What errors do you think exist within the KJV?

[Neal of Zebulun]

Oh dear brother ..please forgive me . I did not mean it to you personally although your post did lean itself to things I have wondered about . I did not mean to offend you in any way as you are my brother . I was hopefully sharing some questions relating to errors in the KJV ..for example , what " name " meant to the early Hebrews . Just as " The Word " became flesh ...and the word " word" or logos can be defined as " reason " . In the beginning was the Reason , etc. To me anyway , it puts God , our Father at the center of all things . I believe that God our Father demonstrated Himself to us via His Son . There is no other name "given" through whom men must be saved .. so in obedience to The GIVER for HIS gift , we honor the Father by honoring the Son . Now we know that just as Joseph WAS GIVEN the same authority as Pharoh , Jesus has the authority of the Father for He did nothing of His own accord . " All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me . "
And brother , I do not mind you telling me that I am wrong since these are only things I believe . I will not know until that day. There are only a few things I know for sure . I KNOW that I have been wrong before. I know that many things have been debated using the same scriptures ...I am of the opinion that if we the body of Christ had everything right , we would be one and the world would see our great love one for another .. I want to get love right for love will cover a multitude of sins . And of course knowledge puffs up but love edifies . ( You telling me and demonstrating where I am wrong does me more good than you agreeing with me . ) May you be blessed and fruitful to the glory of God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hey, thanks for your kind post. You bring up a subject that requires a lot of energy. So let's start small:

The Hebrew word for "Isaiah" can be spelled like this: ישׁעיה

Now tell me straight, which one actually sounds like "Isaiah?" Say them out loud. Play around with each word. Try to say one in fast repetition, and then do the same for the other and compare:

"Yesha-Yah"

"Yesha-Jeho"

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is one of many parts I have written a note of correction to in my KJV. What do you think of John 12:6?
It has the word "bare", where some of the new versions make it out clearly that Judas was stealing from the bag.

NKJV
"This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it."

KJV
John 12:6

“This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.”

John 12:6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Sometimes the newer versions seem to make things clearer to me.

Oh yes. I agree. Clarity can be found by reading the Modern Translations for sure. The 1600's English can be a little archaic in it's language sometimes. So I would always encourage fellow Christians to read Modern Translations. But.... they should make the KJV their final Word of authority because if there is no one nailed down Word of God to follow then we are just making up our Bible slightly as we see fit. The issue here is not one of clarity but one of errors. I first believed the KJV was divinely inspired by faith, but as time went on, I had seen that there are actually biblical evidences that proves that this is true. This is important because I should not seek to change God's Word, but God's Word should change me. With a pile of Modern Translations, you can just get lost in a sea of not knowing what Scripture says sometimes. The thing is.... I KNOW what it says. I may not always understand what it says fully but at least I know what is written and nailed down for me. There is no ME seeking to change what is written. That to me is a very dangerous game to play - IMO.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But people do.

God is more powerful than people and the Scriptures say that He magnifies His Word above His name. Scriptures says His Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations.

Yes, and that was long before the KJV was made.

While God did reveal things before the KJV, that does not mean God's Word exists only in the past or in some dead language alone. God is the God of the living and not the God of the dead (Mark 12:27). Malachi 3:6 says God does not change. So if God preserved His Word in different languages before: Like Hebrew and Greek, logic dictates that God will do so again with languages that seek to have the most impact or influence. I believe God perfectly preserved His Word in the following languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English.

His Word perfectly exists for our world language today.

You're totally ignoring what i said.

What am I ignoring, my friend?
When I say that His Word perfectly exists for us today, I am talking about in a language that people today can understand. A language like Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek cannot be known with 100% certainty because nobody has a Moses or Paul to confirm such word studies. A person can be without excuse because they can say to God that they are not Hebrew and Greek experts. But with English, there is no such excuse. By pure logic alone, the Word of God has to exist in the world language of today that people grew up writing and speaking. That way... God can hold them accountable to His Word. Now, if the Word has holes in it, then it shows that it is not a message of divine origin and the person can simply dismiss it or dismiss those parts of the Bible they don't like (Or worse yet, they can make the Hebrew and Greek say what they want it to say).

