What errors do you think exist within the KJV?

[Bible Highlighter]

Biggest mistranslation error. The number of people listed
in Exodus and Numbers. There were no tens or hundreds
of thousands of Hebrews, even with the mixed multitude.
At that time, there were probably from two to five million
people in all of Egypt. Israel though, was a tiny nation.
Deuteronomy 7:7

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

It was actually 600,000 approximately that left Egypt.

"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children." (Exodus 12:37).

Well, the more precise number is 603,550.

"Six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty." (Numbers 1:46).

To see a good article on an explanation on the defense of this many Israelites leaving Egypt, read this article here:

The Number of the Exodus Jews. The population of the Exodus Hebrews

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

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

"εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου"

"eulogemenos ho erchomenos en onomati kuriou"

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

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

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

-CryptoLutheran

And the Hebrew says:

בָּר֣וּךְ הַ֭בָּא בְּשֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֑ה

"Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Yahweh." - Psalms 118:26

Luke 24:

44 ..all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.​

And this is in the same Psalm:

Psalms 118:

22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.​

So yes indeed, Christ did say:

Matthew 23:

39 Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Yahweh.​

I'm gonna tell it to you straight. I don't like your attitude. You're Greek only stance is dead wrong. Get over it. The Hebrew source is legitimate. The Greek is in error regarding the Name. This needs to stop.

And if you want to keep fighting against Yahweh? Go ahead, but I'm not going to argue with you, because your position is absolutely indefensible, and ridiculous, and will be shown for the farce it is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm gonna tell it to you straight. I don't like your attitude. You're Greek only stance is dead wrong. Get over it. The Hebrew source is legitimate. The Greek is in error regarding the Name. This needs to stop.

And if you want to keep fighting against Yahweh? Go ahead, but I'm not going to argue with you, because your position is absolutely indefensible, and ridiculous, and will be shown for the farce it is.

This seems like a fairly extreme response to me pointing out what the Scripture says in the original language.

Attacking my character rather than addressing the point isn't a good way to debate a topic. If you have a counterpoint, then provide it; but the fact of the matter is that the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Evangelists and Apostles used kurios in their writing where the Hebrew has the Tetragrammaton. That's a fact, and I can't change what is factual and true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is not true. Modern versions are based on codecs that do not have the entire verses of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7. NKJV has the same verses that the KJV does.

While the NKJV does use the Textus Receptus it also used the same corrupt Majority text, too.
That is why we see all kinds of big problems within the NKJV.
Check out these articles here:

The NKJV is a Fraud!
New King James Version - Textus Receptus

(Please take note that I may not believe everything these websites teach or believe; I am merely in agreement with most of what they are saying in their articles here).

 

[ViaCrucis]

What is known as the Textus Receptus is a redaction of several critical Greek texts of the 16th century, a redaction made after the KJV was translated which relied on the readings of the KJV; in other words the KJV doesn't use the Textus Receptus, the Textus Receptus uses the KJV. The translators of the KJV used a variety of critical Greek texts, two or three editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, as well as the work of Stephanus and Beza.

In other words "Textus Receptus" as a singular critical Greek text didn't exist prior to the 17th century, the term "Textus Receptus" is used anachronistically to refer to a number of critical Greek texts from the 16th century--with readings that did not agree 100% with one another, Erasmus himself published something like five editions of his Greek New Testament, the Comma Johanneum didn't exist in his texts until the third edition, he had refused to accept it because he could not find any Greek manuscripts with it, his superiors wanted him to include it because it was present in the Vulgate, but Erasmus wanted textual fidelity; the only reason he ended up including it in his third edition and later was because someone presented him with a single Greek manuscript with its inclusion--though Erasmus considered it suspect--and in all probability was a late forgery. At any rate, getting a single, printed copy of the Textus Receptus is something that could only be done after the publication of the KJV, as it was a critical Greek text redacted from the Greek texts used by the translators of the KJV, which intentionally took its readings from the ones used by the KJV translators.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

This seems like a fairly extreme response to me pointing out what the Scripture says in the original language.

Oh really?

Well, no. This isn't an error, but following an historic tradition that goes back to centuries before Christ.

This is what you said regarding the replacement of the Name יהוה with "the LORD" and "GOD" in the KJV which uses the Hebrew to translate the Old Testament. Care to recant now or never?

Attacking my character rather than addressing the point isn't a good way to debate a topic.

I'm not interested in you or your character at all. Your position is what I am outright attacking. You started this dumb argument. You're defending a blatant error based off exactly what you called a "tradition," which itself is in error. You have no legitimate points or arguments regarding the replacement of יהוה's Name in either the Hebrew or the Greek. You would actually have to rest your case on the Hebrew being illegitimate and even parts of the Greek, but you do not, simply cannot, and certainly should not in this forum.

I'm not interested in debating with you at all, because the position you hold is non-sense. You have literally ignored everything I've corrected you on because you don't want to debate it yourself. You just want to hate on someone who loves Yahweh and His Name and make your belief look righteous, which it absolutely is not.

Take a hike!

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

They got it wrong by translating diatheke to mean "testament", as in "last will and testament". Diatheke never means testament in the Scriptures and certainly not in the book of Hebrews. It should be translated as covenant like it is elsewhere in Hebrews. I would render the passage something like this:

"For where a covenant (diatheke) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be represented (pherestai). For a covenant takes effect only over dead bodies (epi nekrois), since it is never valid when the one who made it lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood."

So, we really should be calling the Old Testament the Old Covenant, and the New Testament the New Covenant, even the literal books of the Bible themselves.

That is a pretty big mistake.

I'm curious, should "New" be "Renewed" you think? I've seen that in some translations.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Getting on too high heels might make us trip over and fall, but instead of criticize I will show what I found here.
Comparisons on ending the Lords Prayer from Jewish New Testament Commentary, not saying right or wrong, Deliver us from the Evil One. The Greek may also simply translate "evil" in the sence of "bad things happen". The Talmud (Kidushim 81a) reports that "Whenever Rabbi Chiyya ben-Abba fell on his face in (prayer) he used to say, ´May the Mercyful One save us from the Tempter´
[For kingship, power and glory are yours forever.] Amen this doxology echoes 1 Chron 29:11 The oldest New Testament Lacks it, hence the brackets, Roman Catolics do not include it when reciting the Lord´s Prayer; Protestants do.
Both bibles and commentaries have things to show us. If we also are home in different languages we learn even other aspects. I find it rather funny that all the disciples has different names in different languages, it did take me a while to accept them in finnish too. So if something is wrong in KJV then it is probably the names that are made english.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

Go here: ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary, and type in the translator "pascha" and see what comes up.

The answer you get depends on whether you have ticked the "Ancient Greek" checkbox. Koine Greek is more like the Attic dialect of Ancient Greek than like modern Greek.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

Ho Kyrie is Greek, YHWH is Hebrew. Neither is wrong. Each is right in the language in which each is used. Translators into other languages have the choice of transliterating the inspired Hebrew and transliterating or translating the inspired Greek (The Hebrew cannot be translated with any degree of certainty. "He Who is in Himself" {"and not in another"}, echoing Spinoza, might just about be a reasonable try - but what a mouthful!). None of these choices is actually wrong.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

There's a number of textual variants in the Textus Receptus that are very poorly attributed and unlikely to be original.

Rhubarb!!!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In my last post I listed the most egregious inventions of bogus texts in the KJV and no one was able to respond. But there are more mundane but objective examples that discredit the KJV. The KJV's text in John 1:28 wrongly claims that John conducted his ministry at Bethabara.

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

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

This is a time machine issue again. We were not there to truly know.
The way to find the truth is by doing a fruits test on those documents that represent the Word of God for our world language today. The KJV passes with flying colors in this regards. It has proven itself to be divine many times.

 

[Hieronymus]

This is a time machine issue again. We were not there to truly know.
The way to find the truth is by doing a fruits test on those documents that represent the Word of God for our world language today. The KJV passes with flying colors in this regards. It has proven itself to be divine many times.

Only to people who need that to be so.
In the mean time scholars with a passion for the Bible have found many more old manuscripts than the KJV editors could ever imagine.
There is simply more knowledge, source material and people involved with reconstructing 'the original Bible' (if there was ever such a thing) than in the days of King James.

 

[SBC]

It is a sad irony that many of the Christians who champion a high view of biblical inspiration mindlessly use the most corrupt translation based on later error-prone manuscripts. For a list of some of the bogus verses later inserted into the text, see:

Translation errors and forgeries in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

Mark 16
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

You add your commentary as your challenge to this scripture;

But you lack revealing WHAT was the poison they supposedly drank, that supposedly killed them.

Neither did you reveal "IF" their "BELIEF" in God changed, Which would have "HURT" them.

You comment; this Scripture IS a challenge.
You comment; apparently some people, like you, found this Scripture to BE a challenge; as a showing of Faith.

The Scripture IS NOT a challenge to go and SEEK serpents, or go and DRINK poison, or to do such things IS a test of Faith.

This Scripture IS about those WHO encounter serpents, WHO ingest poison;
WHO otherwise encounter ANYTHING devilish, evil, bodily harmful ~
WILL NOT HARM (or other wise UNDO, or affect) their BELIEF, their SALVATION.

BECAUSE:
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

God Bless,
SBC

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[SBC]

This post was not to claim that there is any error in the verses, but as in reply to a poster that said only about 8,000 people came out of Egypt. Was showing with my post that more than that amount died that had left Egypt.

Gotcha.

My post simply showed one census was taken to poll the plague deaths, but that such census did not include polling Korah. Later the deaths out of Korah were included.


God Bless,
SBC

 

[Tree of Life]

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

So we have great amounts of evidence that the Greek texts behind the KJV are corrupt and contain material that is not original. Why should I believe, against this evidence, that the Greek texts that the KJV uses are correct when I have so much evidence to the contrary?

 

[Tree of Life]

So, we really should be calling the Old Testament the Old Covenant, and the New Testament the New Covenant, even the literal books of the Bible themselves.

That is a pretty big mistake.

I'm curious, should "New" be "Renewed" you think? I've seen that in some translations.

Yeah, "Covenant" would be a much better term. I don't have any problem with "renewed" on the face of it. I'd have to take a closer look at the relevant Hebrew and Greek passages to make a more definitive determination.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm