Biggest errors in the KJV?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeremy Ivens

Puritan Board Freshman
I prefer the KJV for various reasons but I'd like to know the most prominent errors so that I can make note if them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I prefer the KJV for various reasons but I'd like to know the most prominent errors so that I can make note if them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The times where it calls the Holy Spirit 'It", and also when it divides up the passage to make it appear that the bible is talking of the great God and savior Jesus as not being Him as both, but the Father and Him being described there...
 
Historically, the decision of the translators to render the third Person of the Godhead as "Holy Ghost" in most places but as "Holy Spirit" in a few instances (where the Greek is the same) has led to some regrettable doctrinal errors. For instance, Joseph Smith thought it signaled a difference between the two and this contributed to the unorthodox Trinitarian doctrine in the LDS church. I don't know if you would call this an error in translation, since "ghost" and "spirit" could both be suitable translations of the Greek word (especially in 1611 speech), but it is an issue to be aware of because of historically important interpretation errors.
 
Historically, the decision of the translators to render the third Person of the Godhead as "Holy Ghost" in most places but as "Holy Spirit" in a few instances (where the Greek is the same) has led to some regrettable doctrinal errors. For instance, Joseph Smith thought it signaled a difference between the two and this contributed to the unorthodox Trinitarian doctrine in the LDS church. I don't know if you would call this an error in translation, since "ghost" and "spirit" could both be suitable translations of the Greek word (especially in 1611 speech), but it is an issue to be aware of because of historically important interpretation errors.
It is interesting that while most cults will not use any modern bible version, do tend to allow for the KJV, as the JW and Mormons both do...
 
It is interesting that while most cults will not use any modern bible version, do tend to allow for the KJV, as the JW and Mormons both do...
The Jehovah's Witnesses favored the ASV for many years because the translators always used Jehovah for any reference to God. The ASV is thought by some to be the most accurate of the CT. I read a 1920s copy sometimes and I find it disconcerting that they use Jehovah continually since I'm used to other translations that do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version#Usage_by_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses
Also from the Wiki article ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version#Features
The divine name of the Almighty (the Tetragrammaton) is consistently rendered Jehovah in 6,823 places of the ASV Old Testament, rather than LORD as it appears mostly in the King James Bible. However, there are notably seven verses in the King James Bible where the divine name actually appears which are Genesis 22:14, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 17:15, Judges 6:24, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and Isaiah 26:4 plus as it's abbreviated form, Jah, once in Psalms 68:4. The reason for this change, as the Committee explained in the preface, was that "...the American Revisers... were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament..."[4] Other changes from the RV to the ASV included (but were not limited to) substituting "who" and "that" for "which" when referring to people, and Holy Ghost was dropped in favor of Holy Spirit. Page headings were added and footnotes were improved.
 
You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins? ;)

Seriously, I've heard people who aren't even proponents of the Byzantine Text, let alone the TR, state that they prefer to use the KJV because, after all these years, the problems with it, real or imagined, are well known. That can't be said of many newer versions, especially those that are seemingly updated every 5-10 years.
 
I'm going to plug for the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. The notes are fantastic at correcting blatant errors and any necessary updating of the translation. Daniel 9:7 is good example. I've came across others in my enjoyable tenure with this study bible.
 
You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins? ;)

I was thinking the same thing
squint.gif
 
Christopher Fowler, Puritan Sermons, 5:589:

"Object. II. 'Your translations are faulty.' (Harding, Rhemists.)

Answer. 'This is said a thousand times, but never proved; an untruth, joined with slander;' so Jewel -- 'a spiteful lie;' so Cartwright answers the Jesuits. 'Show them,' saith he. 'Dr. Martin did attempt it, but was laughed at for his folly by his friend. The words may be short, but the sense is incorrupt.'"
 
I'm going to plug for the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. The notes are fantastic at correcting blatant errors and any necessary updating of the translation. Daniel 9:7 is good example. I've came across others in my enjoyable tenure with this study bible.

Did you know that Reformation Heritage Press has published the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" as a separate volume (Family Worship Bible Guide)? I have one and am enjoying it a lot.
 
Did you know that Reformation Heritage Press has published the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" as a separate volume (Family Worship Bible Guide)? I have one and am enjoying it a lot.
Yes I am aware of that volume. It hasn't made sense to me to buy it since I have the notes in my bible.
 
Last edited:
Is it fair to call this an 'error' when the word is definitely neuter in the Greek? (However much we wish it wasn't.) I would argue not.
While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...
 
You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins? ;)

Seriously, I've heard people who aren't even proponents of the Byzantine Text, let alone the TR, state that they prefer to use the KJV because, after all these years, the problems with it, real or imagined, are well known. That can't be said of many newer versions, especially those that are seemingly updated every 5-10 years.
the big problems with all of this revising seems to be that it is mainly due to commercial concerns, such as marketing for new Sunday school and literature, and also that at times the revision made a good thing worse, such as the Niv 2011....
 
While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...

There are very good reasons for literally translating the Greek and retaining the distinctions in English that are present in the original. The Holy Ghost is a gift from the Father and an agent of Christ as well as being a person. A theological dogma should not destroy variation, especially when the variation contributes to a breadth of understanding the dogma.
 
The author did a very nice job in detailing the known mistakes of the KJV, but without trashing it a s a reliable version to still be used...

The author rejects the belief that he holds an inerrant Bible in his hands. Yet he claims to detect and correct errors in a translation of the Bible. By so doing he is claiming to hold an inerrant Bible, only it remains unpublished.
 
the big problems with all of this revising seems to be that it is mainly due to commercial concerns, such as marketing for new Sunday school and literature, and also that at times the revision made a good thing worse, such as the Niv 2011....

This. I know that translations by necessity will probably need corrections but the fact that the ESV was claimed to be fine as is and then a few months later they made corrections bothers me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...

True. This is a case where a translation must be made for theological reasons (taking the teaching of all of Scripture on a subject) rather than for grammatical reasons. Fortunately, this doesn't have to be done too often.
 
the big problems with all of this revising seems to be that it is mainly due to commercial concerns, such as marketing for new Sunday school and literature...

So in your opinion new revisions have been introduced motivated by financial gain and not a desire to improve upon a particular translation's text? Can you give some examples? I would agree that the English speaking world has been flooded the past 15 years with all sorts of translations (both new and updated), but I would be uncomfortable with speculating the underlying reasons behind it might be for financial profit.
 
So in your opinion new revisions have been introduced motivated by financial gain and not a desire to improve upon a particular translation's text? Can you give some examples? I would agree that the English speaking world has been flooded the past 15 years with all sorts of translations (both new and updated), but I would be uncomfortable with speculating the underlying reasons behind it might be for financial profit.
Just an observation, I'm only stating my impressions with no specific data to support them, but the ESV, for example, has had a tremendous promotional campaign, by the publisher, to try and overtake the KJV and the NIV. At least I've read that more than a few times.
I recently saw someone remark that they have a policy of updating the ESV every five years. Personally, if that timeline is correct, I would think it is out of their seeking accuracy, or perhaps inclusive language, more than for profit.
On the other hand, the translators, proofreaders, printers, binders, do not donate their time and material. I have no idea what the cost of publishing a completed Bible is, but it is probably substantial. Having an inventory of same laying in a warehouse unpurchased and a publisher will soon be closing their doors. So the commercial aspect has to be reckoned with, and not necessarily considered 'making merchandise out of the Word of God.'

Edit; Here is a brief article on the ESV publishing history and current revision policies ;
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-esv-bible
 
Last edited:
There are very good reasons for literally translating the Greek and retaining the distinctions in English that are present in the original. The Holy Ghost is a gift from the Father and an agent of Christ as well as being a person. A theological dogma should not destroy variation, especially when the variation contributes to a breadth of understanding the dogma.
Jesus Himself though called the Holy Spirit as a Him, so we should acknowledge that is how God sees Himself.
 
The author rejects the belief that he holds an inerrant Bible in his hands. Yet he claims to detect and correct errors in a translation of the Bible. By so doing he is claiming to hold an inerrant Bible, only it remains unpublished.
Inerracy only applies towards the original Language texts, as we have now infallible texts used to translate infallible translations for us today. There are no 100% accurate to the originals is use today, but that is not requited in order to have the word of God to us today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top