Correct. But translating them and having limited sources means it can go wrong sometimes.

Again, when I say God's Word exists solely in some dead language I am talking about His PERFECT Word. God's Word is perfect. Scripture says this in numerous places. To say that this is not true is to simply change what God's Word says because we do not like it or it does not make sense to us.

Speaking of dead languages, what do you think you're doing when you hold on to an old translation and ignore the living who diligently study (the origins of) God's Word?

I am not against using Modern Translations. They are just not my final word of authority. The KJV gets the last Word because not all Bibles say the same thing. There can only be ONE Word of God for us today and not many. God is not the author of confusion.

Let me ask you what this is actually about:
Why do you need the KJV to be perfect?

It's not a matter of why do I personally need the KJV to be perfect or not. The evidences of Scripture speaks for itself.

#1. Scripture says that God's Word is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations.
This means that only one Word of God can be perfect for our generation today. It would have to be a Word whereby people would not have any real way of knowing for sure what that language really says (like with the Hebrew and Greek).

#2. Doing a side by side comparison of the KJV and Modern Translations shows us that the devil places his name in the Modern Translations where they should not be (So as to attack God and His Word) and important doctrines or truths are watered down or eliminated.

#3. Biblical Numerics confirms even more the divinity of the KJV. Check out Mike Hoggard's videos called the King James Code. Note: These numbers are not about helping us to tell the future or to give us special favor for our lives or anything silly like that. They are merely for helping us to see that God's Word is divine in origin. In fact, if you were to watch these videos, I am not sure how you could not have your mind blown. God's Word is amazing.

But having the right Word of God is important. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. So it is important that we are building our faith upon the right Word of God. For the Word of God represents our faith that we follow.

 

[1stcenturylady]

So, we really should be calling the Old Testament the Old Covenant, and the New Testament the New Covenant, even the literal books of the Bible themselves.

That is a pretty big mistake.

I'm curious, should "New" be "Renewed" you think? I've seen that in some translations.

I see "Testament" and "Covenant" as being pretty much interchangeable.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

I see "Testament" and "Covenant" as being pretty much interchangeable.

I was pondering the same thing last night, about what Tree of Life said. But it occurred to me that the major difference is that "Covenant" implies an on-going relationship between Yahweh and us, with Christ as the mediator, High Priest of Melchizedek. There is an agreement, and there are consequences for breaking the agreement.

Whereas as when I think of a will, or a testament, I think of something that is passed away once the the will is executed the one time, and there is that lack of an on-going relationship, because the person who made the will is no longer with us.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I was pondering the same thing last night, about what Tree of Life said. But it occurred to me that the major difference is that "Covenant" implies an on-going relationship between Yahweh and us, with Christ as the mediator, High Priest of Melchizedek. There is an agreement, and there are consequences for breaking the agreement.

Whereas as when I think of a will, or a testament, I think of something that is passed away once the the will is executed the one time, and there is that lack of an on-going relationship, because the person who made the will is no longer with us.

Don't you see that Jesus couldn't not stay here on earth with us. He had to leave in order to send the Holy Spirit who could be with each of us all the time. Otherwise, we would have to go to Israel to see Jesus, or wherever He happened to be. With the Holy Spirit we not only have His power to make us dead to sin, we have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In either case, whether the Old Testament was a Covenant, it faded away with the New Covenant residing in each of us. Instead of laws on stone we had to try to keep in our own carnal weakness, we have the power of the Holy Spirit keeping the laws placed on our consciences. We now love what God loves, and hate what God hates. He is part of us.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Hey, thanks for your kind post. You bring up a subject that requires a lot of energy. So let's start small:

The Hebrew word for "Isaiah" can be spelled like this: ישׁעיה

Now tell me straight, which one actually sounds like "Isaiah?" Say them out loud. Play around with each word. Try to say one in fast repetition, and then do the same for the other and compare:

"Yesha-Yah"

"Yesha-Jeho"

Hi brother..I would say the second one but more interested in the meanings than pronunciations . Obviously there are some things lost via the translations into Greek and then English.
I am not by any means a scholar but was familiar with the fact that there was no "J" in hebrew. That is what alerted me to the mistranslation error in Acts 7:45 in KJV..and of course it did not make sense when read in context... of course I see it as a foreshadowing of Jesus / Yeshua ( God is salvation ) It also started me looking into the meanings of names and that someone's name was descriptive. You would probably know better than I but apparently YHWH's name was considered too Holy to pronounce. Also , did Jesus speak Hebrew or Aramaic ? I had heard that He possibly spoke greek or at least hypocrite derived from the greek since there was no equivalent Hebrew word. ( No theater in Israel for some to wear a mask . )

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

Don't you see that Jesus couldn't not stay here on earth with us. He had to leave in order to send the Holy Spirit who could be with each of us all the time. Otherwise, we would have to go to Israel to see Jesus, or wherever He happened to be. With the Holy Spirit we not only have His power to make us dead to sin, we have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In either case, whether the Old Testament was a Covenant, it faded away with the New Covenant residing in each of us. Instead of laws on stone we had to try to keep in our own carnal weakness, we have the power of the Holy Spirit keeping the laws placed on our consciences. We now love what God loves, and hate what God hates. He is part of us.

I think you make some good points. I always try to keep in mind what Paul said in Romans 7 about the struggle between the Law in our mind (conscience) and the law in the flesh (carnal desires that go against Yahweh.)

Romans 7:

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:​

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.​

And that we should often study the written Law to understand the Spirit behind it:

Romans 7:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

So I believe that the Law becomes something we love over time, and not something entirely instantaneous.

I also believe that there are sinful influences working against us, trying to convince us that something is or isn't Lawful, like when Yahushua Christ said to the scribes and pharisees:

Mark 7:

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.​

9 ..Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.​

Just some thoughts.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

Hi brother..I would say the second one

You sure? Here I'll number them just to make sure I understand which one you think sounds more like "Isaiah":

1. "Yesha-Yah" (from Yahweh)
2. "Yesha-Jeho" (from Jehovah)

 

[NeedyFollower]

God is more powerful than people and the Scriptures say that He magnifies His Word above His name. Scriptures says His Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations.



While God did reveal things before the KJV, that does not mean God's Word exists only in the past or in some dead language alone. God is the God of the living and not the God of the dead (Mark 12:27). Malachi 3:6 says God does not change. So if God preserved His Word in different languages before: Like Hebrew and Greek, logic dictates that God will do so again with languages that seek to have the most impact or influence. I believe God perfectly preserved His Word in the following languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English.




What am I ignoring, my friend?
When I say that His Word perfectly exists for us today, I am talking about in a language that people today can understand. A language like Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek cannot be known with 100% certainty because nobody has a Moses or Paul to confirm such word studies. A person can be without excuse because they can say to God that they are not Hebrew and Greek experts. But with English, there is no such excuse. By pure logic alone, the Word of God has to exist in the world language of today that people grew up writing and speaking. That way... God can hold them accountable to His Word. Now, if the Word has holes in it, then it shows that it is not a message of divine origin and the person can simply dismiss it or dismiss those parts of the Bible they don't like (Or worse yet, they can make the Hebrew and Greek say what they want it to say).



Again, when I say God's Word exists solely in some dead language I am talking about His PERFECT Word. God's Word is perfect. Scripture says this in numerous places. To say that this is not true is to simply change what God's Word says because we do not like it or it does not make sense to us.



I am not against using Modern Translations. They are just not my final word of authority. The KJV gets the last Word because not all Bibles say the same thing. There can only be ONE Word of God for us today and not many. God is not the author of confusion.



It's not a matter of why do I personally need the KJV to be perfect or not. The evidences of Scripture speaks for itself.

#1. Scripture says that God's Word is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations.
This means that only one Word of God can be perfect for our generation today. It would have to be a Word whereby people would not have any real way of knowing for sure what that language really says (like with the Hebrew and Greek).

#2. Doing a side by side comparison of the KJV and Modern Translations shows us that the devil places his name in the Modern Translations where they should not be (So as to attack God and His Word) and important doctrines or truths are watered down or eliminated.

#3. Biblical Numerics confirms even more the divinity of the KJV. Check out Mike Hoggard's videos called the King James Code. Note: These numbers are not about helping us to tell the future or to give us special favor for our lives or anything silly like that. They are merely for helping us to see that God's Word is divine in origin. In fact, if you were to watch these videos, I am not sure how you could not have your mind blown. God's Word is amazing.

But having the right Word of God is important. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. So it is important that we are building our faith upon the right Word of God. For the Word of God represents our faith that we follow.

Hi Brother ..I am very fond of KJV as some of the newer translations in my opinion have done damage to some of the meanings ..for example , in some places the word glory has been replace with pride and of course Christians are not proud. We are humble. I do carefully use several translations since the old kings english is in some places not understood . And while by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the KJV is a wonderful translation , it does have some mistranslations. For example , Acts 7:45 . As you are aware , Moses handed the ark of the covenant to Joshua for Jesus had not been born yet . Although this is a mistranslation , i found it particularly enlightening because Jesus is the greek for Joshua ...their names mean " God is Salvation " and of course only Jesus can bring us into the promised land . Hearing does come by the Word of God ...My sheep hear My voice ..even the spirit of truth. Learn of me , I am lowly and meek ...this is His voice . I do understand your caution with some of the new translations but I know many KJV only churches that may have their hope in KJV and not Jesus. The letter killeth but the spirit brings life . How many churches that say they go by the KJV only , have their women learn to be keepers at home ? Have their sisters wear a prayer veil while praying ? That let the prophets speak two and three at a time ( 1st Corinthians 14:29 ) Elsewhere in Corinthians Paul says that if any man think themselves to spiritual or prophetic , let them acknowledge that what I write are commandments of the Lord . So , in closing ..I like KJV also but my salvation is in the Living Word that became flesh .

 

[Hieronymus]

What am I ignoring, my friend?

This:

In the mean time scholars with a passion for the Bible have found many more old manuscripts than the KJV editors could ever imagine.
There is simply more knowledge, source material and people involved with reconstructing 'the original Bible' (if there was ever such a thing) than in the days of King James.

You ignore those facts.

When I say that His Word perfectly exists for us today, I am talking about in a language that people today can understand. A language like Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek cannot be known with 100% certainty because nobody has a Moses or Paul to confirm such word studies.

So ancient language scholars don't exist or they're just guessing?
Wouldn't that also apply to the KJV redaction?

A person can be without excuse because they can say to God that they are not Hebrew and Greek experts. But with English, there is no such excuse.

That's why we have translations, obviously.
And as time progresses we have more scholars, more ancient texts that are found, more understanding and communication, etcetera.
The KJV redaction would be jealous of what's available today.

By pure logic alone, the Word of God has to exist in the world language of today that people grew up writing and speaking.

Then why stick with an old translation in archaic English?

That way... God can hold them accountable to His Word. Now, if the Word has holes in it, then it shows that it is not a message of divine origin and the person can simply dismiss it or dismiss those parts of the Bible they don't like (Or worse yet, they can make the Hebrew and Greek say what they want it to say).

No, scholars can not make Greek and Hebrew say what they want. They would be rebuked by their fellow scholars.
And that's what happens, when a scholar forces his / her opinion into the texts.

Again, when I say God's Word exists solely in some dead language I am talking about His PERFECT Word. God's Word is perfect. Scripture says this in numerous places.

Where does it say that a particular translation is perfect?

To say that this is not true is to simply change what God's Word says because we do not like it or it does not make sense to us.

So when experts find something other than how the KJV renders it, he doesn't like the KJV?

I am not against using Modern Translations. They are just not my final word of authority.

Even when the evidence shows that there may be a mistranslation, or the Greek or Hebrew source text turns out to have some ambiguities?

The KJV gets the last Word because not all Bibles say the same thing. There can only be ONE Word of God for us today and not many. God is not the author of confusion.

Still not clear why it should be the KJV.
Still not clear why efforts to get to the bottom of it are 'satanic'.
Still not clear why only the sources the KJV redaction used are good.

It's not a matter of why do I personally need the KJV to be perfect or not. The evidences of Scripture speaks for itself.

#1. Scripture says that God's Word is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations.

Well, it is preserved for all generations, and the differences between translations are very small.
The essence, the message is the same, although the KJV mixes up hell and hades and the lake of fire, maybe because the translators believed God tortures the unsaved for ever and ever (?)
They got Deuteronomy 32:8 'wrong' because the Masoretic text has it 'wrong'.
Some other examples were given in this topic too.

This means that only one Word of God can be perfect for our generation today.

So you think a 17th century archaic English translation is 'perfect for our generation'?
I bet most English speaking people have quite a hard time understanding the old KJV.

It would have to be a Word whereby people would not have any real way of knowing for sure what that language really says (like with the Hebrew and Greek).

Yeah, or like 17th century English...

#2. Doing a side by side comparison of the KJV and Modern Translations shows us that the devil places his name in the Modern Translations where they should not be (So as to attack God and His Word) and important doctrines or truths are watered down or eliminated.

The devil??
Did the devil place or delete things in the ancient source texts that were not used or not even known to the KJV redaction?
See, this is the thing with KJV-only-ists. They just don't know how translations come to be.
They don't know that true 'God fearing' Jews (OT) and Christians (NT) with good intentions sometimes add a sentence to clarify things or to emphasise God's Glory, which is unique to certain text families, because they got copied like that in the area where the edit was made.

#3. Biblical Numerics confirms even more the divinity of the KJV. Check out Mike Hoggard's videos called the King James Code. Note: These numbers are not about helping us to tell the future or to give us special favor for our lives or anything silly like that. They are merely for helping us to see that God's Word is divine in origin. In fact, if you were to watch these videos, I am not sure how you could not have your mind blown. God's Word is amazing.

I'm not a Bible code believer.
There are some codes in the OT though.

But having the right Word of God is important. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. So it is important that we are building our faith upon the right Word of God. For the Word of God represents our faith that we follow.

I agree with that statement.

 

[Hieronymus]

Hi Brother ..I am very fond of KJV as some of the newer translations in my opinion have done damage to some of the meanings ..for example , in some places the word glory has been replace with pride and of course Christians are not proud. We are humble.

But we take pride in God.

 

[NeedyFollower]

You sure? Here I'll number them just to make sure I understand which one you think sounds more like "Isaiah":

1. "Yesha-Yah" (from Yahweh)
2. "Yesha-Jeho" (from Jehovah)

Oh , sorry . I meant to say the one that is Yesha-Yah . I know that the name Jehovah did not exist until Latin and then Greek ..it is a new name from maybe the 1400's . With that said ..I am not certain that we are even pronouncing YHWH correctly ..I prefer "Father " and the wonderful thing is that HE knows all things..He knows my heart ..I often tell Him that I hate to use human words to speak to Him for they are not adequate but again , He knows . How wonderful ! Grace and Peace .

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

..I am not certain that we are even pronouncing YHWH correctly

You said in another post that the meaning of names is important, I agree. And I want to show you the meaning of a word I really like!

Revelation 19:

1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Hallelujah; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto Yahweh our God:​

The word in bold comes from a Hebrew word, even though it's found in the Greek of Revelation:

הללו-יה

It means "praise Yah."

It a contraction for "Yahweh" (just like Isai-Yah.)

People use His Name all the time without realizing it.

They start singing His name on the radio about this time of year. Famous classical pieces even unto modern renditions: "Hallelu-Yah."

Just about every time you have that "Yah" sound on the end of a prophet or king's name, it's the contraction for "Yahweh." People are saying His Name almost every time they open a Bible.

The pronunciation of the first two letters of His Name are so very well known, that it is spoken throughout the entire world, and no man can stop it.

Just thought I'd share. I'm sorry I can't post much more tonight. I enjoy your posts though.

Keep on in Christ,

And for the love of God,

Hallelu-Yah!

 

[1stcenturylady]

I think you make some good points. I always try to keep in mind what Paul said in Romans 7 about the struggle between the Law in our mind (conscience) and the law in the flesh (carnal desires that go against Yahweh.)

Romans 7:

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:​

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.​

And that we should often study the written Law to understand the Spirit behind it:

Romans 7:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

So I believe that the Law becomes something we love over time, and not something entirely instantaneous.

I also believe that there are sinful influences working against us, trying to convince us that something is or isn't Lawful, like when Yahushua Christ said to the scribes and pharisees:

Mark 7:

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.​

9 ..Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.​

Just some thoughts.

If you start in Romans 1 you see that Paul is talking about the law BEFORE Christ. Chapter 7 is actually the culmination of this teaching on the law. What the Holy Spirit does for us is writes the law on our conscience. It becomes a part of us. We also now have the power of the Holy Spirit so that we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit.

Chapter seven shows us that the law was holy, but it was sin that was the problem. What the Holy Spirit does is kills sin in us. He killed the desires to sin. We love what God loves and hate what God hates. You see the Jews didn't have this power when they were under the law. Because sin is dead in us, we no longer are under the law. That is why Paul said if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law. That is in Galatians 5. Many believe grace just covers the sins we keep on committing. No! Grace is the power of God to no longer sin.

See the Semitic parallelism in Acts 4:33. You will see that grace and power are the same. (Great power/Great grace).

This doctrine may be new to you. But John taught it too. Read 1 John 3

3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Sin and the Child of God
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The Imperative of Love
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

13 Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

The Outworking of Love
16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

 

[Hieronymus]

FWIW, i was a KJV-only-ist myself too in he beginning.
I fell for the KJV-only apologetics.
The KJV is a good Bible, there are worse translations.
But it has its shortcomings, just like any translation has, and we all (should) know the problem areas by now, so it's good to work with.
I think the ESV is better though.
There's simply more knowledge and understanding behind the development of the ESV than there is behind the development of the KJV.
Since i'm Dutch (from the Netherlands) i have the tried and trusted NBG51 here, but it too has some errors, but not many.
But the differences are small between translations.
Most differences are in how things are put into words, while the message and essence is the same.
And it's about the message and the essence, isn't it?
We all know Who is meant by "that Man" where other translations say "our Lord Jesus Christ".
But which of the two could have been edited by a passionate Christian?

 

[Larry Wilgus]

What errors do you think exist within the KJV?

Please see my other CF thread here on answers to various supposed contradictions in the KJV.
I have a few more answers to supposed contradictions for the KJV I would like to add later.


Anyways, may God bless you;
And may you please be well.

What a senseless question and waste of time! Why not use whatever version the Bible teaches and change the world around us instead of finding ways to discredit the Word of God. Errors?

 

[DamianWarS]

But your leaving out the context in between.
Also, there are many words that can be singular or plural and do need to be capitalized. There is the word “fish” can be singular and plural without adding an “es.”
But yet, you can add an “es.”

Also, do you consult Moses on your Hebrew? I am pretty sure nobody today knew Hebrew like he did.

So no. You're just looking to find problems in the KJV where none exists, my friend.

Good day to you;
And may God bless you.

