What errors do you think exist within the KJV?

DamianWarS · Nov 12, 2017

jalvarez4Jesus said:
So is "God" in Genesis 1:1 yet nobody translates that as "the gods".

Elohim is the majestic plural and it can rightly be translated as "God" (capital 'G') but the KJV (or any other translation) could have translated it as "gods" as it would be true to the original text. My contention is not that "heaven" singular is better than "heavens" plural (or the other way around) it's that this is the exact same word, use in the exact same context but translated differently with no apparent reason or motivation to do so, only that it was in error, probably just missed.

DamianWarS · Nov 12, 2017

Jason0047 said:
See this article here:

Gen 1:1 HEAVENs? - Genesis Evidence Ministries

The article suggests that 1:1 "heavens" is a majestic plural so is translated simply as "heaven". This is not true because majestic plurals are not objects of creations from majestics plurals. There is only one majestic plural in the text; Elohim is the majestic plural not what he creates. The text is not "In the beginning [majestic plural] created the [majestic plural] and the [non-majestic singular]"

If the KJV interpreted this 1:1 "heaven" as a majestic plural it would be translated with a capital letter as Elohim is translated as "God" not "god". So the text would be "...God created the Heaven and the earth..." Also if heaven is a majestic plural then what is being suggested here? that "heaven" is a god or that it demands a higher respect over all other creation that is at the same level as God himself? We use the word "heaven" often as a spiritual dwelling place for God but the text doesn't suggest this as the text is clear that God himself clearly dwells and pre-exists outside of his creation.

Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and what the word concretely means is simply "skies" and basically the text is showing that God created everything that is land and everything that is not land contrasting "skies" and "land" together; these words are used to show God created it all.

1:1 "heaven" and 2:1 "heaven" is the exact same word used in the exact same context and is translated differently. If 1:1 is a majestic plural than 2:1 is a majestic plural too. This is most likely an error that was overlooked, perhaps only in consistency, but an error nonetheless.

Here is the text again:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.....Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

The text opens the creation account, then closes it using the exact same words and it should be translated the same way.

ViaCrucis · Nov 12, 2017

Neal of Zebulun said:
The biggest error in the KJV is the replacement of Yahweh (Hebrew: יהוה) with "the LORD" and "GOD" over 6000 times.

The places I'm aware of where they actually did transliterate His Name:

Genesis 22:14
Exodus 6:3
Exodus 17:15
Judges 6:24
Psalms 83:18
Isaiah 12:2
Isaiah 26:4

It's an intentionally blatant error.

Well, no. This isn't an error, but following an historic tradition that goes back to centuries before Christ. The LXX likewise doesn't use YHVH, but kurios, even as the New Testament does. This is retained in translations of Scripture since the beginning of Christianity--in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic. This isn't an error, it's an intentional choice.

It would also be wrong to use "Yahweh" since we have no idea how YHVH is pronounced, the historic pronunciation is lost to us; whereas the pronunciation of other Hebrew words is retained because of their continued use and, ultimately, preserved with the development of niqqud by the Masoretes; niqqud are "vowel marks" which aid in pronunciation of words, since Hebrew writing is an abjad, a consonant-only writing system. The pronunciation of יהוה was not preserved, because it wasn't in regular use among Jews, even in Jesus' time the Tetragrammaton was really only used and spoken by the high priest when serving in the Most Holy Place of the Temple. That's Jews have, since before the time of Jesus, used Adonai or other substitution words in regular practice, such as HaShem ("the Name"). This practice predates Jesus, was present in Jesus' time, and has continued in Judaism even into the present day. In fact observant Jews will often not even write out "Lord" and "God" but instead write out "L-rd" and "G-d" in order to ensure proper reverence is paid to the Deity.

Maybe the pronunciation was "Yahweh", but we don't know. The Samaritans, who still have an active priesthood, who though sharing the same stigma about casually saying the Tetragrammaton, say it as Yahwa, though Theodoret from the 5th century says it is Iabe (Greek letters, probably corresponding to something like Yahve).

Insisting on "Yahweh" is simply not correct. If one is dead set on preserving a transliteration here, then the most honest thing would be to simply provide the Tetragrammaton as-is: YHVH or YHWH. A translation that uses "Yahweh" isn't something I have a problem with, but it would be entirely wrong to say it is correct, it is merely an approximation based on educated guesswork.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Nov 12, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
One of the guys in my Bible Study said that the demons rule the second heaven. That's why I asked the question. I never heard that before, and don't know exactly where in the Bible it says anything close. But I thought maybe that verse in Ephesians...

It's probably based on the mistaken idea that "the second heaven" refers to outer space, and Scripture speaks of the devil as the "prince of the power of the air".

I say mistaken idea because it's mistaken in thinking that Hebrew thought only had three heavens, Hebrew thought regarded seven heavens. The reason why St. Paul mentions a "third heaven" is that in Second Temple Judaism the third heaven was regarded as the place of paradise, where the Garden of Eden was located; the 2nd Book of Enoch (as an example) has the eponymous Enoch visit the third heaven where he sees Paradise and other mysteries. Thus the significance of third heaven which informs Paul's statements.

Seven Heavens - Wikipedia

I would argue that Paul's use here doesn't mean there's literally seven heavens (or three for that matter), but rather that Paul is using familiar language to describe the rather rapturous experience he mentions.

-CryptoLutheran

Golfing Gator · Nov 12, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Although "Pascha" was originally a Hebrew word ("פּסח (pesach)"), Greek, being the language of a predominantly Christian nation, had appropriated the Jewish word and gave it the Christian meaning of "Easter". That is why in modern Greek, the primary meaning of "Πάσχα" is Easter and Passover is actually the secondary meaning when "Πάσχα" is qualified as the "εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha)" or the "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)". Many other languages of Christendom are like modern Greek in making Easter the primary meaning of the transliteration of "Pascha":

See the entire article here:
“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4? - King James Version Today

Question for you, who in Jerusalem around AD 42 was celebrating Easter? Was Herod? Were the Jewish people?

If the answer to these two questions are no, then Herod did not wait for Easter to be over. The reason it is the wrong translation is because nobody in AD 42 was yet celebrating Easter.

Also, if Easter the primary meaning of the transliteration of "Pascha" then it should be used in all instances of Pascha, yet it is only used once.

JGHorton · Nov 12, 2017

Athanasius377 said:
I am little surprised the KJV Only crowd hasn't descended on this post. While I am no textual expert, a goodly amount of the so called errors are reflecting the differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Another thing to keep in mind, there are differences between versions of the LXX also. If there was a disputed text the KJV translators generally went with the traditional rendering since the KJV is actually a revision of the Bishops Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which includes much of Tyndale's translation.

The KJV is a fine translation although the language is a bit dated. For example:

2Co 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. (KJV)

2Co 6:12 You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections. (NASB)

There are many areas like this where the obsolete usage of a words gets in the meaning of the text. If you want a good edition of the KJV, Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a reference bible with helps in the margins if a word has changed meaning. I would also say if one wants to tackle reading the KJV, try reading it aloud. That's where I believe the translation really shines. However, let me be clear, while I personally read the KJV, and it is the translation my church uses liturgically, I do not believe that it is an inspired translation as the KJV only crowd asserts. Only the autographs are inspired. If one struggles with the English of the KJV, then obtain a bible you can understand. It makes no sense to read a translation where the reader has to translate themselves in order to understand.

Skeptics will always try to 'prove' they have wisely discovered errors and contradictions in various translations of the Bible. I contend that these "errors" are actually in man, not Scripture (see my book: UCanKnowTheTruth.com ).

The biggest problem with the ever-specious, "errors and contradictions" thinking (and 'KJV only') is that it undermines one's belief any other part of Scripture.

Other variants: "I believe the words of Jesus, but, not the writings of Paul," "The New Testament is credible, but, I don't believe the Old Testament is true," "The Bible is filled with metaphors, parables and other - and is not intended to be taken literally" ... etc., etc.

Galilee63 · Nov 12, 2017

Did God our Heavenly Father not say through Jesus and His Disciples that anyone who disbelieved in His Holy Word or added to it and/or deleted from it would be punished?

This was at the beginning of the first printing and distribution of Gods Holy Word.

One of the old original Holy Bibles had words similar to this printed in it of which I read as a Child.

We have been given Jesus Holy Spirit God our Heavenly Father to decipher with Holy Spirit illuminating our Hearts Souls and Minds upon opening Gods Holy Word if one asks for Holy Discernment.

And given from Jesus Holy Spirit God The Most High His' Priests and Religious carried on from His Disciples/Priests to interpret and deliver Gods Holy Word on the Sabbath at Holy Mass.

From the very beginning.

Everything in Gods Holy Word is 100 per cent accurate in our Blessed Holy Divine Trinity from God our Heavenly Creator. Praying for Jesus and Holy Spirit in God our Heavenly Father for Holy Discernment prior to reading Gods Holy Word is essential

"Ask and ye shall receive" Jesus has told us all.

And God hears and answers every time in His Holy Will and Holy Ways in His Holy Discernment.

Goatee · Nov 12, 2017

Only errors are those that sway away from the word of Our Lord.

Don't go looking for things that dont exist

mark kennedy · Nov 12, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Outside the number of horsemen David acquired (either 700 KJV, 1700 Tanakh/Septuigent/NASB, or 7000 NIV) when comparing the same verse in 2 Samuel 8:4, the most disturbing one I found was Isaiah 63:11

NKJV
Then he remembered the days of old,
Moses and his people, saying:
“Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
With the shepherd of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them,

KJV has the same misleading wording.

NASB
Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses.
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,

The cloud of smoke and the pillar of fire were not inside them, but in the midst of them.

Actually I think the KJV got this one right. The term translated 'in the midst of' in the NASB and 'within them' is (H7130 קֶרֶב qereb):

1. midst, among, inner part, middle

A. inward part

i. physical sense
ii. as seat of thought and emotion
iii. as faculty of thought and emotion

B. in the midst, among, from among (of a number of persons)
C. entrails (of sacrificial animals) (Outline of Biblical Usage)

It's first used of Sarah who, 'laughed within herself', H7130. With regards to Sodom and Gomorrah God reassures Abraham he will save the city if there are, 'fifty righteous that are therein? H7130' (Gen. 18:24). So Sarah laughed in her heart, the privacy of her own thoughts. God offers to save the city if there are fifty righteous actually living in the city. Then there is the context of the verse itself:

Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within H7130 him? (Isa. 63:11)

Is there really some problem with Moses being indwelled with the Holy Spirit? Because the fact that the promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is at the heart of the gospel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Nov 12, 2017

redleghunter said:
It's the same but more "English."

The Hebrew or Aramaic "ye" sounding is sounded "je" in English. That is why you see some renderings as "Yehova."

Bible versions which use Jehovah, YHWH or Yahweh are:

Lexham English Bible
Youngs Literal Translation
World English Bible
American Standard Version
Darby Translation
Names of God Bible

All of the above may be accessed at Biblegateway.com with various copyright restrictions. Meaning if we cut and paste the verses from certain versions we have to abide by the copyright.

The NOG really gets to the detail for example here:

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20 - Names of God Bible

I asked one of my Professors at NBC about this one, he got absolutely livid. I was under the impression that no one really knew if it was Jehovah or Yehweh, because the original has no vowels. Boy was I ever wrong, he was convinced that Jehovah was constructed from Adonai. Bottom line, he said there was never any such word.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Bible Highlighter · Nov 12, 2017

DamianWarS said:
The article suggests that 1:1 "heavens" is a majestic plural so is translated simply as "heaven". This is not true because majestic plurals are not objects of creations from majestics plurals. There is only one majestic plural in the text; Elohim is the majestic plural not what he creates. The text is not "In the beginning [majestic plural] created the [majestic plural] and the [non-majestic singular]"

If the KJV interpreted this 1:1 "heaven" as a majestic plural it would be translated with a capital letter as Elohim is translated as "God" not "god". So the text would be "...God created the Heaven and the earth..." Also if heaven is a majestic plural then what is being suggested here? that "heaven" is a god or that it demands a higher respect over all other creation that is at the same level as God himself? We use the word "heaven" often as a spiritual dwelling place for God but the text doesn't suggest this as the text is clear that God himself clearly dwells and pre-exists outside of his creation.

Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and what the word concretely means is simply "skies" and basically the text is showing that God created everything that is land and everything that is not land contrasting "skies" and "land" together; these words are used to show God created it all.

1:1 "heaven" and 2:1 "heaven" is the exact same word used in the exact same context and is translated differently. If 1:1 is a majestic plural than 2:1 is a majestic plural too. This is most likely an error that was overlooked, perhaps only in consistency, but an error nonetheless.

Here is the text again:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.....Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

The text opens the creation account, then closes it using the exact same words and it should be translated the same way.

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.

mark kennedy · Nov 12, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Although "Pascha" was originally a Hebrew word ("פּסח (pesach)"), Greek, being the language of a predominantly Christian nation, had appropriated the Jewish word and gave it the Christian meaning of "Easter". That is why in modern Greek, the primary meaning of "Πάσχα" is Easter and Passover is actually the secondary meaning when "Πάσχα" is qualified as the "εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha)" or the "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)". Many other languages of Christendom are like modern Greek in making Easter the primary meaning of the transliteration of "Pascha":

See the entire article here:
“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4? - King James Version Today

I found this:

Easter: Mistranslated "Easter" in Act 12:4, AV, denotes the Passover (RV). The phrase "after the Passover" signifies after the whole festival was at an end. The term "Easter" is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast, but was not instituted by Christ, nor was it connected with Lent. From this Pasch the pagan festival of "Easter" was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

The major events of Christ's birth, death, burial and resurrection all happened during the fall feasts. Easter is in the spring and Christmas is in the winter, there is no biblical basis for these holidays.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 12, 2017

mark kennedy said:
I found this:

Easter: Mistranslated "Easter" in Act 12:4, AV, denotes the Passover (RV). The phrase "after the Passover" signifies after the whole festival was at an end. The term "Easter" is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast, but was not instituted by Christ, nor was it connected with Lent. From this Pasch the pagan festival of "Easter" was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

The major events of Christ's birth, death, burial and resurrection all happened during the fall feasts. Easter is in the spring and Christmas is in the winter, there is no biblical basis for these holidays.

Nope. Just look at the chart you quoted in my post. We can see in other languages how a variation of the word “ pascha.” was used for both Passover and Easter. There is no contradiction.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 12, 2017

mark kennedy said:
I asked one of my Professors at NBC about this one, he got absolutely livid. I was under the impression that no one really knew if it was Jehovah or Yehweh, because the original has no vowels. Boy was I ever wrong, he was convinced that Jehovah was constructed from Adonai. Bottom line, he said there was never any such word.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The problem is...

We don’t have a time machine to confirm which MS documents are fake or true. Some may not be in existence or they may be lost and hidden somewhere. The only way to test to see there is a perfect Word of God is by doing a fruits test on which most relatively recent documents that represent the Holy Scriptures in the world language that exists today. The 1769 KJV is the only one that works. For it has proven itself to be divine on countless occasions.

Neal of Zebulun · Nov 12, 2017

ViaCrucis said:
Well, no. This isn't an error, but following an historic tradition that goes back to centuries before Christ. The LXX likewise doesn't use YHVH, but kurios, even as the New Testament does. This is retained in translations of Scripture since the beginning of Christianity--in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic. This isn't an error, it's an intentional choice.

It would also be wrong to use "Yahweh" since we have no idea how YHVH is pronounced, the historic pronunciation is lost to us; whereas the pronunciation of other Hebrew words is retained because of their continued use and, ultimately, preserved with the development of niqqud by the Masoretes; niqqud are "vowel marks" which aid in pronunciation of words, since Hebrew writing is an abjad, a consonant-only writing system. The pronunciation of יהוה was not preserved, because it wasn't in regular use among Jews, even in Jesus' time the Tetragrammaton was really only used and spoken by the high priest when serving in the Most Holy Place of the Temple. That's Jews have, since before the time of Jesus, used Adonai or other substitution words in regular practice, such as HaShem ("the Name"). This practice predates Jesus, was present in Jesus' time, and has continued in Judaism even into the present day. In fact observant Jews will often not even write out "Lord" and "God" but instead write out "L-rd" and "G-d" in order to ensure proper reverence is paid to the Deity.

Maybe the pronunciation was "Yahweh", but we don't know. The Samaritans, who still have an active priesthood, who though sharing the same stigma about casually saying the Tetragrammaton, say it as Yahwa, though Theodoret from the 5th century says it is Iabe (Greek letters, probably corresponding to something like Yahve).

Insisting on "Yahweh" is simply not correct. If one is dead set on preserving a transliteration here, then the most honest thing would be to simply provide the Tetragrammaton as-is: YHVH or YHWH. A translation that uses "Yahweh" isn't something I have a problem with, but it would be entirely wrong to say it is correct, it is merely an approximation based on educated guesswork.

-CryptoLutheran

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.

mark kennedy · Nov 12, 2017

Jason0047 said:
The problem is...

We don’t have a time machine to confirm which MS documents are fake or true. Some may not be in existence or they may be lost and hidden somewhere. The only way to test to see there is a perfect Word of God is by doing a fruits test on which most relatively recent documents that represent the Holy Scriptures in the world language that exists today. The 1769 KJV is the only one that works. For it has proven itself to be divine on countless occasions.

Well part of the problem is that the ancient Hebrews, modern Hebrews for that matter, so the name of God so sacred they were afraid to say it or even write it except in prayer. We should be so reverent. Anyway, we have close to 99% of the originals, the manuscripts represent the best preserved documents from antiquity. I like the KJV 1679 not just because I think it's very good with an amazing legacy, but because the Strong's numbers are keyed to it. Modern translations deprecate the Byzantine text in effect, giving preference to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, I honestly don't agree with that. Modern Christian exegesis involved with translation are less then stellar, I like and use modern translations but I still think textus receptus is an excellent source. This was the source for Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and our beloved King James bible.

pshun2404 · Nov 12, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Outside the number of horsemen David acquired (either 700 KJV, 1700 Tanakh/Septuigent/NASB, or 7000 NIV) when comparing the same verse in 2 Samuel 8:4, the most disturbing one I found was Isaiah 63:11

NKJV
Then he remembered the days of old,
Moses and his people, saying:
“Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
With the shepherd of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them,

KJV has the same misleading wording.

NASB
Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses.
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,

The cloud of smoke and the pillar of fire were not inside them, but in the midst of them.

Two things (not a debate)...the first is the error that the cloud of smoke and pillar of fire is the Holy Spirit...it is not (the Father cannot be seen and the Spirit cannot be seen...it is the brightness of His glory which can be seen and is the visible image of the invisible God...YHVH manifest...figure the rest out)

The second error is that it is the words of the KJV and NKJV that use misleading language...this IS the literal Hebrew! The NASB is in error because for its source it relies on the hodge podge heavily edited Sin and Vat documents from 400 years after Christ (which often disagree even with each other) and about 1200 years after the Prophet penned these words.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 12, 2017

mark kennedy said:
Well part of the problem is that the ancient Hebrews, modern Hebrews for that matter, so the name of God so sacred they were afraid to say it or even write it except in prayer. We should be so reverent. Anyway, we have close to 99% of the originals, the manuscripts represent the best preserved documents from antiquity. I like the KJV 1679 not just because I think it's very good with an amazing legacy, but because the Strong's numbers are keyed to it. Modern translations deprecate the Byzantine text in effect, giving preference to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, I honestly don't agree with that. Modern Christian exegesis involved with translation are less then stellar, I like and use modern translations but I still think textus receptus is an excellent source. This was the source for Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and our beloved King James bible.

But you are talking about something that is a faith issue. This is not something that is like 2 +2 = 4. You believe that the documents are the way they are based on some kind faith in what somebody said. My faith is in what God's Word says. God's Word says that His Word is perfect. Unless I want to change the meaning of words, I have to take it by faith that there is a Word of God that I can know in our world language today that is perfect. This is important because faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Not having the right words is a matter of life and death. For Eve was deceived on a twist on God's Word. Yea, hath God said? That is what it sounds like to me whenever somebody says, "Did God really say that?" Also, the Word is very important to God. The Scriptures say God magnifies His Word above His name. Did not God create the creation perfect in the beginning? Was there any flaws in His works of creation? Why would God allow for His Word to not exist perfectly for us today (Especially when He says that His Word is perfect and that it will exist for all generations)?

pshun2404 · Nov 12, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
What do you guys think of "Jehovah"?

It grew out of a contraction of two shorter root terms Yah (the LORD's name) and Hoveh (who is) thus Yahoveh means the LORD who is...as a whole it is not a name it is indicating this particular God but only uses Yah (a common name also used and the only syllable of YHVH we actually know how to pronounce.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 12, 2017

JGHorton said:
Skeptics will always try to 'prove' they have wisely discovered errors and contradictions in various translations of the Bible. I contend that these "errors" are actually in man, not Scripture (see my book: UCanKnowTheTruth.com ).

The biggest problem with the ever-specious, "errors and contradictions" thinking (and 'KJV only') is that it undermines one's belief any other part of Scripture.

Other variants: "I believe the words of Jesus, but, not the writings of Paul," "The New Testament is credible, but, I don't believe the Old Testament is true," "The Bible is filled with metaphors, parables and other - and is not intended to be taken literally" ... etc., etc.

So you do not believe the KJV is divine work of God and that it is not perfect and without error?
I am just trying to see where you are coming from. For if you are in doubt, I can help you to see it is divine (if you are open to seeing such a thing). For the whole point of this thread is to correct people's wrong way of thinking that they cannot trust God's Word.

What errors do you think exist within the KJV?

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Active Member

Retired and in Ministry - ucanknowthetruth.com

Newbie

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Natura non facit saltum

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Natura non facit saltum

Newbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency