The King James Version

[HonestFisherman88]

AHH the good ole tried and true King James vs the alphabet soup..a favorite argument to be sure.

to be fair, there are holes in the "we have the oldest manuscripts" arguments the size of elephant... id love to site them but Dean John Burgon beat me to it as it were , and the "well the septuagint says" argument stands on only the grounds that when Origen "reassembled" it (thats right, Origen the whacko who cut off his mmhmm) absolutely influenced what we know as the Septuagint to be what we have today.. That he didnt add to, change, alter, remove anything, which would have to be a monumental first for him..This has long been accepted as fact, and is why the Septuagint was given ZERO credence for hundreds of years ..and we cannot say that before his time it said anything remotely different from what the masoretic hebrew of today says...the Isaiah dead sea scroll does lend masoretes some credence for sure.
Not to mention, Burgon and a colleague actually sifted thru thousands of pages from the early church fathers to locate 88,000 quotations using specifically the verses contested by these "oldest manuscripts"
(codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus, and codex alexandrinus) and delivered up a book full of quotations vindicating the King James all from 200 ad and earlier..the King James is adequately defended, and absolutely a proper translation...ull need more that a two year study of biblical greek and a one hour seminar by james white to topple such a well rounded translation. IF u care to study Dean Burgon, ull see how he was the IMMINENT man in the field of ancient manuscripts of his day, and how he rejected the entire concept of our traditional text being in error..IF anything, he sought to standardize the textus receptus into what is called "the traditional text" meaning the text as it has been known from ancient times...i have spent a very long time studying this very issue, and if anyone would care to offer particular "translation errors" PM me, and we can talk, i can shed much light in this dark corner if it would be helpful to a brother or sister in Christ.

 

[JM]

☺

 

[PrincetonGuy]

AHH the good ole tried and true King James vs the alphabet soup..a favorite argument to be sure.

to be fair, there are holes in the "we have the oldest manuscripts" arguments the size of elephant... id love to site them but Dean John Burgon beat me to it as it were , and the "well the septuagint says" argument stands on only the grounds that when Origen "reassembled" it (thats right, Origen the whacko who cut off his mmhmm) absolutely influenced what we know as the Septuagint to be what we have today.. That he didnt add to, change, alter, remove anything, which would have to be a monumental first for him..This has long been accepted as fact,

These statements are nothing but fiction.

and is why the Septuagint was given ZERO credence for hundreds of years ..and we cannot say that before his time it said anything remotely different from what the masoretic hebrew of today says...the Isaiah dead sea scroll does lend masoretes some credence for sure.

That these statements are absolutely false is abundantly proven by the numerous quotes from the Septuagint in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Moreover, we have no ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint that support the absurd allegation in the above quote.

Not to mention, Burgon and a colleague actually sifted thru thousands of pages from the early church fathers to locate 88,000 quotations using specifically the verses contested by these "oldest manuscripts"
(codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus, and codex alexandrinus) and delivered up a book full of quotations vindicating the King James all from 200 ad and earlier..the King James is adequately defended, and absolutely a proper translation...ull need more that a two year study of biblical greek and a one hour seminar by james white to topple such a well rounded translation.

Dean Burgon did not set out to objectively examine the accuracy of the textual basis of the KJV—he set out to prove that it was accurate. In other words, he set out with all of the prejudice of a defense attorney rather that with the objectivity and fairness of a Bible scholar. The results of his studies were, therefore, nothing but a collection of miscellaneous skewed data that Burgon pretended were meaningful.

IF u care to study Dean Burgon, ull see how he was the IMMINENT man in the field of ancient manuscripts of his day,

I have read the writings of Dean Burgon in the light more than 1,600 years of textual criticism (beginning with Augustine and Jerome) and have found Dean Burgeon to be incompetent in the area of textual criticism.

and how he rejected the entire concept of our traditional text being in error..

Dean Burgon “rejected the entire concept of our traditional text being in error” before he even began to “study” the subject

IF anything, he sought to standardize the textus receptus into what is called "the traditional text" meaning the text as it has been known from ancient times...i have spent a very long time studying this very issue, and if anyone would care to offer particular "translation errors" PM me, and we can talk, i can shed much light in this dark corner if it would be helpful to a brother or sister in Christ.

I have in my personal library (at home and at work) several hundred volumes dealing with the textual criticism of the Old and New Testaments, and could post the names of hundreds of scholars in that field whose research conclusively and incontrovertibly proves that Dean Burgon was grossly in error. Indeed, in none of these several hundred volumes is there any support at all for the findings of Dean Burgon. If anyone reading this post can name even one scholar of textual criticism publishing today in a peer-reviewed Biblical Journal who agrees with the findings of Dean Burgeon, please post the name of that scholar and provide a quote from that scholar that clearly shows that he agrees with the findings of Dean Burgeon.

As for translation errors in the KJV, many examples have been posted in various threads. Moreover, everyone who has even a basic reading knowledge of Hebrew and Greek can easily see for themselves several translation errors in the KJV, and those readers who have a substantially better knowledge of Hebrew and Greek can see for themselves many more translation errors on the KJV.

 

[Goodbook]

and everyone can see that not everyone knows hebrew and greek so making other believers feel stupid because they do not read or speak that language is not very christian either.

God can reach out to everyone as he's the one who mixed up our tongues in the first place.

He gives us gifts of interpretation.Which we are to use for speakers of other unknown tongues. I thank Him that I can read his word in my native tongue which is English and there is a translation of the Bible I can trust. And that happens to be KJV. If your language version is different that is fine but I don't know why people knock the KJV. Maybe they got nothing better to do.

 

[classicalhero]

Hi all,

I just wanted to clarify that just because 'some verses are missing' when comparing the KJ to other translations, doesn't mean that the other versions are corrupted. We don't have any reliable proof that the missing verses were in the original manuscripts and so the newer translations have taken the stand to leave them out, but usually there are footnotes to explain the discrepancy. There are quite a few reliable sources that explain that there were a number of places, when the translators worked on the KJ, that they had incomplete information and had to do the best that they could. Further, there is quite a lot of reliable information that the base text which they used, had suffered the same problem. Erasmus, it is reported, felt the need in several places to write his own words to complete some passages.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I disagree with this because many of the so called new translations are using corrupted Greek manuscripts. In fact many of these "missing" verse are clearly the result of scribal error or deliberate manipulation and are found in the minority of manuscripts rather than the majority text.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I disagree with this because many of the so called new translations are using corrupted Greek manuscripts.

The truth is that the “so called new translations” are translated from Greek texts that are the result of literally millions of hours of painstaking research by men and women who have devoted their lives to give us more accurate Bibles to read; and that the KJV was translated from a Greek text based almost exclusively upon a small number of severely corrupted. This is not just a matter of opinion; it is a mater of one of the most thoroughly documented facts regarding the Scriptures. There are, however, some people whose goals are to discourage Christians from reading a Bible that they can understand, and to convince non-Christians that the Bible is so very badly corrupted that it is not a reliable source of truth.

In fact many of these "missing" verse are clearly the result of scribal error or deliberate manipulation and are found in the minority of manuscripts rather than the majority text.

The truth is that the “missing” verses are not found in the “minority of manuscripts”, but are found in the majority text. The “minority of manuscripts” are in reality very ancient manuscripts that were made BEFORE very many corruptions were introduced (for a variety of reasons) into much more recent manuscripts. These very many corruptions include minor issues such as abbreviated words and misspelled words; but they also include more significant issues such as the addition or omission of words, phrases, and even entire sentences. Thousands of hours of research have been invested in the study of each of these more significant issues to determine which wording is most likely the original; and which wording is most likely an alteration of the original. Very sadly, There are some people whose goals are to discourage Christians from reading a Bible that they can understand, and to convince non-Christians that the Bible is so very badly corrupted that it is not a reliable source of truth, and therefore they spread maliciously false gossip about the most accurate translations of the Bible, and about the men who devote their lives to giving us these accurate translations of the Bible. Some of these people who are spreading the maliciously false gossip about the most accurate translations of the Bible are not even aware of the spiritual forces behind the KJO movement, but have unwittingly been seduced by it.