"shamayim" is heavens in hebrew the "-yim" at the end makes it a plural. It is inherently plural and it doesn't have a singular form so contextually it could be translated either way. 1:1 uses "ha-shamayim" or "the heavens" where other verses in context (like 1:8) don't have the article and is just "heavens" not "the heavens".

1:1 is "heaven" [KJV] where 1:8 is "Heaven" [KJV]. This gives us a glimpse of what the translators of the KJV were thinking. I'm not going to get into what 1:8 should or should not be but rather point out the contrast of 1:1 and 1:8 when it comes to the KJV. If the KJV translators interpreted a majestic plural with this word in the text it wasn't in 1:1 but perhaps that argument could be used in 1:8 as it is capitalized.

I did not consult Moses but of course neither did you nor did the translators of the KJV so this argument is not beneficial to understanding what the word means and it certainly cannot be uniquely applied to me to disqualify what I say.

There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation and all translations suffer from an inherent loss. To call a translation inerrant grossly misrepresents translation as a whole as this is not possible with translations. Translations are going to have a lot of contextual reasons why they may choose one word over the other and this could be the reason for why the plural shows up only in 2:1 (addressing all the "heavens" prior). To me it does not warrant a different contextual meaning than 1:1 as the two verses parallel each other as an opening and a close and their words should mirror each other too. By using heaven in 1:1 and heavens 2:1 the translation is robbed of this parallel and it is a shame. Is it an error? The better language I would use is it misses the focus of the text.

 

[DamianWarS]

Okay, if "heavenS" is the correct translation and meaning in Genesis 1:1, I want you to list the different heavens that were in place here BEFORE God divided them into three heavens with the firmament (Genesis 1:6-8).

I don't care if it's "heaven" or "heavens" the word in hebrew actually doesn't have a singular form. My contention is that it should mirror 2:1 as the two passages act as an opening and a close to the passage and should parallel each other as they express the same concept.

 

[Athanasius377]

FWIW, i was a KJV-only-ist myself too in he beginning.
I fell for the KJV-only apologetics.
The KJV is a good Bible, there are worse translations.
But it has its shortcomings, just like any translation has, and we all (should) know the problem areas by now, so it's good to work with.
I think the ESV is better though.
There's simply more knowledge and understanding behind the development of the ESV than there is behind the development of the KJV.
Since i'm Dutch (from the Netherlands) i have the tried and trusted NBG51 here, but it too has some errors, but not many.
But the differences are small between translations.
Most differences are in how things are put into words, while the message and essence is the same.
And it's about the message and the essence, isn't it?
We all know Who is meant by "that Man" where other translations say "our Lord Jesus Christ".
But which of the two could have been edited by a passionate Christian?

I could not agree more. Checking modern translations against the KJV assumes that the KJV is the final authority. Two issues with that mode of thinking. First, there are marginal notes in the original (as is the case now) printing in 1611 giving alternate renderings that did not make it into the text but the committee thought was useful to know. So even the translators did not believe they were creating an inspired translation. To further bolster my argument, read the dedicatory epistle to King James.

Bible (King James)/Preface - Wikisource, the free online library

Second, the translators were revising the Bishop's Bible of 1568 in order to compete the with Geneva Bible which contained marginal notes promoting things like regicide, "Overseer" rather than "Bishop", etc. Furthermore it was to be used by the Church of England (Hence the Authorized Version) and was not accepted by the Puritan party as they still used the Geneva translation.

If one wants to know what the final authority is, learn Greek and Hebrew and read the text in the original language. While the KJV is a tribute to superb scholarship it is not the final nor the best translation out there. If anyone asks I usually recommend the ESV. It is not perfect but I think that it better captures the meaning of the text a lot better than most other translations including the KJV. It does not help anyone to insist on using a translation that they do not understand simply to adhere to a tradition of men. Furthermore, it is the exact same argument that the Roman church used in the 16th century and before to insist on the Vulgate Latin version. So if you have a translation you like, use it.