Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated?

    I used to believe it was flawless without question until I found discrepancies in it.

    1 John 5:7,8

    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    These are Latin Vulgate manuscripts added to the Bible in the 16th century. Not written by John.

    More to come later.....
    JESUS CHRIST, often imitated, never duplicated.

  • #2
    Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

    Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

    Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

    Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

    Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

    2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

    Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

    Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.



    Ezekiel 39:2 should read "And have turned thee back, and enticed thee, And caused thee to come up from the sides of the north, And brought thee in against mountains of Israel". The KJV translator mistook the Hebrew word "shashah" for "shawshaw", which alters the meaning of the text and adds the idea that a sixth of the invading armies will survive, when in fact, none of them will survive.


    Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

    Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

    Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

    Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

    Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

    Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

    Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

    Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

    John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

    John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

    John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

    Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

    1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

    1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

    2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

    1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

    1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

    Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

    Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

    Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

    1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

    Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

    Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

    Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
    Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."


    And none of this includes various passages that appear to have been added to the oldest, most reliable original texts by the texts used by the King James Translation, necessitating the "cleaning up" of the Bible by modern versions.
    ----------------------------------------------
    When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey Marc,

      I am in agreement that μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα is not originally part of 1 John.

      That being said, the answer to the title question of the thread How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? in all fairness is that it is a reasonably accurate English Bible. Of course, 1 John 5:7-8 is translated just fine. It's just not part of what was originally written. While I think there is no doubt that the modern translations are more accurate, the KJV is a fine translation. It's biggest fault is that it stopped being updated in 1769. English never stopped evolving and so as a result, the KJV is very outdated. This can be problematic as people can not only fail to understand what's being said, but sometimes they can even misunderstand what is being said.

      You used to believe is was flawless. Well, it's not, as you realized. Neither is any other English translation. It's got it's faults, but it's still a decent translation of the Bible.

      Grace & peace to you,

      Joe

      In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

      Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

      If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TrustGzus View Post
        Hey Marc,

        I am in agreement that μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα is not originally part of 1 John.

        That being said, the answer to the title question of the thread How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? in all fairness is that it is a reasonably accurate English Bible. Of course, 1 John 5:7-8 is translated just fine. It's just not part of what was originally written. While I think there is no doubt that the modern translations are more accurate, the KJV is a fine translation. It's biggest fault is that it stopped being updated in 1769. English never stopped evolving and so as a result, the KJV is very outdated. This can be problematic as people can not only fail to understand what's being said, but sometimes they can even misunderstand what is being said.

        You used to believe is was flawless. Well, it's not, as you realized. Neither is any other English translation. It's got it's faults, but it's still a decent translation of the Bible.

        Grace & peace to you,

        Joe
        Joe,

        Why do you say the comma was not originally there?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TrustGzus View Post
          Hey Marc,

          I am in agreement that μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα is not originally part of 1 John.

          That being said, the answer to the title question of the thread How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? in all fairness is that it is a reasonably accurate English Bible. Of course, 1 John 5:7-8 is translated just fine. It's just not part of what was originally written. While I think there is no doubt that the modern translations are more accurate, the KJV is a fine translation. It's biggest fault is that it stopped being updated in 1769. English never stopped evolving and so as a result, the KJV is very outdated. This can be problematic as people can not only fail to understand what's being said, but sometimes they can even misunderstand what is being said.

          You used to believe is was flawless. Well, it's not, as you realized. Neither is any other English translation. It's got it's faults, but it's still a decent translation of the Bible.

          Grace & peace to you,

          Joe
          Well said, thanks.
          ----------------------------------------------
          When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

          Comment


          • #6
            The KJV has some blatant mistakes when translating from Hebrew. But it's also very poetic, which perhaps captures the flavor if not the meaning of the Hebrew text.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Butch5 View Post
              Joe,

              Why do you say the comma was not originally there?
              Hey Butch,

              For a number of reasons:

              1. The type of manuscripts that contain it.

              Greek manuscripts are placed into four different categories. I will place them in the order of importance:
              1. papyri
              2. uncials
              3. miniscules
              4. lectionaries

              The comma is absent from categories 1, 2 & 4 and is only in a handful of category 3. The fact that it is absent from categories 1 & 2 is significant. If it were original to the text, why should it never be found in these manuscripts, including ones that have a Byzantine leaning?

              2. The dating of the manuscripts

              The few Greek manuscripts that have it are very late in history. It's never found before the eleventh century. In every manuscript prior to the sixteenth century when it is found it is a variant reading, not part of the text. Again, if it is genuine, why in the few miniscule manuscripts in which it is found is it in the margin until the sixteenth century? Why is it never found in Greek prior to the eleventh century even in the margin? This is not what should be expected if John originally wrote this.

              3. The questionable nature of the situations in which it was included.

              Erasmus didn't include it in his 1st & 2nd editions. He made a rash promise to include it in later editions if someone could come up with a manuscript that contained it. All of a sudden miniscule 61 showed up on the scene - the first Greek manuscript that contains it in the text - a manuscript from the same century in which Erasmus was living. Does that sound fishy or what?

              Luther doesn't include it in all of his versions either. Why not if it was original?

              4. The context of the passage.

              One of the false doctrines John was fighting against was docetism.
              Docetism (Gk., dokein, to seem) Heretical theological beliefs held by some, called Docetae, in the early church that Christ did not have a real physical body and that his humanity and suffering as well as his crucifixion and Resurrection were illusory and not real.
              Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

              John's making a case that Jesus had a physical body at this point in chapter 5 and the comma has nothing to do with proving his point. Look at the KJV if we live the questionable portion out . . .
              6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record . . . the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
              Verse 6 mentions the three witnesses: water, blood, and the Spirit. The context makes better sense without the comma than with it for battling docetism.

              Butch, if the comma was original, none of these things should be. If the comma was original, none of these things would be.

              Grace & peace to you, Butch.

              Joe

              In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

              Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

              If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Marc B View Post
                I used to believe it was flawless without question until I found discrepancies in it.

                1 John 5:7,8

                For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

                These are Latin Vulgate manuscripts added to the Bible in the 16th century. Not written by John.

                More to come later.....
                So, you believe there aren't three that bear record in heaven? Which of the three do you believe does not? Or do you believe they are not one?
                "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

                Comment


                • #9
                  It does not matter if it is true or not Rufus. Since it is not in ANY of the 28,000 manuscripts with the exception of two very late ones (1400-1500) then it cannot be considered original nor can it be considered inspired.
                  For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ~ Deuteronomy 5:26

                  If you're not prepared to risk your very life for your "enemy" you have no right to speak to him of love. ~ Daughter

                  Many say they are called... but I am pretty convinced that with many of them it was the wrong number. ~ Project Peter

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Urban Missionary View Post
                    It does not matter if it is true or not Rufus. Since it is not in ANY of the 28,000 manuscripts with the exception of two very late ones (1400-1500) then it cannot be considered original nor can it be considered inspired.
                    So the error is that truth was put in the Bible and it does not matter if it is true. Interesting.
                    "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Correct. You could put that I am a pastor in the Bible. While it is certainly true, it is not inspired nor is it original so we cannot say "The Lord thus sayeth."
                      For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ~ Deuteronomy 5:26

                      If you're not prepared to risk your very life for your "enemy" you have no right to speak to him of love. ~ Daughter

                      Many say they are called... but I am pretty convinced that with many of them it was the wrong number. ~ Project Peter

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rufus_1611 View Post
                        So the error is that truth was put in the Bible and it does not matter if it is true. Interesting.
                        It's also true that Rhode Island is the smallest land area state in the USA. Shall we put that in the Bible just because it's true?
                        ----------------------------------------------
                        When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TrustGzus View Post
                          Hey Butch,

                          For a number of reasons:

                          1. The type of manuscripts that contain it.

                          Greek manuscripts are placed into four different categories. I will place them in the order of importance:
                          1. papyri
                          2. uncials
                          3. miniscules
                          4. lectionaries
                          The comma is absent from categories 1, 2 & 4 and is only in a handful of category 3. The fact that it is absent from categories 1 & 2 is significant. If it were original to the text, why should it never be found in these manuscripts, including ones that have a Byzantine leaning?

                          2. The dating of the manuscripts

                          The few Greek manuscripts that have it are very late in history. It's never found before the eleventh century. In every manuscript prior to the sixteenth century when it is found it is a variant reading, not part of the text. Again, if it is genuine, why in the few miniscule manuscripts in which it is found is it in the margin until the sixteenth century? Why is it never found in Greek prior to the eleventh century even in the margin? This is not what should be expected if John originally wrote this.

                          3. The questionable nature of the situations in which it was included.

                          Erasmus didn't include it in his 1st & 2nd editions. He made a rash promise to include it in later editions if someone could come up with a manuscript that contained it. All of a sudden miniscule 61 showed up on the scene - the first Greek manuscript that contains it in the text - a manuscript from the same century in which Erasmus was living. Does that sound fishy or what?

                          Luther doesn't include it in all of his versions either. Why not if it was original?

                          4. The context of the passage.

                          One of the false doctrines John was fighting against was docetism. John's making a case that Jesus had a physical body at this point in chapter 5 and the comma has nothing to do with proving his point. Look at the KJV if we live the questionable portion out . . . Verse 6 mentions the three witnesses: water, blood, and the Spirit. The context makes better sense without the comma than with it for battling docetism.

                          Butch, if the comma was original, none of these things should be. If the comma was original, none of these things would be.

                          Grace & peace to you, Butch.

                          Joe
                          Hi Joe,

                          I think there is more evidence that needs to be looked at.

                          Here are a few quotes from the early Latin Fathers.

                          The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

                          The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30) He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (John 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1 John 5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?

                          While this does not necessarily prove it is original, Cyprian's quote of the verse does give it a much earlier date than the manuscripts that you posted. Cyprian wrote between AD 200-258. Tertullian also quotes this verse, and He lived prior to Cyprian. Tertullian wrote around 195. It appears that it may have been in the Latin manuscripts. Anyway there is mention of the verse in the early church, which dates the verse relatively close to the time of the apostles.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
                            It's also true that Rhode Island is the smallest land area state in the USA. Shall we put that in the Bible just because it's true?
                            American geography is somehow equivalent to whether or not the Godhead should be included in the Bible? My Bible includes the Godhead...I'm glad it does and I believe it. I'm not sure why folks who believe in the Godhead would spend so much time contending against the best verse in the Bible that most clearly explains the Godhead.
                            "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rufus_1611 View Post
                              American geography is somehow equivalent to whether or not the Godhead should be included in the Bible? My Bible includes the Godhead...I'm glad it does and I believe it. I'm not sure why folks who believe in the Godhead would spend so much time contending against the best verse in the Bible that most clearly explains the Godhead.
                              I'm sorry but Rufus are you really that dense? The issue here is that a passage was not in the earliest manuscripts, it was then added later, and then translated by the translators of the KJV. It is not that any of us don't believe in the Godhead, it is just that we want a Bible/Bible translation as close to the autographs as possible. Having this passage in there does not do that. I know you have this great love for your KJV, but most of us want to find what are the most acurate and earliest manuscripts and then translate those. Trying to get to what the orignal manuscripts said, ie what the Apostles and Evangelist and letter writers, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, wrote.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X