 

[tall73]

Here is an article from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that discusses some of the difficulties of Patristic quotations, and looks specifically at Burgon's use of patristics.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-4/38-4-pp519-530_JETS.pdf

It raised a point that is frustrating for me, but I can see the problem involved. Before you can compare the patristics to the NT text you first have to look at all the manuscripts of the individual writing of a church father to determine what was the original text for that writing, as they too have variants.

It also deals with the difficulty of trying to determine when a given church father is referencing, alluding to, or quoting a given text.

 

[tall73]

Not to mention, Burgon and a colleague actually sifted thru thousands of pages from the early church fathers to locate 88,000 quotations using specifically the verses contested by these "oldest manuscripts"

My understanding of the situation:

-The actual index is not published, but still in a museum.
- He did not have access to the critical versions of the fathers, which means folks may note variants in their writings as well from the ones he quotes.
-As is usually the case patristic quotes are rarely direct extended quotes of specific verses, so it can be hard to know when a quote is sufficient to make decisions of a textual nature.
- unfortunately his references are often to editions no longer in print, so it can be hard to find the quote.

Having said that, I still wish I had a copy of that index! And if anyone finds it is actually published, by all means let me know. I have done my own reading in the church fathers, but didn't pay sufficient attention to the variants at the time as my interest was more general. And I only looked up some of them in the Greek (and I don't read Latin, so that is a limitation), and even then didn't have a critical text.

In any case we still have a number of references to church fathers in the critical apparatus.

 

[HonestFisherman88]

My understanding of the situation:

-The actual index is not published, but still in a museum.
- He did not have access to the critical versions of the fathers, which means folks may note variants in their writings as well from the ones he quotes.
-As is usually the case patristic quotes are rarely direct extended quotes of specific verses, so it can be hard to know when a quote is sufficient to make decisions of a textual nature.
- unfortunately his references are often to editions no longer in print, so it can be hard to find the quote.

Having said that, I still wish I had a copy of that index! And if anyone finds it is actually published, by all means let me know. I have done my own reading in the church fathers, but didn't pay sufficient attention to the variants at the time as my interest was more general. And I only looked up some of them in the Greek (and I don't read Latin, so that is a limitation), and even then didn't have a critical text.

In any case we still have a number of references to church fathers in the critical apparatus.

To me the critical text argument falls apart when u take into account the critical manuscripts..they absolutely are not in agreement with one another, and Burgon upon examining them denied they had any real merit to them what with their numerous corrections through the centuries..also the lack of scribal proficiency displayed in them shows quite blatantly.. There is no denying that there were multiple textual differences from 300 ad and onwards...but the existence of thousands of viable quotes of the early church fathers cannot be dismissed with "he had bad copies" (that is the same exact argument used against the KJV translators) perhaps the "critical text" is a collection of bad manuscripts? We have no real way to say as boldly as we would like to believe we can that the critical manuscripts are any more than tainted manuscripts..yet we have a thousand second semester Greek scholar, first semester history of the early church, Historians who proclaim it much louder than those who actually study the facts carefully can feel warranted doing.

 

[tall73]

To me the critical text argument falls apart when u take into account the critical manuscripts..they absolutely are not in agreement with one another, and Burgon upon examining them denied they had any real merit to them what with their numerous corrections through the centuries

Speaking of the major Critical text supporting Uncials here?

...but the existence of thousands of viable quotes of the early church fathers cannot be dismissed with "he had bad copies"

If the manuscripts of the church fathers also have variants, it is another consideration. But the bigger issue of "he had bad copies" is we don't have his actual work published to even see.

We have some examples in the three works, one on Mark, and two more general. But we don't have his index of 80k plus to look at.

Within the ones we do have in his books some folks take issue with his usage of the quotes. The article I linked to earlier examines this point.

(that is the same exact argument used against the KJV translators) perhaps the "critical text" is a collection of bad manuscripts? We have no real way to say as boldly as we would like to believe we can that the critical manuscripts are any more than tainted manuscripts..

Just some background, I am pro Majority text overall, but am open to whatever info is out there. And yes. there are arguments on both sides. But an index of 80k quotes, which we don't have access to, is not much of an evidence to appeal to.

We will just have to do dig them out all over again, or someone will have to publish them.

yet we have a thousand second semester Greek scholar, first semester history of the early church, Historians who proclaim it much louder than those who actually study the facts carefully can feel warranted doing.

