What errors do you think exist within the KJV?

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what you mean.

We do not know with 100% certainty if there were any manuscripts that went extinct or lost and that current manuscripts we have are not slightly corrupted. We take it by faith ultimately that God’s Word is perfect and true because that is what it says and because it has proven to show us that it is divine.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
My point exactly. I said before just recently about God’s creation and how it is perfect. It is a reflection of a perfect Creator. Just as God’s perfect Word is a reflection of a perfect Creator. For the works of God are perfect.

For the Bible is called the “Holy Bible” and it is not called the “ holey bible.”
It never says the original creation was perfect, just that it was very good and complete in all it's vast array.
 
Upvote 0

Neal of Zebulun

Active Member
Oct 21, 2017
326
132
33
Texas
✟21,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, what if you're not English speaking?

Surely, before work on the English translation even began, they asked the question:

"What if they can't read the Hebrew? Or the Greek?"

The point of a translation is to make it easier to understand the original, not to replace it.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It never says the original creation was perfect, just that it was very good and complete in all it's vast array.

“He is the Rock, his work is perfect:” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

God’s work would include the creation.

In fact, it is the context of the previous verses.
 
Upvote 0

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
It is a sad irony that many of the Christians who champion a high view of biblical inspiration mindlessly use the most corrupt translation based on later error-prone manuscripts. For a list of some of the bogus verses later inserted into the text, see:

Translation errors and forgeries in the Bible

I will focus on the most egregious error, the contrived ending of Mark (16:9-20). NT scholars are unanimous in their verdict that this text, missing in early manuscripts, was added later to compensate for the awkward ending of the original text, which lacks a resurrection appearance of Jesus and which ends by lamenting that the women at the tomb disobeyed the 'young man" in the white robe's instruction to tell the disciples that Jesus is risen and will appear to them in Galilee. In fact, one ancient manuscript of Mark even identifies the forger as Aristo of Pella (c. 150-165 AD). Thus, later Greek manuscripts invent other endings of Mark to remove this Scholars also agree that the style of the Greek of 16:9-20 differs to greatly from Mark's to be authentic.

But let's consider the harm done by the words misattributed to Jesus in 16:17-18 of this spurious interpolation:

"17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Many KJV Only Appalachian Christians have died and caused other believers to die as a result of the underlined challenge in this text. It is unthinkable that Jesus would identify as a badge of true believers that they would handle deadly snakes and drink deadly poison as a test of their faith. Why would anyone drink deadly poison? This bogus promis is a misapplication of accidents like that noted in Luke 10:19). These "signs" are in any case too bizarre to be credited to the real Jesus.

In the 1600s, the KJV translators lacked access to the earliest and most accurate manuscripts. Many manuscript discoveries have happened since then, giving birth to the science of Text Criticism. This science collects and compares all biblical manuscripts, groups them into families by text type, region, and date, and discovers when and where the thousands of errors have crept into the text. Yet many evangelicals lack the integrity to read any scholarly book on Text Criticism to see how compelling the evidence really is for the modern critical text of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Instead, they prefer to impute ungodly liberal motives to scholars who revere the original word and are just trying to recover it as purely and accurately as possible. So when preachers I don't know use the KJV in their preaching, I quickly turn off the radio or TV or stop attending the unenlightened church in question--and that comes from a man who, as a boy, used his paper route money to buy an expensive Thomas Chain Reference KJV Bible, so I could read it from cover to cover. I was hungry for the truth of God's Word, but learned, only later, that this Bible translation was sadly flawed.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
“He is the Rock, his work is perfect:” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

God’s work would include the creation.

In fact, it is the context of the previous verses.
God of course is perfect, but this creation isn't, thus the children of perdition. It will be when he does it the next time but all of creation is gowning in earnest travail, until the sons of God are revealed. It wouldn't be nessacary to recreate the universe if the first one is perfect.

In the beginning, Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; They will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed; but You remain the same, and Your years will never end (Heb. 1:10-12)
Not perfect, not yet.
 
Upvote 0

Neal of Zebulun

Active Member
Oct 21, 2017
326
132
33
Texas
✟21,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why do you think the KJV has Solomon getting 666 talents of gold in one year from a source -and some new versions have it as - yearly?

Why do you think in some of the new versions it makes no sense and will not fit the story as to they have the beast and the ten kings will burn the harlot city?

You're speaking of 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13. I never noticed that before regarding what John tells us the number of the beast is.

