Mistakes in the KJV?

[Archie the Preacher]

Amen.
By Grace, through Faith.
But any kind of faith that doesn't make you repent from what God calls an abomination, is dead faith.
Grace cannot save, through dead faith.

Indeed.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

It is quite true that there are errors in the KJV just the same as there could have been errors in the copying of the original manuscripts through the first three centuries. But these errors would be fairly minor typographical errors which would not have significantly altered the important message that the Bible has to bring to us.

Without question I agree with the above.

I'm going to speak to other things you posted because they contain some of the well worn and often misleading statements used by the KJV ONLY faction.

Since 1611 until fairly recent times, the KJV the principal text that most Protestants used. When I became a Christian in 1966, my first Bible was a KJV. Millions of people have come to Christ through its message, and much sound theological doctrine is based on it.

This is correct as far as it goes. However, it does leave out some salient facts in the discussion.

The KJV is also known - mentioned in this thread prior - as the "Authorized Version". However, little to no discussion occurs about what that phrase means. Despite the ridiculous by a few KJV fanatics, the phrase "Authorized Version" does NOT mean it was authorized by God as God's favorite version. The KJV is the version, authorized by King James I of England - who funded the translation and held title to the patent and royalties from sales in England at the time - to be read, or used by the officials, in all ceremonies of the Church of England. The 'authorization' includes language that the KJV may be used only in ceremonies of the Church of England. That does not mean the KJV cannot be read at home, or while traveling or at sea; it means ONLY the KJV may be used in ceremonies of the Church of England.

One notes that while the highest official in the Church of England was (still is as far as I know) the Bishop of Canterbury. The Bishop of Canterbury was appointed by and answered to - by a strange cosmic coincidence - the King of England.

So the KJV was the only 'official' Bible used by the Church of England, by decree of the king, since 1611. It probably isn't enforced as such currently, but the influence has been operating for three hundred years at least. The U. S. was part of the British Empire until 1776 (by the U. S. reckoning, perhaps a few years later by British reckoning) and therefore the royal edict was observed in the North American geography which later became the United States.

So the KJV has been primary in use and 'popular' in the sense it was widespread for a good long time. But by law, not by popular or Divine acclamation. There have been many converts to Christianity while the KJV was used. One claim I have heard is the KJV was employed in converting more people to Christ than any other. (Without even a questionable set of statistics to underscore the claim. In fact, when that claim was made in my presence, no supporting information was ventured.) The underlying fact is no other version was readily available until the early 20th Century.

Actually, there were other translations, even two or three English language translations. Those were all translated prior to the KJV (Geneva Bible and Tyndale Bible come to mind). The Tyndale Bible translation work was banned by English King Henry VIII prior to the time of King James I and was widely used in the translation of the KJV. However, all the other English language versions were suppressed, if not by law, by practice of the King.

It can be argued God must have agreed at some level, as God didn't prevent the foregoing. Of course, God didn't prevent the martyrdom of all the apostles (including Paul) except John. One finds it hard to argue God was in enthusiastic favor of those killings.

When The Holy Spirit reminds me of Scripture, He seems to use the KJV. Isn't that interesting? Possibly because for the first 10 years of my Christian life I read and studied the KJV.

Yes, I'll agree with your 'possibility'.

As a youngster, I too had and was preached to and taught from primarily the KJV. It is the version I remember some quotes and words from which enable me to do searches in various online Bibles, commentaries and concordances. However, I do not believe it is the version God likes best. I've been using other, more modern English translations since about 1970 and find I am now remember much from the other versions as well. However, I must admit having three or four versions of the same verse doesn't help 'searching'.

***useful and personal discussion of various translations***

One of my study Bibles is the Amplified Version. It helps clarify also; but it is a bit 'unwieldy' as a 'reading' Bible. I absolutely agree one should read and compare passages in several different translations for a better understanding (avoiding known mistranslations promoting a heretical view).

This means that for me, any errors that might be in the KJV are pretty irrelevant to me.

Agree with that as well.

 

[pescador]

Amen.
By Grace, through Faith.
But any kind of faith that doesn't make you repent from what God calls an abomination, is dead faith.
Grace cannot save, through dead faith.

Grace doesn't save, God does. There is no doctrine that says that any kind of faith that doesn't make you repent from what God calls an abomination [such as..?], is dead faith.

Try using the Bible as the source of truth.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[pescador]

Deuteronomy 14:2 also has peculiar as to Israel.
Deuteronomy 26:18/means special/jewel/treasure/valued property
Titus 2:14
1 Peter 2:9
Psalms 135:4
Exodus 19:5

Since "peculiar" was used for both Israel and the church it made sense to me.

Perhaps to you but in its normal usage it means something entirely different. It's poetic but its meaning is obtuse. The KJV is much more difficult to understand than many other versions, and God is not the author of confusion.

You forgot Ecclesiastes 2:8 "I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts."

"I gathered me" -- how do you gather yourself?
"the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces" -- what are peculiar treasures?
"I gat me men singers and women singers" -- what kind of word is that?
"the delights of the sons of men" -- what are they, children's toys?
"and that of all sorts" -- huh?

Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless.[/QUOTE]

 

[pescador]

If you think that "peculiar people" has a clear meaning, then use it in a sentence such as "The Japanese are a peculiar people". I'm sure that almost everyone would find it offensive racism.

Of course, I am using "Japanese" to illustrate the weakness of the language. I personally find the Japanese to be wonderful, normal people.

 

[Pastor Jay Randolph]

I heard in another thread, that someone held to the belief there were no mistakes in the KJV.
I would like to open this thread up to discuss the idea.

Are there mistakes in the KJV?
If you have found such, please tell us what you have found.

NO. other than typos, I do NOT think there are mistakes in the King James Bible
For example if I asked if the front door was shut.
1. One says they saw someone close the door.
2. One says they saw someone slam the door closed.
3. One says they saw someone close the door.
All 3 tell me the door is closed, so which one is wrong, or a mistake.
So Slam, Closed, Shut are not the same words, and they do not mean the same thing,
but they all tell the message.
We are to put God first, share the message of Jesus Christ, and to love others.
As evil grows in our world, most people accept it as normal, which effects their thoughts and what they do. I think most books already published are good words of God. I have studied through the KJV at least 12 times, and have studied several other Bibles, but not the entire book. What ever Bible your comfortable with, I think is the best Bible for you. Now if your going to debate Theology with someone, I suggest the KJV.
As Christians, we are one family working for Jesus Christ, and we are to love others, which includes all Christians, and Christian Churches. God Bless.

 

[pescador]

NO. other than typos, I do NOT think there are mistakes in the King James Bible
For example if I asked if the front door was shut.
1. One says they saw someone close the door.
2. One says they saw someone slam the door closed.
3. One says they saw someone close the door.
All 3 tell me the door is closed, so which one is wrong, or a mistake.
So Slam, Closed, Shut are not the same words, and they do not mean the same thing,
but they all tell the message.
We are to put God first, share the message of Jesus Christ, and to love others.
As evil grows in our world, most people accept it as normal, which effects their thoughts and what they do. I think most books already published are good words of God. I have studied through the KJV at least 12 times, and have studied several other Bibles, but not the entire book. What ever Bible your comfortable with, I think is the best Bible for you. Now if your going to debate Theology with someone, I suggest the KJV.
As Christians, we are one family working for Jesus Christ, and we are to love others, which includes all Christians, and Christian Churches. God Bless.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The KJV (and every other version) was translated from a collection of texts from the source languages. The source texts are not the same, most probably through scribe errors. The meaning of the words and sentences do not map one-to-one to the receptor languages, so the source texts must be translated into the receptor language as accurately and clearly as possible. There will be differences between translations; no translation can be perfect.

Your example is weak. Suppose you lived in a tent or hut that had no solid door? The phrases would be meaningless. We live in a very, very different time and culture than when the books of the Bible were written. Isn't the goal of any translation to be clear and understandable to the reader. Suppose an island culture had never seen a camel. What would "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" mean to them?

Without question there are mistakes in the KJV. What about Mark 16:9-19? Are those words in the earliest texts? Most scholars believe that they were added to the text and are not in the original manuscripts. The same for the second part of Romans 8:1? Again, scholars believe that those words were added to the text and are not in the original manuscripts.

I agree with you when you say, "What ever Bible your comfortable with, I think is the best Bible for you." I disagree with you when you say "Now if your going to debate Theology with someone, I suggest the KJV." (see Romans 8:1, which is a doctrinal statement that conflicts with the theology of the other translations)

 

[PollyJetix]

NO. other than typos, I do NOT think there are mistakes in the King James Bible
For example if I asked if the front door was shut.
1. One says they saw someone close the door.
2. One says they saw someone slam the door closed.
3. One says they saw someone close the door.
All 3 tell me the door is closed, so which one is wrong, or a mistake.
So Slam, Closed, Shut are not the same words, and they do not mean the same thing,
but they all tell the message.
We are to put God first, share the message of Jesus Christ, and to love others.
As evil grows in our world, most people accept it as normal, which effects their thoughts and what they do. I think most books already published are good words of God. I have studied through the KJV at least 12 times, and have studied several other Bibles, but not the entire book. What ever Bible your comfortable with, I think is the best Bible for you. Now if your going to debate Theology with someone, I suggest the KJV.
As Christians, we are one family working for Jesus Christ, and we are to love others, which includes all Christians, and Christian Churches. God Bless.

You may want to check out this link:
Defects of the King James Version
Here is a short excerpt:

The word translated "avenging," Judges v., 2, means "leaders ;" "the plain of Moreh," Gen. xii., 6, ought to be "the oak of Moreh;" "the groves," frequently spoken of in connection with idolatrous services, as Ex. xxxiv., 13, were not groves, but upright pillars. Job. xxvi, 13, does not speak of the "crooked," nor Isaiah xxvii., 1, of the "piercing" serpent; the epithet, which is the same in both cases, is 'fleet.' The psalmist does not say, Ps. lxxi., 22, "I will sing with the harp," but "I will play with the harp." Huldah did not dwell in the "college" 2 Kings xxii., 14, but in the "second ward" of the city. "Flagons of wine," Hos. iii., should be "cakes of pressed grapes;" "galleries," Cant. vii., 5, should be "curls" or "locks of hair." "All that made sluices and ponds for fish," Isa. xix., 10, is a mere guess from the connection, and should be rendered, "all that work for hire are sad at heart." Samson did not go down to "the top of the rock," Judges xv., 8, but to the "cleft of the rock." The children of Israel did not by divine direction "borrow," Ex. xi., 2, of the Egyptians what they never intended to return; they "asked" for and received gifts. "Chariots with flaming torches," Nah. ii., 3, are "chariots with flashing steel;" and "the fir trees" of the same verse are "lances made of cypress." "Hunt souls to make them fly," Ezek. xiii., 20, should be rendered, "hunt souls as birds;" and the "untempered mortar," ver. 10, should be "whitewash."

"Headbands, and tablets, and ear-rings," Isa. iii., 20, should be "sashes, and perfume-boxes, and amulets." Joseph's "coat of many colors," Gen. xxxvii., 3, was "a long tunic with sleeves." It was not a "veil," but a "mantle," Ruth iii., 15, in which Ruth carried the barley. "Pillows to all armholes," Ezek. xiii., 18, should be "cushions for the knuckles." The men that were cast into the fiery furnace were bound, not in "their coats, their hosen and their hats," but in "their trowsers, their tunics and their mantles." "Mules," in Gen. xxxvi., 24, ought to be rendered, "warm springs." The "unicorn," Num-xxiii., 22, is a wild ox. In Isaiah xiii., 21, 22, the "owls" are "ostriches;" the "satyrs" are "goats; " the wild beasts of the islands" are "wolves," and the "dragons" are "jackals."

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[pescador]

What about these verses in the KJV? Do you think they are translated right?
Luke 14:10 and Luke 17:34

Unless someone is well-versed in what the Bible actually says and means in modern English, I don't think they would understand Luke 14:10: "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."

The meaning of Luke 17:34 seems to be clearer: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." It is often left out when condemning homosexuality, as one of the men in the bed is clearly taken up to heaven.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[PollyJetix]

Unless someone is well-versed in what the Bible actually says and means in modern English, I don't think they would understand Luke 14:10: "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."

The meaning of Luke 17:34 seems to be clearer: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." It is often left out when condemning homosexuality, as one of the men in the bed is clearly taken up to heaven.

The word "men" is not in the Greek, in Luke 17:34.
The Greek simply says "there shall be two in one bed."
You want it to say two men are in bed together?
Sorry. Jesus didn't say that.

As to the meaning of Luke 14:10...
The meaning is very easy to discern, from the context.
The "lowest place" is an inconspicuous place. A place with no honor.
"Friend, go up higher" obviously means to be asked to take a seat with more honor. A more conspicuous spot, closer to the host.

 

[PollyJetix]

If the amount 666 was what was given to build the
sanctuary, then like Belshazzar was weighed to find
out his number....so was Nebuchadnezzar.

Some of us would hit the jackpot.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[PollyJetix]

Not sure what you are referencing. Belshazzar sinned with the
holy vessels. He went wanting. Wanting means lacking. The king's
number could not be found as the holy vessels were not numbered with
a value.

Guess my analogical joke was not logical.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The word "men" is not in the Greek, in Luke 17:34.
The Greek simply says "there shall be two in one bed."
You want it to say two men are in bed together?
Sorry. Jesus didn't say that.

In the First Century A. D. - and before and after - men often shared sleeping quarters. This doesn't indicate or imply homosexual activity, it indicates a lack of suitable sleeping accommodations while working away from home or traveling. I'm not trying to claim this is the only explanation for the verse, just mentioning the customs and normalities of 'then' is not the same as 'now'.

At the same time, "... two in one bed..." could easily refer to a married couple as 'men' (plural) included both genders.

I doubt it has any homosexual overtones or undertones. If one is 'taken' by God and the other not, then the 'taken' one was Christian and had a relationship with God. Which makes that person less likely to be involved in homosexual activity. Remember, this statement is used as an example of the shocking effect of God's action will be, not some obscure endorsement or condemnation of something else. Jesus' statements are pretty much always on a 'what you see is what you get' basis.

By the way, the New English Translation has that verse read '...two people...' I looked in the Amplified and that reads '...two men...'