If it were only second semester Greek scholars saying it we wouldn't have the ongoing debate. Many of those who do study it a lot are pretty bold in supporting the critical text.

Are we to guess then that you are one of the ones who have studied it more?

Perhaps we need a thread dedicated just to discussion of underlying texts. We have had far too many lately on this or that translation, and most of it comes back to which underlying text is used.

 

[joshuanazar]

AHH the good ole tried and true King James vs the alphabet soup..a favorite argument to be sure.

to be fair, there are holes in the "we have the oldest manuscripts" arguments the size of elephant... id love to site them but Dean John Burgon beat me to it as it were , and the "well the septuagint says" argument stands on only the grounds that when Origen "reassembled" it (thats right, Origen the whacko who cut off his mmhmm) absolutely influenced what we know as the Septuagint to be what we have today.. That he didnt add to, change, alter, remove anything, which would have to be a monumental first for him..This has long been accepted as fact, and is why the Septuagint was given ZERO credence for hundreds of years ..and we cannot say that before his time it said anything remotely different from what the masoretic hebrew of today says...the Isaiah dead sea scroll does lend masoretes some credence for sure.
Not to mention, Burgon and a colleague actually sifted thru thousands of pages from the early church fathers to locate 88,000 quotations using specifically the verses contested by these "oldest manuscripts"
(codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus, and codex alexandrinus) and delivered up a book full of quotations vindicating the King James all from 200 ad and earlier..the King James is adequately defended, and absolutely a proper translation...ull need more that a two year study of biblical greek and a one hour seminar by james white to topple such a well rounded translation. IF u care to study Dean Burgon, ull see how he was the IMMINENT man in the field of ancient manuscripts of his day, and how he rejected the entire concept of our traditional text being in error..IF anything, he sought to standardize the textus receptus into what is called "the traditional text" meaning the text as it has been known from ancient times...i have spent a very long time studying this very issue, and if anyone would care to offer particular "translation errors" PM me, and we can talk, i can shed much light in this dark corner if it would be helpful to a brother or sister in Christ.

The error that I first saw in the King James was in Revelation where it calls the the fourth horse a pale horse but it is really green. Obviously there was a translation error here.

 

[HonestFisherman88]

The error that I first saw in the King James was in Revelation where it calls the the fourth horse a pale horse but it is really green. Obviously there was a translation error here.

The Greek word in question is Kloros and it is found 4 times in the New Testament. Three times it is translated as “green” and once as “pale”. There is good reason for this. The Greek word itself can mean BOTH green and pale, depending on the context. The three times the KJB translates it as “green” the context is clearly referring to green PLANTS.

Liddell and Scott’s massive Greek Lexicon tells us on page 1995 that the Greek word kloros means: 1. greenish yellow, pale green; and 2. Generally PALE, PALLID.


Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon likewise defines the word kloros as 1. green; and number 2. yellowish, PALE. (page 669, Thayer’s 19 printing, Zondervan, 1978).


Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the word kloros as: 1. yellowish green, light green of plants; and 2. PALE as the color of a person in sickness as contrasted with his appearance in health. SO THE HORSE RIDDEN BY DEATH - the kloros of death- Revelation 6:8.” (page 891)

I mean no disrespect brother, but as i stated before it takes more that a precursory understanding of Koine Greek to dispute the accuracy of the KJV..the KJV translators translated each passage of their assigned lot (oxford groups had so many books to translate, Cambridge had so many assigned to them, Westminster had also so many) so, fourty seven of these fifty four men EACH translated each book assigned to them...and the result was approved by the other groups..( i wont go into full detail as its not exactly pertinent to answer your question entirely) suffice it to say, these men did not make elementary mistakes, nor did they allow doctrinal beliefs affect their translating abilities..the King James is absolutely a well rounded and sufficient translation that stands head and shoulders above the alphabet soup bibles (everything from 1881 until today especially)

if u have any other verses or any other concerns u can pm me, or u can post here and quote me so i get the alert..i really and truly do enjoy shedding light on the misconception that the KJV is somehow lacking. ( I do admit, it can be hard for someone not studied in Elizabethan english to follow it without a bit of study) but this is not the same as a deficiency in the text itself by any means

 

[HonestFisherman88]

Speaking of the major Critical text supporting Uncials here?



