KJV Errors

[diggerdomer]

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?

Thanks for your reply.

I don’t disagree with you necessarily, but I fail to see how it responds to my point that the Catholic Church does not consider one and only on Scripture translation privileged, or more accurate/faithful, etc.
Thanks.

 

[DPMartin]

Thanks for your reply.

I don’t disagree with you necessarily, but I fail to see how it responds to my point that the Catholic Church does not consider one and only on Scripture translation privileged, or more accurate/faithful, etc.
Thanks.

diggerdomer

thanks for the reply

There are no sides to take. Just walk with the Lord. “Us and them” always generates, or encourages, Animosity toward the other, and hatred of the other.

 

[thistle]

So I have heard that the KJV has many errors
What exactly are the errors?
Inquiring minds want to know

You mean apart from taking out 7 Old Testament books thereby having an incomplete bible??

 

[patrick457]

You mean apart from taking out 7 Old Testament books thereby having an incomplete bible??

The 1611 KJV had all the books of the Latin Vulgate (including those which even Catholics consider apocryphal; i.e. Prayer of Manasses), albeit in an inter-testamental section. Cambridge University Press (one of those who hold the letters patent, thereby authorizing them to print the KJV in the UK) has the Deutero’s in a separate volume, and Oxford University Press (another licensed publisher) also has one bound with the rest of the Bible for sale (not to mention they also put out a reprint of the 1611 version).

As I’ve mentioned, the standardisation of the text of the KJV after 1769 together with the 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. Not to mention that the Deutero’s were only excluded from most Bibles after 1826, when the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Deutero’s anywhere (something they would revise in 1966). Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[melchesidechpio]

There are many errors in the KJV along with all Protestant Bibles. The 7 duetrocononical books are omitted as well as parts of esther and daniel.

 

[patrick457]

There are many errors in the KJV along with all Protestant Bibles. The 7 duetrocononical books are omitted as well as parts of esther and daniel.

:Sigh: Again, as I’ve said, the original 1611 KJV had all the books of the Latin Vulgate (including those which even Catholics now consider apocryphal; i.e. Prayer of Manasses), albeit with the Deutero’s in an inter-testamental section. Don’t believe me? See for yourself.

1 The Booke of the wordes of Tobit, sonne of Tobiel, the son of Ananiel, the sonne of Aduel, the sonne of Gabael, of the seed of Asael, of the Tribe of Nephthali, 2 Who in the time of Enemessar king of the Assyrians, was led captiue out of This be which is at the right hand of that citie, which is called properly Nephthali in Galile aboue Aser. 3 I Tobit haue walked all the dayes of my life in the way of trueth, and iustice, and I did many almes deeds to my brethren, and my nation, who came with me to Nineue into the land of the Assyrians.

Guess which version that came from.

 

[qui_est_ce]

diggerdomer

thanks for the reply

There are no sides to take. Just walk with the Lord. “Us and them” always generates, or encourages, Animosity toward the other, and hatred of the other.

But you took a side when you claimed

Therefore the KJV is ordained by God to the English speaking world.

We are disputing your claim in charity. We are told by Jesus[BIBLEDRB]matthew 18:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PJM]

=Crumpy;7295279]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

WOW! Everyone on this CAF Forum ought look this up and read; maybe keep for reference.

MANY THANKS and God’ continued Blessings.

A very scholarly work!

God’s continued Blessings,

Pat

 

[qui_est_ce]

WOW! Everyone on this CAF Forum ought look this up and read; maybe keep for reference.

MANY THANKS and God’ continued Blessings.

A very scholarly work!

God’s continued Blessings,

Pat

What are you talking about? The article is anti-Catholic and full of mistruths. Following is an excerpt:
*
For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the “official” text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!*

 

[thistle]

:Sigh: Again, as I’ve said, the original 1611 KJV had all the books of the Latin Vulgate (including those which even Catholics now consider apocryphal; i.e. Prayer of Manasses), albeit with the Deutero’s in an inter-testamental section. Don’t believe me? See for yourself.

1 The Booke of the wordes of Tobit, sonne of Tobiel, the son of Ananiel, the sonne of Aduel, the sonne of Gabael, of the seed of Asael, of the Tribe of Nephthali, 2 Who in the time of Enemessar king of the Assyrians, was led captiue out of This be which is at the right hand of that citie, which is called properly Nephthali in Galile aboue Aser. 3 I Tobit haue walked all the dayes of my life in the way of trueth, and iustice, and I did many almes deeds to my brethren, and my nation, who came with me to Nineue into the land of the Assyrians.

Guess which version that came from.

The Protestants have never considered the 7 books as divinely inspired which is why they are omitted completely or shoved aside in a separate section. Whichever is the case the KJV is an incomplete bible.

 

[rdscheirer]

The best example of the “error of translation” occurs with the Office of Peter. In a
Aramaic which Jesus surely spoke rather than Greek He said “I name you Kephas and on this kephas(rock) I will build my church”. The Greek translation, since Aramaic didn’t differentiate nouns as male or female but Greek does, converts Kephas to Petros- meaning little stone because the male/female construct of the language is much like Spanish or Italian where inanimate objects are assigned gender.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The best example of the “error of translation” occurs with the Office of Peter. In a
Aramaic which Jesus surely spoke rather than Greek He said “I name you Kephas and on this kephas(rock) I will build my church”. The Greek translation, since Aramaic didn’t differentiate nouns as male or female but Greek does, converts Kephas to Petros- meaning little stone because the male/female construct of the language is much like Spanish or Italian where inanimate objects are assigned gender.

I’m not a scholar of Koine Greek, so I can’t speak as to the accuracy of your translation. Heck, I don’t even know any Koine Greek.

Catholics do not proof text when interpreting the Bible. One cannot take one verse out of context with the rest of the Bible and claim it to be a truth on it’s own merit. The Bible is a very well written book. Pete got the “keys.”

 

[rdscheirer]

Don’t you see that most of the schisms in Christianity are from translation.

 

[Bran_Stark]

The Protestants have never considered the 7 books as divinely inspired which is why they are omitted completely or shoved aside in a separate section. Whichever is the case the KJV is an incomplete bible.

That makes no sense at all. The books themselves (which in my mind do not include the Apocrypha) are inspired, not the order in which there are bound and printed.

 

[DaveBj]

This thread was peacefully going to sleep, but I’m going to wake it up to report a KJV error that I found today, an error which the translators copied from the Vulgate (probably via the Douay New Testament).

I won’t quote the Greek of John 16:10, but literally in English it reads, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold (aule); them also must I bring, and my voice they shall hear, and there shall be one flock (poimne), one shepherd.”

When Jerome translated it, he apparently goofed, giving poimne the same meaning as aule: “Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile et unus pastor.” “Poimne” should have been translated “grex,” as at Matt. 26:31 and other locations. The Douay NT repeats the error, and the KJV translators copied it: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” The RV of 1881 corrected this error, as have subsequent English translations, including the NKJV.

So, yes, the KJV committee members made translation errors, but in this case the error was in copying someone else’s translation and not checking the original themselves.

DaveBj

 

[patrick457]

This thread was peacefully going to sleep, but I’m going to wake it up to report a KJV error that I found today, an error which the translators copied from the Vulgate (probably via the Douay New Testament).

I won’t quote the Greek of John 16:10, but literally in English it reads, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold (aule); them also must I bring, and my voice they shall hear, and there shall be one flock (poimne), one shepherd.”

When Jerome translated it, he apparently goofed, giving poimne the same meaning as aule: “Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile et unus pastor.” “Poimne” should have been translated “grex,” as at Matt. 26:31 and other locations. The Douay NT repeats the error, and the KJV translators copied it: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” The RV of 1881 corrected this error, as have subsequent English translations, including the NKJV.

So, yes, the KJV committee members made translation errors, but in this case the error was in copying someone else’s translation and not checking the original themselves.

DaveBj

I also noted a little goof in this post: it should be John 10:16.

Translations made from the Vulgate, like Wycliff and the DR, follow St. Jerome’s little gaffe in indiscriminately using “foolde”/“folde.”

Tyndale (1526) meanwhile got it right; he made a distinction between “folde” and “flocke.” Same with Miles Coverdale (1535) and Thomas Matthew’s 1537 work (which is basically a recycled Tyndale mixed in with Coverdale). The Geneva Bible (1557-60) cleverly avoided any goofs by using “folde” for aule and “sheepefolde” for poimne.

For the record, both the Great Bible (1539) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568) also committed the error here by using “folde” in both instances, so the error is not necessarily inherited from the 1581 Rheims NT. Especially as the revised edition of the Bishop’s Bible (1572) was prescribed as the base text for the KJV!

Textual critic F.H.A. Scrivener identified 190 readings where the translators depart from the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza (which they used), generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop’s Bible and other earlier English translations. In about half of these instances, the translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Robert Estienne. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus (Novum Instrumentum omne), or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate. John 10:16 indeed is one of these latter examples.

 

[DaveBj]

I also noted a little goof in this post: it should be John 10:16.

Dang it, that’s not the first time yesterday that I did that. I dislex numbers; I have to be really careful with phone numbers, entries in my checkbook, etc. Thanks for checking that, and for the rest of your informative post as well.

DaveBj