• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

A Serious Error in the King James Version

Discussion in 'Christian Scriptures' started by Dale, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat


    Mark Kennedy: << The NA/UBS text is based on Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and disagree with the Byzantine tradition in thousands of places. Just because he only used a half a dozen manuscripts for the actual composition doesn't mean he wasn't aware of other variations, he had been studying them for years. >>

    Who is "he"?

    Mark Kennedy: << He based it on the Byzantine Majority Text, far more consistent with those 5800 Greek manuscripts then NA/UBS. >>

    Who is "he"?
     
  2. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat

    I quoted a Greek language specialist in the OP, but try this.


    << Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament
    Strain out the gnat (διυλιζοντες τον κωνωπα — diulizontes ton kōnōpa). By filtering through (δια — dia), not the “straining at” in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V. >>


    Matthew 23:24 -
     
  3. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I think you mean they, the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text. Clearly derived from the minority text and far less consistent with the majority text.
     
  4. Tallguy88

    Tallguy88 We shall see the King when he comes! Supporter

    +7,644
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    So in other words, he is simply anti-KJV. Anti-KJV people grind my gears almost as much as KJV-only people. It's a great translation with 400 years of history that has shaped the English language like no other literary work in history. It is not 100% accurate to the originals, it is not a "perfect translation", but there is a reason it has stood the test of time despite never being mandated by Parliament or the King. Even today it is still one of the best selling translations.
     
  5. TerryWoodenpic

    TerryWoodenpic Active Member

    437
    +201
    United Kingdom
    Anglican
    Widowed
    I would of course agree as do the inheritors of the KJV, in the New Standard Revised Version. (English edition) Which is authorised for use in a majority of Christian Churches.

    It uses the words..."24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!"
    In the Church of England the NRSV is now the preferred version of the Bible, but the Kjv is still authorised to be used alongside it.

    My local church changed to using it some 16 years ago, at much the same time as we started using the Book of common worship, in preference to the Book of common prayer (which is sometimes still used for said services.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
  6. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,827
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi terry,

    This is where one needs to allow for context. Context would be 'strain out' and that is in agreement with Strong's exhaustive concordance.

    diulizō
    1) to filter through, strain through, pour through a filter, strain out.

    It apparently comes from hulizo which means to filter. According to Strong's diulizo means to strain thoroughly. So, I don't think there's much question that the word intends to mean the act of straining a liquid in the new covenant Greek.

    To 'strain at', as in working diligently at some task, may be spoudazo.

    God bless
    In Christ, ted
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
  7. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat

    You said "he" twice in post #19. That's why I asked, "Who is 'he'?"
     
  8. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    After writing a textbook on the Greek language, a widely used text, Professor Wallace has concluded that the King james Version is not the best version for Christians to use today. From my experience, I agree.

    You say that it is a "best selling" translation but it may be "best selling" for the wrong reasons. Some use it because it is familiar.

    I have found that many creationists insist on the KJV because it uses "high hills" in the story of the Flood instead of "mountains," a term used by many other translations. Many creationists believe there were no mountains before the Flood, a completely arbitrary idea not found in Genesis.
     
  9. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Desiderius Erasmus, the one who first published the Greek New Testament at the advent of the printing press. It's based it on the Byzantine Majority Text. The Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text or based on two leather originals since they are the oldest copies in existence other then fragments. When the NIV says the oldest and most reliable that's what they are talking about. Textual criticism is the biggest problem with modern translations, they are not relying on the majority text.
     
  10. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The expression (high H1364 hills, H2022) indicate everything was flooded.
     
  11. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No errors in the KJV? Take a look at Hebrews Four.

    7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
    8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
    --Hebrews 4: 7-8 KJV

    7 again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
    “Today, when you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”
    8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day.
    --Hebrews 4: 7-8 RSV

    7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:
    “Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”
    8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
    --Hebrews 4:7-8 NIV

    In the KJV, Hebrews 4:8 says that Jesus failed to give his followers rest. If "rest" refers to salvation, this is serious. Both the RSV and the NIV say that the verse refers to Joshua, the successor to Moses in the Old Testament, not to Jesus. What is going on here? The name "Jesus" is the Greek form of "Joshua." The KJV translators confused them. Commentators are quite clear that the verse refers to Joshua, who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land, but could not bring them into heaven. That remained for Jesus to accomplish.

    John Gill commentary:
    << Hebrews 4:8

    For if Jesus had given them rest
    That is, Joshua; for Hosheah, Joshua, and Jesus, are one and the same name; or Jesus himself, as two of Stephens's copies read; and so Joshua is called Jesus by the Septuagint interpreters on ( Exodus 17:10 ) ( 24:13 ) and other places where he is mentioned; and also, by Josephus F8, and Philo. >>


    Hebrews 4:8 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible


    Matthew Henry commentary:

    "From the certainty of another rest besides that seventh day of rest instituted and observed both before and after the fall, and besides that typical Canaan-rest which most of the Jews fell short of by unbelief; for the Psalmist has spoken of another day and another rest, whence it is evident that there is a more spiritual and excellent sabbath remaining for the people of God than that into which Joshua led the Jews (v. 6-9), and this rest remaining, [1.] A rest of grace, and comfort, and holiness, in the gospel state. This is the rest wherewith the Lord Jesus, our Joshua, causes weary souls and awakened consciences to rest, and this is the refreshing."

    Hebrews 4 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete)
     
  12. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Jesus is a Greek form of Joshua:

    Jesus (Ἰησοῦς Iēsous Jehoshua G2424) - is a transliteration of the Heb. "Joshua," meaning "Jehovah is salvation," i.e., "is the Savior," "a common name among the Jews, e.g., Exodus 17:9; Luke 3:29 (RV); Colosians 4:11. It was given to the Son of God in Incarnation as His personal name, in obedience to the command of an angel to Joseph, the husband of His Mother, Mary, shortly before He was born, Matthew 1:21. By it He is spoken of throughout the Gospel narratives generally, but not without exception, as in Mark 16:19, 20; Luke 7:13, and a dozen other places in that Gospel, and a few in John. (Vine's Dictionary)
     
  13. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat

    I'm glad that you are not "KJV Only," which I can only see as an extreme position.
     
  14. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Always thought it was more of a preference and I do need the KJV because of it's links to Strong's. I remember when the NIV was about the only alternative, and the NKJV, I kept a parallel bible for years till it fell apart. My issue is the source material being used and the placid way modern translations word everything.

    I used to be confronted regularly, why do you need so many translations, I actually only had four. It's not as much of a problem know because I have access to lexicons, concordance and interlinear resources. Always consult the originals and don't underestimate the strength of the legacy of the KJV. It's still a fine translation.
     
  15. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat

    Mark,

    I'm glad that we agree on the source of the error, but it is still a mistake. If anyone took that one or two verses from Hebrews Four and went off on a tangent, using the KJV, they would produce erroneous theology.
     
  16. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No it's not, Jesus and Joshua are English words, in the original it's the same word. It was a common name at the time and apparently the KJV translators knew that. I don't think you know how exegesis works and the textual criticism I've seen in this thread is flimsy at best. When I was in school I had to put textual criticism in every paper, I thought it was a tedious waste of my time.
     
  17. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,411
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Which means that the translators have to identify who is meant (the same is true for any Greek word with multiple possible English translations).
     
  18. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    That's very true, especially in the Greek. Ephesians 5 starting in verse 21 has only one verb that runs throughout the passage. It says 'submit yourself to one another', then in the next verse it says wives submit to your husbands. In the English it sounds like the man is to be dominant but that section is the only one without a verb. women are never given practical guidance.

    Anyway, William Tyndale was the first to translate the entire Bible into English. The KJV is 85% the same as Tyndale's Bible and the Geneva Bible which predates the KJV by 50 years. The Geneva Bible translates it Jesus, which is 'Iesus'. Tyndale just puts 'Iosue' latter the name of the Lord he puts it, 'Iesus'. You have to understand, the Hebrew tradition was to transliterate it one why and the Greek tradition another, the KJV people were trying to be faithful to the original Greek. Technically in the Greek Joshua and Jesus was the same word.

    This isn't an error, it's one of the difficulties with translating, and in the case transliterating into English. It's never going to be perfect, there are serious problems with the manuscript known as Textus Recepticus as well and virtually all Byzantine manuscripts have text variation unique to that scroll. You just need to have a sensitivity to where they are coming from and understand what they were trying to accomplish.

    Apparently the KJV translators were trying to be faithful to a literal rendering of the text which still creates some confusion with certain passages. In this passage it makes the sentence kind of awkward but the reader, if he or she applied themselves, could see that it was Joshua. That is of course if they knew something about the original which seems unlikely in 1611. I know why they did it that way but I think modern translations make it more comprehensive even if it's perfectly permissible depending on the rules of exegesis the translators are working from.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  19. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +757
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat

    You say that the KJV translators were just trying to be literal.

    Professor Wallace says that the notion that the KJV is literal is simply one of the myths about translations.

    "The King James Version is a literal translation. The preface to the KJV actually claims otherwise."

    "For example, the Greek New Testament has about 138,000–140,000 words ..."

    In contrast, the word count of the RSV, NIV and KJV:


    RSV 173,293

    NIV 175,037

    KJV 180,565


    The KJV is the longest, it can't be the most literal.


    Link:
    Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation
     
  20. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,251
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The argument is non sequitur, just because it's longer doesn't mean it's less literal. What's more is I never said it was the most literal, I said they were trying to stay true to the Greek tradition rather then the Hebrew, in the context of a specific passage. Finally the difference is most likely due to textual criticism, for example:

    But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt. 5:44 NIV)

    But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matt. 5:44)
    The parts omitted in the NIV are the ones underlined and bolded, just in 1 Corinthians:

    Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: (1 Cor 5:7)

    For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (1 Cor 6:20)

    The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 1 (Cor 7:39)

    But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof: (1 Cor 10:28)

    The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Cor 15:47)

    If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. (1 Cor 16:22) (The Received Text vs. the Critical Text. The King James Version vs. the modern translations. The-Gospel.org)
    There are just some of the differences between New International version (NIV) and most other modern translations (Critical Text), and the KJV (Textus Receptus). I have serious problems with the KJV and Textus Receptus, but have more serious issues with critical text. I've studied textual criticism and frankly, I'm far from impressed. The primary sources, called the oldest and most reliable, have some major issues as well.

    Indeed something is lost in translation and due to text variation, perhaps some important things. We are not talking about errors here, we are really talking about important conclusions about some pretty esoteric scholarship and we do well to exercise careful discernment.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
Loading...