If the manuscripts of the church fathers also have variants, it is another consideration. But the bigger issue of "he had bad copies" is we don't have his actual work published to even see.

We have some examples in the three works, one on Mark, and two more general. But we don't have his index of 80k plus to look at.

Within the ones we do have in his books some folks take issue with his usage of the quotes. The article I linked to earlier examines this point.


Just some background, I am pro Majority text overall, but am open to whatever info is out there. And yes. there are arguments on both sides. But an index of 80k quotes, which we don't have access to, is not much of an evidence to appeal to.

We will just have to do dig them out all over again, or someone will have to publish them.



If it were only second semester Greek scholars saying it we wouldn't have the ongoing debate. Many of those who do study it a lot are pretty bold in supporting the critical text.

Are we to guess then that you are one of the ones who have studied it more?

Perhaps we need a thread dedicated just to discussion of underlying texts. We have had far too many lately on this or that translation, and most of it comes back to which underlying text is used.

I would not be opposed to a thread about underlying texts..id very much enjoy something so engaging. I am pro majority text (obviously) and im not dogmatically KJV ONLY necessarily..but i have spent much time studying the underlying manuscripts, the indoctrination process by which young theological students are impressed upon the great validity of the critical texts, the faulty way in which the numbers are skewed to favor the critical readings, the ever changing eclectic texts that we laud as "critical", the process by which the critical text was developed...and the resulting effect of all this on the popular opinion of indoctrinated young seminary students..im not impressed and i am absolutely willing defend my stance in a gentleman's discussion, or a debate forum..I respect you for your openness, general knowledge of the issue, as well as for your understanding of the majority text's general superiority..i wont derail this thread with lengthy posts on underlying texts (as u said, it is really something for a thread of its own) but if such a thread should be made aware to me, id love to take active part

as i said before, anyone reading is welcome to PM me (especially to discuss underlying texts) as i dont wish to derail this thread

 

[PrincetonGuy]

i have spent much time studying the underlying manuscripts, the indoctrination process by which young theological students are impressed upon the great validity of the critical texts, the faulty way in which the numbers are skewed to favor the critical readings, the ever changing eclectic texts that we laud as "critical", the process by which the critical text was developed...and the resulting effect of all this on the popular opinion of indoctrinated young seminary students.

Ridiculously wild and absolutely inaccurate assertions concerning the critical texts of the New Testament with no documentation to support the assertions is nothing but hateful, malicious hogwash. Moreover, I asked a few posts back that if anyone reading that post could name even one scholar of textual criticism publishing today in a peer-reviewed Biblical Journal who agrees with the findings of Dean Burgeon, to please post the name of that scholar and provide a quote from that scholar that clearly shows that he agrees with the findings of Dean Burgeon—and no such names have been posted. I do not post on 17th century quilt-making techniques in colonial Virginia because I have not studied the subject thoroughly enough to have an academically sound opinion on the subject, and I believe that everyone posting on a public message board should show the same courtesy in their postings.

 

[HonestFisherman88]

quite frankly what purpose would providing another mans beliefs and opinions here serve between us? u can say "nobody agrees with u neener neener" in as a crappy a tone as u like, but if u will not hear facts from me, then why would u hear facts from anyone else? u would not, you intent would be simply an attack on either the character or credentials of that person. You sir, have your mind concluded on the findings of other men u esteem greater than yourself, and instead of seeking your approval by following a pointless request, i will ask..what is deficient that u see in the KJV? Where is the translation error? underlying text is not the topic here, but translation error in the text. make another thread if u wish, about the underlying text and ill gladly take part in that as well..but ive read enough from u to know already that u lay your trust at the feet of wescott and hort, bow to the great scholarly minds of two half hearted theologians, and question only those of us who do not accept the preposterous byzantine recension theory or any other half cocked theories such as the "process view" as anything more than the imaginations of men trying to sell their texts off as something more than the paper they were printed on.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Greek word in question is Kloros and it is found 4 times in the New Testament. Three times it is translated as “green” and once as “pale”. There is good reason for this. The Greek word itself can mean BOTH green and pale, depending on the context. The three times the KJB translates it as “green” the context is clearly referring to green PLANTS.

