Have you ever found a mistake in the Bible?

GodLovesCats · Aug 11, 2019

JIMINZ said:
I would venture to say, they use the Websters Dictionary for their Definitions, owing to the fact it is an English Version.

Or another dictionary. Since the KJV is also English the difference is modernization.

CharismaticLady · Aug 11, 2019

dqhall said:
Biblical scholars thought the story of Abraham was from about 1800 B.C. after counting 40 year generations. In Genesis Abraham was supposed to have met some Philistines. Biblical archaeologists determined the Philistines arrived along the southern coast of Israel closer to 1200 BC. The Old Testament is not totally accurate. Jesus came to improve the condition of mankind.

Philistines are the descendants of Cush - from Ham after the flood. 1800's is not unlikely for those of the same bloodline. They are not to be confused with the Canaanites, from Canaan, Cush's brother. Cush is also the ancestor of the Babylonians through his son, Nimrod, and King Nebuchadnezzar exiled the the Canaanites and they dispersed.

JIMINZ · Aug 11, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Or another dictionary. Since the KJV is also English the difference is modernization.

No, it was Translated from the Greek and Hebrew.

Steven Beck · Aug 11, 2019

JIMINZ said:
If you look up the word (ANGEL) you will find the Definition is H-430

No it is not

H4397
מַלְאָךְ
mal'âk
mal-awk'
From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.
Total KJV occurrences: 213

H430 Elohim is only used ONCE as angel and over 2600 times as Almighty God.

The Righterzpen · Aug 11, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Here's one.

Acts 12:4 KJV
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Interesting; though it's the word "Passover" I think it was translated as Easter primarily because of Christian European culture at that time that translation was written. If you look at really old King James Bibles though; there's a lot of variation in them and words we don't use any more, some of which the common English speaker wouldn't know the meaning to. I have one from 1750 and it's interesting to read!

JIMINZ · Aug 12, 2019

Steven Beck said:
No it is not

H4397
מַלְאָךְ
mal'âk
mal-awk'
From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.
Total KJV occurrences: 213

H430 Elohim is only used ONCE as angel and over 2600 times as Almighty God.

I'm sorry please forgive me, I was going back and forth so much I inadvertently wrote (Angels) when it should have been (gods) small g. which is H-430.

This word corresponds with what is said in Psa. 8:5 and the usage of the word (Angels) in that verse.

The word used in Psa. 8:5 is not a misinterpretation, a misrepresentation or anything else it is not talking about ANGELS which are (H-4397) as you pointed out, that is precisely the reason the word (Angels H-4397) was not used but (gods H-430) was.

That was my point, it is not incorrect, it is in fact right on.

If you would now go back to my post #77 I have amended it, sorry for the mix up.

The Righterzpen · Aug 12, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion. But, did you ever notice that? Or am I just nit-picky?

The "seen by Cepheus and then the 12"

I have a totally different take on that. I don't think the Cepheus spoken of there is Peter. Also the phrase "first seen by". The first follower who was known to the rest to see Jesus resurrected was Mary Magdalene. (Besides the fact that Peter is "one of the 12")

Now did someone named Cepheus see Jesus before even Mary did? That's the conclusion I came to and the reason I came to that conclusion is because Mary thought Jesus was the gardener. Now why'd she think he was the gardener? Probably because of what he was wearing.

The family in closest proximity of the grave site would have been the family of the cemetery caretaker. This Cepheus I think was a family member (probably son) of the cemetery caretaker. Being closest in physical proximity when the earthquake struck; he would have been the first mortal there.

Now my hypothesis here is that he (this family) was probably the one(s) who gave Jesus clothing. Obviously He would have needed clothing as He came out of the tomb naked. People's positions (even occupations) were identified by what they wore and so thus what they would have had to give Jesus would have been gardener clothing.

It's plausible too that Jesus took a bath and could have been given food too. If you know anything about burial customs of the time; He would have been covered in a sap type substance and this is probably also why the burial shroud was on the floor of the tomb and the face cloth was folded up and left in a different place.

The first entities to actually witness the resurrection would have been a couple of "angels" and these were probably "theophanies" of the Father and Spirit. It makes sense to me that the actual witnesses of the resurrection would have been representations of the other two persons of the Godhead.

