south-eastern corner the roof of this cloister was some 300 feet above the Kidron valley. The pinnacle, some parapet or wing-like projection, was above this roof, and hence at a great height, probably 350 feet or more above the valley.
Matthew 4:5 KJV
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Luke 4:9 KJV
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
The Greek in both Matt and Luke has the article before pinnacle…so both should read ‘the pinnacle’, not ‘a pinnacle’.
difference between ‘a’ and ‘the’, with ‘a’ there could be more than one pinnacle, whereas ‘the’ pinnacle gives idea of just one.
Pinnacle [EBD]
a little wing, (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9). On the southern side of the temple court was a range of porches or cloisters forming three arcades. At the south-eastern corner the roof of this cloister was some 300 feet above the Kidron valley. The pinnacle, some parapet or wing-like projection, was above this roof, and hence at a great height, probably 350 feet or more above the valley.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, actually this is not an error unique to the KJV. If I remember correctly, many if not most translations do have a habit of putting a definite article in a few places where there would be none in the original, and vice versa.
I would be splitting hairs here, but I’ve also just been reminded of the tendency in many recent translations to rendering the Greek kraniou topos as “(the) place of the skull.” There’s also no definite article in the original, note. IMO a more correct translation would be “skull('s) place” or “(a) place of (a) skull”. Incidentally, the KJV got it right by using the latter option.
And when they were come vnto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,… (Matthew 27:33)
And they bring him vnto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull. (Mark 15:22)
And he bearing his crosse, went foorth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrewe, Golgotha. (John 19:17)
Before the KJV, the common tendency in English translations is either (as in translations that use the Vulgate, such Wycliff and the 1582 Rheims NT) to follow the Latin and give the phrase “the place of Calvary” - transliterating the Latin calvaria - or (as for most other versions) use some form of the phrase “the place of dead men’s skulls,” following Tyndale.
BTW, just a little note on the word translated “pinnacle”.
The word is a diminutive of pteryx, ‘wing’. Hence pterygion means, ‘little wing’ or ‘winglet’. Apart from Matthew and Luke’s use of the word, the word is not used elsewhere to refer to a building feature, though there are rare uses of it in classical literature for a projecting piece of a coat of armor or rudder or some such machinery. Thus, it is usually interpreted that here, pterygion refers to an extremity, a tip or a projection: Jesus now found Himself on a high portion of the Temple. Even so, which exact part of the Temple complex He stood at is not really clear and is open for speculation and debate.
B
brb3
Guest
What’s your ‘opinion’ of this article ? By Nickles … Ambassador College sources, references to Plain Truth Magazine. Thats the Worldwide Church of God … founded by Herbert W. Armstrong … a fraud, a false witness … both he and his son Garner Ted, IMO.
Claims Jerome’s work on Vulgate was corrupted. I’ve always been led to believe that Jerome went straight to the most knowledgeable Jews of his time … to get his work as precise as possible. He became more studied in Hebrew and ancient languages … than anyone else in his day.
J
John7
Guest
Found the culprit: Tyndale…then it gets passed along to the KJ-1611, interestingly Wycliffe and the Rheims NT from the Latin got it ‘right’. Pretty much all translations in last ~ hundred years translate τὸ πτερύγιον/pinnacle as definite. Don’t know how ‘good’ Tyndale’s Greek syntax was but now there’s a lot (ugh) of syntax rules that govern the Grk article (eg Apollonius’ Canon, I think it applies here -see Wallace pp239-240).
**Wycliffe 1395 **
5 Thanne the feend took hym in to the hooli citee, and settide hym on the pynacle of the temple,
9 And he ledde hym in to Jerusalem, and sette hym on the pynacle of the temple,
**Tyndale 1525 **
5 Then the devyll tooke hym vp into ye holy cite and set hym on a pynacle of the teple
9 And he caryed him to Ierusalem and set him on a pynacle of the temple
Miles Coverdale 1535
5 Then the deuyll toke hym vp into the holy cite, and set hym on a pynacle of the temple
9 And he caried him to Ierusalem, and set him vpon a pynnacle of the temple,
Bishop’s 1568
5 Then the deuyll taketh hym vp into the holy citie, and setteth hym on a pinacle of the temple
9 And he caryed hym to Hierusalem, & set hym on a pinacle of the temple,
Geneva 1587
5 Then the deuil tooke him vp into the holy Citie, and set him on a pinacle of the temple
9 Then hee brought him to Hierusalem, and set him on a pinacle of the Temple,
very interesting Patrick
S
stephe1987
Guest
I read that the use of the word “corn” is a big issue to some atheists. They say the Bible is false because they did not have corn at the time the Bible was written. But the word “corn” today doesn’t mean what it meant before- flour? corn meal stuff? I’m not sure what it was then but it wasn’t the corn plant we have now.
P
patrick457
Guest
Simple answer: most forms of English that happened to be NOT used in the UK had the unfortunate tendency to limit the word corn to maize.
The term maize derives from the Spanish form of the indigenous Taino word maiz for the plant. This was the term used in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where it is now usually called “sweet corn”, the most common form of the plant known to people there. Sweet corn is harvested earlier and eaten as a vegetable rather than a grain.
Outside the British Isles, another common term for maize is “corn”. This was originally the English term for any cereal crop. In North America, its meaning has been restricted since the 19th century to maize, as it was shortened from “Indian corn.” The term Indian corn now refers specifically to multi-colored “field corn” (flint corn) cultivars.
In scientific and formal usage, “maize” is normally used in a global context. Equally, in bulk-trading contexts, “corn” is used most frequently. In the UK, Australia and other English-speaking countries, the word “corn” is often used in culinary contexts, particularly in naming products such as popcorn and corn flakes. “Maize” is used in agricultural and scientific references.
P
patrick457
Guest
Just a little note on Tyndale’s Bible (which BTW is not complete: he managed to complete only the NT and roughly half of the OT before he got executed). His translations laid the foundations for many of the English Bibles which followed his. In fact, Tyndale’s greatest impact on society today is that it heavily influenced and contributed to the creation of the KJV. King James’ instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops’ Bible (1568) would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops’ Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: Tyndale’s (1525-34), Coverdale’s (1535), Matthew’s (1537), the Great Bible (1539), and the Geneva Bible (1560).
Small note on how much impact Tyndale had:
Coverdale took Tyndale’s New Testament and the published portions of his Old Testament, and translated the remainder of the Old Testament himself from Latin and German versions - Luther’s Bible and the Zürich Bible of Huldrych Zwingli and Leo Jud - because he was not proficient in Hebrew or Greek. Meanwhile, John Rogers’ (under the pseudonym ‘Thomas Matthews’) translation was basically the combined work of three individuals, working from numerous sources in at least five different languages: Tyndale (the entire NT, as well as parts of the OT), Coverdale (the rest of the OT), and himself (the Prayer of Manasses).
The Great Bible was based on Matthew’s Bible, and therefore includes, with the objectionable features revised, the entire NT and the OT portions that had been translated by Tyndale. The rest of the OT was Coverdale’s, who was working under commission of Sir Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General and thus served as the translation’s editor, still using the Vulgate and German Bibles.
The NT of the Geneva Bible was substantially based on the earlier translations by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale; it, however, was unique in that it was the very first English Bible to be translated entirely from Hebrew.
D
DPMartin
Guest
Though there are many versions out there, the KJV has been proven. Via public attempts to discredit, of which no one can, considering it has survived the scrutiny, of all comers of such for, well, next year it will be for 4 hundred years. And through out the English speaking world, has been the standard, to the English speaking world. Therefore the KJV is ordained by God to the English speaking world.
Though it’s in the King’s English of the early 1600’s, one can use the Oxford (the full blown version, 20 volumes) that covers the history of the English language and what words meant and how they were use in such times. Which does give understanding in why the translators at that time used the words they used.
You can’t consider how a word is used today and say that a translation is incorrect because of the use and understanding (definition) of a word has changed in the past 400 years.
For example if you look up the word “saw” in the Oxford that describes it’s use and meaning in the days of Shakespeare it might give a better understand in the verse
Gen:1:
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
When the this was translated the word saw meat basically “declared”. Which was the predominant use of the word then.
Though it’s in the King’s English of the early 1600’s, one can use the Oxford (the full blown version, 20 volumes) that covers the history of the English language and what words meant and how they were use in such times. Which does give understanding in why the translators at that time used the words they used.
You can’t consider how a word is used today and say that a translation is incorrect because of the use and understanding (definition) of a word has changed in the past 400 years.
For example if you look up the word “saw” in the Oxford that describes it’s use and meaning in the days of Shakespeare it might give a better understand in the verse
Gen:1:
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
When the this was translated the word saw meat basically “declared”. Which was the predominant use of the word then.
S
sovegna_vos
Guest
I find these sort of threads fascinating.
I was surprised that Tyndale has Luke 1.28 as:
“And the Angell went in unto her, and sayde:Hayle full of grace, the lorde is with thee”
Coverdale 1535 is the same- not sure about the other pre KJV protestant bibles in English.
Does anyone know whether the KJV was the first to change it to “highly favoured” and if so exactly how the change came about?
thanks
I was surprised that Tyndale has Luke 1.28 as:
“And the Angell went in unto her, and sayde:Hayle full of grace, the lorde is with thee”
Coverdale 1535 is the same- not sure about the other pre KJV protestant bibles in English.
Does anyone know whether the KJV was the first to change it to “highly favoured” and if so exactly how the change came about?
thanks
P
ProVobis
Guest
May I remind you that St. Thomas More condemned any anglicization of the Bible. And with good reasons.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Generally speaking, the KJV is actually a very scholarly and accurate version which has stood the test of time. It has fewer errors than many a modern version (including some Catholic versions).
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Catholic Church doesn’t consider any one translation “ordained by God to the English speaking world.”
D
diggerdomer
Guest
It’s accuracy is not as good as the RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NJB.
D
DPMartin
Guest
ProVobis
thanks for the reply
The Church’s condemnation and judgement of the world around it, chases the world farther away from the Church, or haven’t you got that memo from the Lord Jesus Christ yet? And such doings, falls on one’s own head.
Mat:7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4: Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Considering that St. Tomas More died in 1535 and was visited by Cromwell at that time , I am sure that there was some respected conversation on both sides on the subject of an English translation since the named “Great Bible” was commission of Sir Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538.
I am not that well versed in the writings of St. Tomas More, but it is quite apparent that he was lavished by the Court and the King in his day. And without refusal to receive the dainties and favor of the King and his Court. Therefore intrusted by the King which is the power of the land or kingdom. Hence unfettered loyalty is required, no matter what the King does. Put your hand in front of a power saw, and it will be cut of.
newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
There is no doubt that in those days there was an animosity between the Catholic Church, and the British. Which needless to say, some still rase it’s ugly head. You know, this all happen 400 years ago, or more, get over it. You weren’t even there at the time, it didn’t happen to you.
Something that is also quite notable, is this man was canonized in 1935 in a time in history when the Nazis’ were coming in to power, and Mussolini was buddy buddy with them.
The result of the battle field is God’s will (you know, “Lord of Hosts”). And if you notice that the Gospel is now spread through out the world, exponentially in the English language more so then any other, and that could change to some other language in the interest of the Kingdom of God. It’s not about the Brits and Catholics is about the good news of the Lord God. The Lord can use what ever wills of national powers he pleases to get the result He wants. Whether we might like it or not.
And besides, one who is loyal to the Kingdom of God should understand that you are to be for the Kingdom of God, and not against the world. Condemnation, and blame is not of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Truth and Mercy of God to the world.
You would have to be a fool to think that the Lord our God would not speak to us in the manner that we would understand. Pentecost ought to get that across to any honest reader thereof. The Word of God is Truth, the Way, the Life, which has nothing to do with the languages of men. The language that one man uses is not superior to another man’s language, for the language used is worth nothing unless the user of the language speak the Truth of God. Languages are not given by God to hid the Truth, they are given to speak, that the Truth of God be revealed to the hearer.
D
DPMartin
Guest
diggerdomer
thanks for the reply
Shouldn’t a proven result be evidence enough? You know,
(1) I don’t speak for the Catholic Church,and I would find it hard to believe that any one would think I do, it speaks for itself (hence that’s the Pope’s job).
(2), there is a whole lot the Lord God is doing in the world for the sake of souls, with or without the blessing or recognition or involvement, of the Catholic Church.
And besides, I said ordained by God by virtue of proven result, I didn’t say ordained by the Catholic Church did I?
Why do you seek to make that unclear?
P
patrick457
Guest
I have a minor quibble.
If indeed the KJV is a divinely-ordained translation, then how in the world is it that most of the world actually gets a mutilated form of it? And why would God allow many of His people to get such a Bible? Don’t you think He would want all the English-speaking folks to receive the whole set?
As you probably know, the original 1611 King James had the Deuterocanonicals, plus, three writings that appear merely in the Clementine Latin Vulgate’s appendix (the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Esdras (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate), as well as other stuff besides, say, the Dedicatory Epistle to James I, the Translators to the Reader, as well as marginal notes that present alternate - oftentimes more literal - translations of a given phrase or sentence, which the translators actually believed was necessary! (not to mention they also thought that using a variety of translations was important) But tell me, when was the last time you saw a KJV include 1 Maccabees or have footnotes giving alternative renderings or cross-references?
Still, the standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the KJV without the Deutero’s reduced the cost (and increased their profits), while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers, who after all never accepted it in practice and never used it that much. The ironic thing here is, it was not the complaints of ‘Reformers’ that finally got the Deuterocanon out of the KJV, but the whims of printers.
The fact that the KJV has passed into the public domain for most of the world does not help much either. As I’ve mentioned in another thread a while ago, it makes it easy for anyone to tamper with the text, since there is no copyright. I might as well print a KJV and cut out words, verses, chapters - even books - that I don’t like and sell it for the same price as it would have were it complete, since it’s all public domain, right?
Of course, the same does not hold true for the UK, where the rights for the translation were (and still are) held by the British Crown under perpetual Crown copyright: meaning, that only authorized and licensed publishers (those who have letters patent) are permitted to reproduce the KJV and that anyone other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, are prohibited from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom (IMO the same rule applies for the Book of Common Prayer). This is why I consider Brits lucky: they get an untampered KJV.
D
DPMartin
Guest
PatrickI have a minor quibble.
If indeed the KJV is a divinely-ordained translation, then how in the world is it that most of the world actually gets a mutilated form of it? And why would God allow many of His people to get such a Bible? Don’t you think He would want all the English-speaking folks to receive the whole set?
As you probably know, the original 1611 King James had the Deuterocanonicals, plus, three writings that appear merely in the Clementine Latin Vulgate’s appendix (the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Esdras (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate), as well as other stuff besides, say, the Dedicatory Epistle to James I, the Translators to the Reader, as well as marginal notes that present alternate - oftentimes more literal - translations of a given phrase or sentence, which the translators actually believed was necessary! (not to mention they also thought that using a variety of translations was important) But tell me, when was the last time you saw a KJV include 1 Maccabees or have footnotes giving alternative renderings or cross-references?
Still, the standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the KJV without the Deutero’s reduced the cost (and increased their profits), while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers, who after all never accepted it in practice and never used it that much. The ironic thing here is, it was not the complaints of ‘Reformers’ that finally got the Deuterocanon out of the KJV, but the whims of printers.
The fact that the KJV has passed into the public domain for most of the world does not help much either. As I’ve mentioned in another thread a while ago, it makes it easy for anyone to tamper with the text, since there is no copyright. I might as well print a KJV and cut out words, verses, chapters - even books - that I don’t like and sell it for the same price as it would have were it complete, since it’s all public domain, right?
Of course, the same does not hold true for the UK, where the rights for the translation were (and still are) held by the British Crown under perpetual Crown copyright: meaning, that only authorized and licensed publishers (those who have letters patent) are permitted to reproduce the KJV and that anyone other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, are prohibited from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom (IMO the same rule applies for the Book of Common Prayer). This is why I consider Brits lucky: they get an untampered KJV.
thanks for the reply
Well my friend in Christ, you are much more well versed in the history of the publication of Scripture then I will ever be. And truly such concerns are well founded.
There is not doubt that there are “hack jobs” out there, when it comes to the Scriptures. But if you have a concern, or desire, for the purity of the Holy Word of God, you will seek it. We don’t live in a vacuum, the Lord doesn’t want that at all. How can the Word spread if we hid in cubicles. Therefore we will learn one way or the other on such things. For we know there are hacks of every sort, in what is trusted, for their own gain. But even with this possibility as in “public domain” the Truth can and will survive. God reaches out to those **He will have **as His own. Who in the world can stop that? Even though many have tried. Back in the day the Jewish authorities tried, didn’t work. Nero and the like tried, didn’t work, national authorities tried and it didn’t work. Even sinister efforts within Christian communities try, it still ain’t going to happen their way. No one can change the Truth my friend, they may distort it, to lie about it, like the serpent did in the garden. But the Truth is the Truth no matter what. Seek it and you will find it. Our Lord Jesus Christ. For it is my experience, if you are one who cries out for the Truth of God, He will hear, and see to it that you receive.
- Status