To be more accurate, the Greek word χλωρός is typically used in ancient Greek literature of the color of the ventral side of leaves which is usually a lighter color of green than is found on the dorsal side of the same leaves. It is true, however, that it is sometimes used of a person whose complexion has taken on that color due to illness.

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the word kloros as: 1. yellowish green, light green of plants; and 2. PALE as the color of a person in sickness as contrasted with his appearance in health. SO THE HORSE RIDDEN BY DEATH - the kloros of death- Revelation 6:8.” (page 891)

This quote is from the 1957 edition which was replaced in 1979 by a more accurate edition—which in turn was replaced by a yet for accurate edition in 2000. Therefore, it is customary to quote from the 2000 edition rather than from the now obsolete edition of 1957. Nonetheless, the translation given in the KJV is not a “wrong” translation, but an inferior translation to that found in the NRSV,

Revelation 6:8. I looked and there was a pale green horse! Its rider's name was Death, and Hades followed with him; they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, famine, and pestilence, and by the wild animals of the earth.

I mean no disrespect brother, but as i stated before it takes more that a precursory understanding of Koine Greek to dispute the accuracy of the KJV..the KJV translators translated each passage of their assigned lot (oxford groups had so many books to translate, Cambridge had so many assigned to them, Westminster had also so many) so, fourty seven of these fifty four men EACH translated each book assigned to them...and the result was approved by the other groups.

It must not be forgotten that the translators of the KJV had the use of only very primitive resources for studying the Greek New Testament. By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

Furthermore, the translators of the KJV had even less adequate resources for studying the Hebrew Old Testament. Therefore, the accuracy of the translation work in the Old Testament portion of the KJV is even worse than that of the New Testament portion. We see this especially in the names of plants and animals. However, the severely inadequate resources for translating the Old Testament portion of the KJV is no excuse for blunders that the translators made even when the resources were adequate. For example, the concept “of a whole piece” found in the KJV at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the Hebrew text; and the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the KJV. However, the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate at Numbers 10:2,

fac tibi duas tubas argenteas ductiles [fac (make) tibi (you) duas (two) tubas (trumpets) argenteas (silver) ductiles (beaten)]

Therefore it is found in the Douay Old Testament of 1609,

Numbers 10:2. Make thee two trumpets of beaten silver, wherewith thou mayest call together the multitude when the camp is to be removed.

The concept of “hammered work” (מִקְשָׁה) found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is also found in the Septuagint at Numbers 10:2,

Ποίησον σεαυτῷ δύο σάλπιγγας ἀργυρᾶς, ἐλατὰς ποιήσεις αὐτάς, καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ἀνακαλεῖν τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἐξαίρειν τὰς παρεμβολάς.

There is absolutely no doubt but that the King James Version seriously mistranslated Numbers 10:2, and no amount of faith in or philosophy about God can change that. Neither can any amount of faith in the translators of the KJV change that. Moreover, the mistranslation of Numbers 10:2 in the KJV is not at all an isolated incident. Nor are the mistranslations the only problem with the KJV. Indeed, numerous additional problems with the KJV have already been documented in the many threads on the KJV in Christian Forums.

P.S. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures gives a much more accurate translation of Numbers 10:2 than is found in the KJV,

10 And Jehovah proceeded to
speak to Moses, saying:
2 “Make for yourself two trumpets
of silver. You will make
them of hammered work, and
they must be at your service for
convening the assembly and for
breaking up the camps. (1984 Edition)

10 Jehovah then said to Moses:
2 “Maketwo trumpets
for yourself; make them of
hammered silver, and use them
to summon the assembly and to
break up the camps. (2013 Edition)

 

[PrincetonGuy]

what is deficient that u see in the KJV?