This may be a silly question, but are you saying the beast has something to do with Solomon and gold? I'm interested in reading about this if you have a thread you could link to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Biggest mistranslation error. The number of people listed
in Exodus and Numbers. There were no tens or hundreds
of thousands of Hebrews, even with the mixed multitude.
At that time, there were probably from two to five million
people in all of Egypt. Israel though, was a tiny nation.
Deuteronomy 7:7

As I said, mistranslation of the word 'eleph'. While it can
mean 'thousand', it can also mean 'family leader' or 'chief'.
Depending on the size of the mixed multitude, between
6,000 - 8,0000 people left Egypt.
How many came out of the exodus of Egypt
 
Upvote 0

SBC

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,477
584
US
✟38,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Numbers 16:49

“Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah.”


=========
Numbers 25:9

“And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.”

Numbers 16:49 excluded the number of deaths from the plague, in Korah.
Numbers 16:49 includes the number of deaths, in Korah.

God Bless,
SBC
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
In my last post I listed the most egregious inventions of bogus texts in the KJV and no one was able to respond. But there are more mundane but objective examples that discredit the KJV. The KJV's text in John 1:28 wrongly claims that John conducted his ministry at Bethabara.

In the early 200s AD Origen comments on the earlier biblical texts long before our earliest NT manuscripts. In commenting on John 1:28 Origen admits that the reading "Bethany" is found in almost all the earlier manuscripts, but is convinced that the reading should be Bethabara. In support of this contention he he alleges that there is no other place by the name of Bethany in the vicinity of the Jordan. Having set aside "Bethany" he comments on John 1:28, "…but they say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there. He does not recognize the strong case that Bethany beyond the Jordan is located much further north on the Jordan River than the area he visits. The text used by the KJV follows his bogus suggestion rather than the consensus of the earlier texts of the Gospel of John.

Do you love the Lord enough to care about the most authentic biblical manuscripts? If so, how much reading have you done on Text Criticism, the discipline devoted to recovering the purest possible biblical text?
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The KJV we have today has more than one revision and it does not match up in every verse as to the 1611 version.

I believe the 1769 is the completed KJV.
For it was not until 1769 that man had perfected the printing process and a standardization of spelling.

You said:
You started another thread on this subject. Do you intend to reply there further?

Yes. I have been busy, and could only give quick replies. The other thread requires a little more homework to provide a proper defense for supposed contradictions in God's Word.

You said:
Did you look at Job 3:8 yet? KJV is wrong - it should have - Leviathan -not mourning

Actually, no; It is not wrong. The Modern Versions got it wrong (yet again).

The same Hebrew word is used for "raise up" in Job 3:8, and "stir up" in Job 41:10. One example is that we see a contradiction in the NKJV. In Job 3:8 the NKJV says: "those who are ready to AROUSE Leviathan", but in Job 41:10 it says: "No one is so fierce that he would dare STIR HIM UP." God says nobody would dare arouse Leviathan, but the NKJV says there are those who do, and thus creates a contradiction.

These words in Job 3:8 refer to the hired mourners of the dead.

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Consider now! Call for the wailing women to come; send for the most skillful of them." (Jeremiah 9:17) (NIV).

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Consider ye, and call for the mourning women, that they may come; and send for cunning women, that they may come:" (Jeremiah 9:17) (KJV).

Job 3:8 speaks of Job's situation. Job speaks of those who curse the day, like himself. He is speaking of those who curse the day because they are mourning (like HIMSELF). Why is he mourning? Because he lost his kids, his wealth, and his health. He is in mourning. Let those who curse the day in their mourning.

To speak of Leviathan at this point is a problem because it says that it is okay to talk about the approval of magicians conjuring up dragons when we may be in mourning. I don't think Job was willing to justify pagan thinking here. That would have shown disloyalty to God by showng a approval of what pagans do.


Source used for one paragraph within this post:
Job - Bible Babble
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I guess the verses where the KJV does transliterate the Name יהוה are errors then, because they break that "tradition" you mentioned.

Didn't Christ have something to say about the traditions of men?

If you want to argue pronunciation, fine. The last letter is debatable.

About the only thing I agree with you on is that I prefer translations that just leave His Name in the Hebrew, which it is a Name.

It is a blatant error to change it to a title or anything but the Name. All of those translations you mentioned come from the Hebrew, and they too are in error. There's a reason we use the Hebrew as the primary source text in most every translation of the Bible, because it's the primary source text from which the others are all translations.

And the verses in the KJV that show a transliteration of the Name prove that it was intentional on man's part, because Yahweh isn't full of contradictions.

Do not bother me again about that ridiculous and profane tradition you bring up, because it steals away the Salvation of the people Christ is talking to in the following verse:

Matthew 23:
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of יהוה.

John 12:
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Matthew 23:39 does not say "blessed is He that comes in the name of יהוה" it says

"εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου"

"eulogemenos ho erchomenos en onomati kuriou"

"blessed is the one that comes in the name of the Lord"

יהוה is never used in the New Testament because the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and the writers of the New Testament always use κυρίος, just as the LXX does.

If you have a problem with that, then you need to take it up with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and the rest.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God of course is perfect, but this creation isn't, thus the children of perdition. It will be when he does it the next time but all of creation is gowning in earnest travail, until the sons of God are revealed. It wouldn't be nessacary to recreate the universe if the first one is perfect.

In the beginning, Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; They will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed; but You remain the same, and Your years will never end (Heb. 1:10-12)
Not perfect, not yet.

To be perfect does not mean it cannot faulter later. To be perfect means it is whole and complete. The devil was perfect until iniquity was found within him. Perfect can be a momentary thing in the Bible until a change happens. Please read Deuteronomy 32:1-4. It essentially is saying his creation is perfect. Yes, God gave man free will and man made sinful choices, but God still created man and everything else in it as being perfect at the beginning. God's work (He did back then) is still perfect. For God cannot make mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is a sad irony that many of the Christians who champion a high view of biblical inspiration mindlessly use the most corrupt translation based on later error-prone manuscripts. For a list of some of the bogus verses later inserted into the text, see:

Translation errors and forgeries in the Bible

I will focus on the most egregious error, the contrived ending of Mark (16:9-20). NT scholars are unanimous in their verdict that this text, missing in early manuscripts, was added later to compensate for the awkward ending of the original text, which lacks a resurrection appearance of Jesus and which ends by lamenting that the women at the tomb disobeyed the 'young man" in the white robe's instruction to tell the disciples that Jesus is risen and will appear to them in Galilee. In fact, one ancient manuscript of Mark even identifies the forger as Aristo of Pella (c. 150-165 AD). Thus, later Greek manuscripts invent other endings of Mark to remove this Scholars also agree that the style of the Greek of 16:9-20 differs to greatly from Mark's to be authentic.

But let's consider the harm done by the words misattributed to Jesus in 16:17-18 of this spurious interpolation:

"17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Many KJV Only Appalachian Christians have died and caused other believers to die as a result of the underlined challenge in this text. It is unthinkable that Jesus would identify as a badge of true believers that they would handle deadly snakes and drink deadly poison as a test of their faith. Why would anyone drink deadly poison? This bogus promis is a misapplication of accidents like that noted in Luke 10:19). These "signs" are in any case too bizarre to be credited to the real Jesus.

In the 1600s, the KJV translators lacked access to the earliest and most accurate manuscripts. Many manuscript discoveries have happened since then, giving birth to the science of Text Criticism. This science collects and compares all biblical manuscripts, groups them into families by text type, region, and date, and discovers when and where the thousands of errors have crept into the text. Yet many evangelicals lack the integrity to read any scholarly book on Text Criticism to see how compelling the evidence really is for the modern critical text of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Instead, they prefer to impute ungodly liberal motives to scholars who revere the original word and are just trying to recover it as purely and accurately as possible. So when preachers I don't know use the KJV in their preaching, I quickly turn off the radio or TV or stop attending the unenlightened church in question--and that comes from a man who, as a boy, used his paper route money to buy an expensive Thomas Chain Reference KJV Bible, so I could read it from cover to cover. I was hungry for the truth of God's Word, but learned, only later, that this Bible translation was sadly flawed.

That is silly. I believe the KJV is divinely inspired and I do not think that verse is telling me to actively seek out deadly snakes so as to pick them up and to drink known poisons. It is not saying that. When it says, THEY shall take up serpents and if they drank any deadly thing it shall not hurt them.... it is in VIEW OF: Do not tempt (or test) the Lord your God (That is taught by Jesus Christ Himself). Remember when Jesus said to Satan when he was being tempted?

This passage is saying that if they encounter snakes or known poisons by chance, God can and will protect them. It is not if they seek these things out to test the Lord their God. That is not what it is saying. When it says, they shall take up serpents, it is saying "Take up serpents" it is speaking about encountering them by chance and not seeking them out. "Take up" is sort of like "take on" or "pick up" serpents by a chance encounter. It is merely saying that if they encounter a snake and they need to pick it up to get rid of it, they will not be harmed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0