Which, this sort of gets us into the definition of "angel"; which has already been subject of this thread as related to its use in the psalm "made a little lower than the angels".

I agree with @Steven Beck that this verse is most likely a reference to God the Father. This fits into Isaiah ".... shall call his name wonderful, counselor, everlasting father....." That phrase there "everlasting Father" actually means "to be elevated to the status of". Jesus was not "God the Father"; (we're not modalists here - we're Trinitarians)! And Jesus upon completing the atonement is given all authority, dominion and power standing (resuming a position) as equal to the Father. In being incarnated, Jesus opted to forego all that He'd been in pre-incarnate eternity in order to accomplish the atonement.

Now the term Paul uses "lower than the angels". Paul uses the term "angolos" which is most commonly translated either "angel" or "messenger". Now this could be a created entity that is not a "carbon based life form"; or a disembodied saint. There is a passage in Revelation where someone who states himself to be "a brother with the testimony of Christ" (disembodied saint) is called an "angel". There's the "disembodied saint" type of "angel", there's these other entities God created that are not "carbon based" that are also called "angels" and then there are human messengers; which are often translated as such. "David sent a messenger to ...... ". Obviously we understand that as a human messenger.

So why did Paul use the term "angolos" in Hebrews?

Now if we take that to understand that "messenger" in that sense is reference to human beings; this makes complete contextual sense. As far as those non carbon based entities called angels. The Scripture says we will judge them. We do actually rank above them. Humanity is created in the image of God; those types of angels are not. Those non-carbon based entities; if they fall - that's it! There is no redemption plan for them. The fallen ones are not part of the created order that is raised incorruptible.

Now what does it mean that Christ is made a little lower than those He came to redeem? He came as a servant. The whole concept of redemption is entailed in the notion of God being a servant in order to free us from something we can't free ourselves from.

So that's what I think the total context is in "made him a little lower than God" but also "made him a little lower than the messengers". The people Jesus was "made a little lower than" were those He came to redeem. So now post accomplishing this; He is elevated to a status worthy of what He did.

Gregory95 · Aug 12, 2019

ewq1938 said:
Actually the word can also mean angels or rulers or judges etc...it does not only mean God.

H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
Part of Speech: noun masculine plural
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: plural of H433
Same Word by TWOT Number: 93c

No, that is incorrect:

Exo_21:6 Then his masterH113 shall bringH5066 him untoH413 the judges;H430 he shall also bringH5066 him toH413 the door,H1817 orH176 untoH413 the door post;H4201 and his masterH113 shall bore his ear throughH7527 (H853) H241 with an aul;H4836 and he shall serveH5647 him for ever.H5769

Exo_22:8 IfH518 the thiefH1590 be notH3808 found,H4672 then the masterH1167 of the houseH1004 shall be broughtH7126 untoH413 the judges,H430 to see whetherH518 H3808 he have putH7971 his handH3027 unto his neighbour'sH7453 goods.H4399

Exo_22:9 ForH5921 allH3605 mannerH1697 of trespass,H6588 whether it be forH5921 ox,H7794 forH5921 ass,H2543 forH5921 sheep,H7716 forH5921 raiment,H8008 or forH5921 any mannerH3605 of lost thing,H9 whichH834 another challengethH559 to be his,H3588 H1931 H2088 the causeH1697 of both partiesH8147 shall comeH935 beforeH5704 the judges;H430 and whomH834 the judgesH430 shall condemn,H7561 he shall payH7999 doubleH8147 unto his neighbour.H7453

1Sa_14:15 And there wasH1961 tremblingH2731 in the host,H4264 in the field,H7704 and among allH3605 the people:H5971 the garrison,H4673 and the spoilers,H7843 theyH1992 alsoH1571 trembled,H2729 and the earthH776 quaked:H7264 so it wasH1961 a very greatH430 trembling.H2731

H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

H430 has been translated as these words:

angels
exceeding
God (gods)
great,
judges
mighty

What is this called you are using

ewq1938 · Aug 12, 2019

Gregory95 said:
What is this called you are using

The reference tools? The first is BDB (Brown Driver Briggs) and the second one is Strong's concordance/dictionary.