The KJV seriously lacks the accuracy, consistency in wording, and readability found in the best English translations of the Bible.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have in my personal library approximately 5,000 printed volumes, and many more in electronic formats. These volumes were written by scholars representing an extremely wide spectrum of theological opinion. I would also “hear” any well-documented facts that you might post—but I am tired of “hearing” non-documented gibberish. Westcott and Hort died years ago, and to a large extent their theories died with them. My primary field of study is the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. There are approximately 22,000 textual variants in the ancient Greek manuscripts of that epistle (and approximately 300,000 in the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as a whole), and I am aware of all of them (in the Epistle) and I evaluate each and every one of them independently of Westcott and Hort and their opinions. I do, however, respect and consider the opinions of scholars who have made a substantial contribution to our knowledge of the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Westcott and Hort are not among those scholars.

 

[HonestFisherman88]

so u do not disagree that pale horse is absolutely a fine rendering of the text..(u should know that many new translations of the "critical text" use exactly the same wording "pale horse"...so throwing that in was senseless and adds nothing but air to your reply) Now in address of the copy pasted wall of text about numbers 10:2 without returning the favor of sending u a dictionary worth of text..the term hammered or beaten work absolutely implies a one piece construction...in point of fact u cannot deny the fact that to make a one piece silver trumpet it must be made of a single piece of beaten silver. the omission of the word beaten,hammered, turned, etc in the KJV is a minor omission considering its implication by the phrase "of one piece" (in fact this is absolutely not an omission due to the implication of its single piece construction) i assure u the critical text translations omit a good deal more, and in a great deal more dire instances. I do not claim, nor i have i once claimed the KJV is entirely 100% flawless and without minor difficulties...but the NRSV which u have mentioned is quite a mess of mistakes, assumptions, etc..the KJV remains head and shoulders above the minority text translations..Ask any english speaking jew who ascribes to the Masoretic Hebrew text which english translation most closely follows their own..and the KJV will ALWAYS be accepted before the alphabet soup...unless u mean to say that ethnic jews cannot speaks as good of Hebrew as the translators of the NRSV?or the NIV, or yourself perhaps? You can read whatever Bible u like, but to aimlessly dispute the longest standing consecutively used Bible in the history of the english speaking world, in favor of an eclectic, ever changing text that espouses accuracy, yet does not remain the same for more than a few editions is idiotic, likewise to foolishly nit pick perceived errors while ignoring mountains of them in your own text is a bit like straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel is it not? Especially considering i have not declared the KJV to be the ONLY Bible, or any such dogmatic foolishness..You debate that the KJV is not an accurate text, even tho it is far closer to exactly accurate in many places than any text u can offer up in its place. I ask u for another instance of inaccuracy as i consider this one resolved an not in fact inaccurate at all

 

[HonestFisherman88]

I have in my personal library approximately 5,000 printed volumes, and many more in electronic formats. These volumes were written by scholars representing an extremely wide spectrum of theological opinion. I would also “hear” any well-documented facts that you might post—but I am tired of “hearing” non-documented gibberish. Westcott and Hort died years ago, and to a large extent their theories died with them. My primary field of study is the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. There are approximately 22,000 textual variants in the ancient Greek manuscripts of that epistle (and approximately 300,000 in the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as a whole), and I am aware of all of them (in the Epistle) and I evaluate each and every one of them independently of Westcott and Hort and their opinions. I do, however, respect and consider the opinions of scholars who have made a substantial contribution to our knowledge of the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Westcott and Hort are not among those scholars.

You continue to boast of your library, which is quite frankly simply showboating..Does the having of many track shoes make one an Olympic runner? Does the lack there of make one incapable of such? U have studied romans, and u have ascribed to the theories of textual criticism, u accept that longer readings are obvious additions, shorter readings must be the correct..that majority texts (tho over twice as numerous as Alexandrian variants) must not be counted individually because they are obviously copies, yet the minority texts must be counted even for slight differences...that even tho no two manuscripts agree on all things, the fact that the minority texts disagree among themselves AND with the majority text more than the majority text disagrees among itself surely means there is proof of a once wide ranging difference in manuscript families..of which the majority text MUST be the johnny come lately..even tho the majority text is obviously dated to older than the minority in many instances...and u believe that anyone who refuses to accept any of this as fact, is less educated, or blatantly ignoring the facts...despite the fact that the science of textual criticism is absolutely theoretical at best...what bearing does this have on my acceptance of the KJV at face value as as accurate a translation as the hodge podge of blatant omissions that we call the minority texts?