CharismaticLady · Aug 12, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
The "seen by Cepheus and then the 12"

I have a totally different take on that. I don't think the Cepheus spoken of there is Peter. Also the phrase "first seen by". The first follower who was known to the rest to see Jesus resurrected was Mary Magdalene. (Besides the fact that Peter is "one of the 12")

Now did someone named Cepheus see Jesus before even Mary did? That's the conclusion I came to and the reason I came to that conclusion is because Mary thought Jesus was the gardener. Now why'd she think he was the gardener? Probably because of what he was wearing.

The family in closest proximity of the grave site would have been the family of the cemetery caretaker. This Cepheus I think was a family member (probably son) of the cemetery caretaker. Being closest in physical proximity when the earthquake struck; he would have been the first mortal there.

Now my hypothesis here is that he (this family) was probably the one(s) who gave Jesus clothing. Obviously He would have needed clothing as He came out of the tomb naked. People's positions (even occupations) were identified by what they wore and so thus what they would have had to give Jesus would have been gardener clothing.

It's plausible too that Jesus took a bath and could have been given food too. If you know anything about burial customs of the time; He would have been covered in a sap type substance and this is probably also why the burial shroud was on the floor of the tomb and the face cloth was folded up and left in a different place.

The first entities to actually witness the resurrection would have been a couple of "angels" and these were probably "theophanies" of the Father and Spirit. It makes sense to me that the actual witnesses of the resurrection would have been representations of the other two persons of the Godhead.

Which, this sort of gets us into the definition of "angel"; which has already been subject of this thread as related to its use in the psalm "made a little lower than the angels".

I agree with @Steven Beck that this verse is most likely a reference to God the Father. This fits into Isaiah ".... shall call his name wonderful, counselor, everlasting father....." That phrase there "everlasting Father" actually means "to be elevated to the status of". Jesus was not "God the Father"; (we're not modalists here - we're Trinitarians)! And Jesus upon completing the atonement is given all authority, dominion and power standing (resuming a position) as equal to the Father. In being incarnated, Jesus opted to forego all that He'd been in pre-incarnate eternity in order to accomplish the atonement.

Now the term Paul uses "lower than the angels". Paul uses the term "angolos" which is most commonly translated either "angel" or "messenger". Now this could be a created entity that is not a "carbon based life form"; or a disembodied saint. There is a passage in Revelation where someone who states himself to be "a brother with the testimony of Christ" (disembodied saint) is called an "angel". There's the "disembodied saint" type of "angel", there's these other entities God created that are not "carbon based" that are also called "angels" and then there are human messengers; which are often translated as such. "David sent a messenger to ...... ". Obviously we understand that as a human messenger.

So why did Paul use the term "angolos" in Hebrews?

Now if we take that to understand that "messenger" in that sense is reference to human beings; this makes complete contextual sense. As far as those non carbon based entities called angels. The Scripture says we will judge them. We do actually rank above them. Humanity is created in the image of God; those types of angels are not. Those non-carbon based entities; if they fall - that's it! There is no redemption plan for them. The fallen ones are not part of the created order that is raised incorruptible.

Now what does it mean that Christ is made a little lower than those He came to redeem? He came as a servant. The whole concept of redemption is entailed in the notion of God being a servant in order to free us from something we can't free ourselves from.

So that's what I think the total context is in "made him a little lower than God" but also "made him a little lower than the messengers". The people Jesus was "made a little lower than" were those He came to redeem. So now post accomplishing this; He is elevated to a status worthy of what He did.

Right or wrong, I love the fact that you have sought to understand and make sense of this passage. You probably have reasoned through other passages as well.

I do the same thing. Like the fact that many believe the thief on the cross was not baptized or a follower of Christ before the crucifixion. It is obvious to me that he sat under Christ's teaching and even understood that even though Christ was dying, He would still set up His kingdom. Not even the disciples believed that until He appeared to them after the resurrection. He may have been a thief at one time, but to have such spiritual knowledge and insight, it is obvious to me that he may have been a thief in his past, but was a believer in Christ and was baptized.

Canada90 · Aug 12, 2019

I only seem spelling mistakes in really old bible that is near 100 year that i have at home.

Saint Steven · Aug 12, 2019

Not really a mistake, but these sixteen verses appear in the KJV but not in the NIV.
Some KJV enthusiasts erroneously claim that the translators of the NIV left them out of the Bible. But the NIV translators went back to the original manuscripts (we had thousands more at the time) rather than base it on the 1611 KJV. The NIV translators did us a favor by keeping the numbering the same. Which requires placing numbers (with explanatory footnotes) as a place holder in the NIV text to mark the differences. See NIV examples at the bottom of this post.

1. Matthew 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

2. Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

3. Matthew 23:14: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

4. Mark 7:16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

5. Mark 9:44: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

6. Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

7. Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

8. Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

9. Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

10. John 5:4: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

11. Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

12. Acts 15:34: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

13. Acts 24:7: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

14. Acts 28:29: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

15. Romans 16:24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

16. I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's what a few of those listed above look like in the NIV translation of the Bible.

Matthew 17:21 New International Version (NIV)
[21] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.

Matthew 18:11 New International Version (NIV)
[11] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.

Matthew 23:14 New International Version (NIV)
[14] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

Romans 16:24 New International Version (NIV)
[24] [a]
Footnotes:
Romans 16:24 Some manuscripts include here May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.

Steven Beck · Aug 12, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
I do the same thing. Like the fact that many believe the thief on the cross was not baptized or a follower of Christ before the crucifixion. It is obvious to me that he sat under Christ's teaching and even understood that even though Christ was dying, He would still set up His kingdom. Not even the disciples believed that until He appeared to them after the resurrection. He may have been a thief at one time, but to have such spiritual knowledge and insight, it is obvious to me that he may have been a thief in his past, but was a believer in Christ and was baptized.

Not quite. He cursed Christ also.

Mat 27:44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

Luk 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”
Luk 23:42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Luk 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Taking both Matthew & Luke together, both cursed Jesus at the start of the crucifixion but one repented. The thief was neither a follower or baptized but saved near his end. Thatis the GRACE of God in action.

The Righterzpen · Aug 12, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Right or wrong, I love the fact that you have sought to understand and make sense of this passage. You probably have reasoned through other passages as well.

I do the same thing. Like the fact that many believe the thief on the cross was not baptized or a follower of Christ before the crucifixion. It is obvious to me that he sat under Christ's teaching and even understood that even though Christ was dying, He would still set up His kingdom. Not even the disciples believed that until He appeared to them after the resurrection. He may have been a thief at one time, but to have such spiritual knowledge and insight, it is obvious to me that he may have been a thief in his past, but was a believer in Christ and was baptized.

I would agree that he at least seems familiar with Jesus's teachings. @Steven Beck does make the point that both thieves cursed Christ; before this one apparently had a "change of heart".

Now if this thief had been water baptized; he would have been baptized by John; which was a "baptism of repentance" (not the same as baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) and if he was baptized by John; LOL apparently it didn't "take" because he was rightfully there to be executed as a thief.

Now obviously he became a believer in a matter of a few minutes and now being literally nailed to a cross; there weren't any "works" he could perform to prove that; other than what he confessed.

GodLovesCats · Aug 12, 2019

Canada90 said:
I have only seen spelling mistakes in really old Bible that is near 100 year that i have at home.

There also are a lot of punctuation mistakes: periods where there should be commas and vice versa, a lot of commas where should not be any, and the absence of quotation marks where they should exist. Unless of course you are using the correct form of English that is updated to match how we write the language.

JIMINZ · Aug 12, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Not really a mistake, but these sixteen verses appear in the KJV but not in the NIV.
Some KJV enthusiasts erroneously claim that the translators of the NIV left them out of the Bible. But the NIV translators went back to the original manuscripts (we had thousands more at the time) rather than base it on the 1611 KJV. The NIV translators did us a favor by keeping the numbering the same. Which requires placing numbers (with explanatory footnotes) as a place holder in the NIV text to mark the differences. See NIV examples at the bottom of this post.

1. Matthew 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

2. Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

3. Matthew 23:14: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

4. Mark 7:16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

5. Mark 9:44: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

6. Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

7. Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

8. Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

9. Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

10. John 5:4: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

11. Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

12. Acts 15:34: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

13. Acts 24:7: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

14. Acts 28:29: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

15. Romans 16:24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

16. I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's what a few of those listed above look like in the NIV translation of the Bible.

Matthew 17:21 New International Version (NIV)
[21] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.

Matthew 18:11 New International Version (NIV)
[11] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.

Matthew 23:14 New International Version (NIV)
[14] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

Romans 16:24 New International Version (NIV)
[24] [a]
Footnotes:
Romans 16:24 Some manuscripts include here May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.

So who is correct, was there a point?

Saint Steven · Aug 12, 2019

JIMINZ said:
So who is correct, was there a point?

Are you familiar with how Bible translation is done?

The KJV and the NIV were translated 350+ years apart.
The KJV was a marvel in its time. There were a limited number of manuscripts to work from and all the work was done by hand.

The NIV also a notable work in its time, had the advantage of 1,000s more manuscripts to work from, including the recent find at that time of the Dead Sea scrolls. Rather than being done by hand, the technology of computer word processing was available.

There is a lot to the story, but that gives you an idea of the basic difference.

Anyway, back to the first question is my post.
The idea is to compare the available manuscripts and make determinations as to which are closest to original. Obviously you want to work from the oldest most original manuscripts. Newer versions reveal changes that were not in the original. When the translators of the NIV Bible went through this process, they left out parts that were added in later, meaning they weren't in the oldest most original manuscripts. The NIV footnotes make reference to these "omissions". Examples below.

So obviously, there were very good reasons for the so-called omissions.
For that reason I would say the more recent translation (the NIV) is superior to the KJV.

Matthew 23:14 New International Version (NIV)
[14] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

Romans 16:24 New International Version (NIV)
[24] [a]
Footnotes:
Romans 16:24 Some manuscripts include here May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.

watchman 2 · Aug 12, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Last night when I was reading, I noticed a mistake in the Bible. Has anyone else seen this mistake?

1 Corinthians 15:
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

Judas was dead, and Mathias hadn't been chosen until after Jesus ascended. It could be that Matthias was numbered after the fact, as he was said to be a witness, and that is probably the answer. But, technically, he wasn't one yet. But if there was any doubt that in Paul's mind as to the question that the gambling over Mathias was kosher, or that he, in fact, should have been counted as the twelfth chosen by Jesus, Himself, it looks like Paul counted Mathias as a true apostle.

Does a major mistranslation fall under the definition of mistake?

JIMINZ · Aug 12, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Are you familiar with how Bible translation is done?

The KJV and the NIV were translated 350+ years apart.
The KJV was a marvel in its time. There were a limited number of manuscripts to work from and all the work was done by hand.

The NIV also a notable work in its time, had the advantage of 1,000s more manuscripts to work from, including the recent find at that time of the Dead Sea scrolls. Rather than being done by hand, the technology of computer word processing was available.

There is a lot to the story, but that gives you an idea of the basic difference.

Anyway, back to the first question is my post.
The idea is to compare the available manuscripts and make determinations as to which are closest to original. Obviously you want to work from the oldest most original manuscripts. Newer versions reveal changes that were not in the original. When the translators of the NIV Bible went through this process, they left out parts that were added in later, meaning they weren't in the oldest most original manuscripts. The NIV footnotes make reference to these "omissions". Examples below.

So obviously, there were very good reasons for the so-called omissions.
For that reason I would say the more recent translation (the NIV) is superior to the KJV.

Matthew 23:14 New International Version (NIV)
[14] [a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

Romans 16:24 New International Version (NIV)
[24] [a]
Footnotes:
Romans 16:24 Some manuscripts include here May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.

Ok, if that is what you believe, read it in good health. No argument from me. :oldthumbsup:

watchman 2 · Aug 12, 2019

watchman 2 said:
Does a major mistranslation fall under the definition of mistake?

I don't want to get off topic. Are mistranslations part of what the author of the OP is asking about?

Have you ever found a mistake in the Bible?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

You will know them by their fruits

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

You can call me Steve

Active Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads