Biggest errors in the KJV?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul wrote πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. Are you saying that when Paul writes πᾶσα γραφὴ that Paul is claiming translations are θεόπνευστος? Are translations properly identified as γραφὴ?

How do you know Paul wrote those words? You do not have the originals. Did you believe this truth before or after you read them in Greek? Certainly many believers in holy Scripture have not so much as read the "characters" you have written and yet they hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Graphe in the New Testament is a Greek word used to describe the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation is inherent in the very use of the word.

(Dear brother, Would you please consider changing your screen name so that it does not include an expletive. The name of Jesus is sweet to a believer's ear, but the way it sounds in your screen name is grating.)
 
The times where it calls the Holy Spirit 'It"...

Here's J. I. Packer on "it" -

John underlines the note by repeatedly using a masculine pronoun ("ekeinos," "he") to render Jesus' references to the Spirit, when Greek grammar called for a neuter one ("ekeino," "it") to agree with the neuter noun, "Spirit" ("pneuma"): John wants his readers to be in no doubt that the Spirit is "he," not "it." This masculine pronoun, which appears in 14.26, 15.26, 16.8, 13-14 is the more striking because, in 14.17, where the Spirit is first introduced, John had used the grammatically correct neuter pronouns ("ho" and "autos"), thus ensuring that his subsequent shift to the masculine would be perceived not as incompetent Greek, but as magisterial theology.

From: Keep in Step With the Spirit (2nd edition, 2005), p. 54.
 
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...
Is the Spirit of God an “it”?



Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:



Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

The Spirit is an “it.”

The Spirit is also an “He.”



Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:



Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Spirit inspired the text, in the original languages, the way the KJV translators rendered it. The Spirit is both a “He” and an “it.” That is the information God gave us about Himself. He is not like us. His ways are not our ways. He tells us that he is also a “what”.



Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.



Is this ridiculous to the human mind? Yes. But God the Son, in a very real way, is also an “it” and a “He”. So why would His Spirit be any different?



The Word of God is the name of the Son of God. (Rev 19:13) It is also the name of a Book. The Son created all things by His Word. He is the spoken Word. (Heb 1:2) Is God represented by a book? Should we worship a book? King David did.



Psa 119:48 My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.



Isn’t this idolatry? No. Jesus spoke the words of the Word. It was His voice, on the first day of creation, that went out and was heard to the end of the universe and created everything that exists. (Ps 19:1-4, Col 1:16)



Again, David said, “In God will I praise his word; in the Lord will I praise his word.” (Ps 56:10) The word is Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:14) The spoken word that created all things in the beginning, became flesh. We cannot separate His voice or His written word from His name. It would be idolatry to lift our hands to the law of God or praise the scriptures if God did not dwell in His word. (Jn 14:17-21) But the word is also an “it.”



1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.



Jesus Christ, the Word of God, effectively works through His spoken word in every believer. We cannot live without Him. We cannot live spiritually without it.



Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God



Don’t settle for bibles that have been trifled with. The above verse is missing in many versions. You need every word of God if you will be spiritually healthy. King Solomon told us that. Every word of God is pure. They should not be taken out! These words are spiritual food needed to build strong spiritual bodies, even if our minds struggle to understand.



Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.



There are more verses that declare the Holy Ghost to be an “it” than there are verses where He is referred to as “he”.



1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.



God reveals Himself through the scriptures in the way He chooses. Who are we to deny Him the right to His own choice of words? It is the devil, who from the beginning, has questioned the word. Let’s not align ourselves with his work. There are no errors in the KJV. It is a grave thing to trifle with the truth for the sake of our own pride, preference and prejudice.



The KJV is the most accurate version of the bible. I know from more than forty years of owning and studying from it and many others. It is to many, not the easiest to read, and it may not even be the best selling bible, but it is the most read bible translation in the world. Men who love their old bibles are not always looking for something “better” and “more accurate”. They believe they already have the best, why waste time looking to Johnny-come-lately’s. The old ways are tried and true and better. The older, more worn, and more tear-stained my old bible becomes, the more I love it and the more I defer to it. Why would I buy something new when it is so familiar and comforting to my soul?



Wise men will not meddle with it’s inspiration. The world’s wisest man said this: “Every word of God is pure...Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” You may not like the pronouns; the “Thee’s” and “Thou’s”. But they are there in the Greek, even though the NIV editors deny it. If they are there in the original, how dare we address God in any other way than the way He has inspired, especially when reading His word? There is pure religion in the pronouns.



The way the word of God is read impacts the mind and the thoughts. If words are changed or removed, spiritual nutrition is omitted. Even if they are pronouns: By changing the way men speak of God in the text of scripture, He is changed in our thoughts. God becomes just like everyone else. Average; ordinary. If we discard the respectful addresses of the old pronouns for God (the KJV never addresses God as “you”) our vision of the Holy One has changed, and we begin to speak of Him in a less reverent manner. This even affects our prayers!



I am old enough that, when I was a child, all the old saints addressed God by the respectful pronouns; “Thee, Thy, Thou.” I rarely ever hear anyone speak the old way anymore except when we sing the old hymns in church.



God has not changed, but man’s image of God has changed because we speak of Him in a less reverent manner. And we begin to treat our brothers in a less holy manner too, because they are made in His image. And His image has become a step more common with the changing, regular, unholy language. It’s all very subtle, very, very subtle. The holy scriptures has and are a restraining power upon the evil of society, as long as they remain pure. But if they are changed, the power is weakened until eventually, the holy words descend to just unimportant words in an old outdated, misunderstood book. The bible is the conscience of society. If the conscience is defiled, it has no power to convict of sin.



The Holy Book is mysterious for a reason. It reflects the glory of the God who hides Himself, who speaks in parables, who calls that which is not as if it were, and who demands that we walk by faith and not by sight. Therefore, we should not be surprised at all if God reveals Himself in mysterious ways, and with mysterious words like “it”, or “what.”



In “The Translators to the Reader” in the original 1611 King James bible, they tell us that God intentionally does not make everything in his word simple and easily understood. “...That partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference ...it hath pleased God in His Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness...that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence...”



I think they are right. I may not know Hebrew. But I know the God who speaks it and INSPIRED it, and He tells me He is able to grant me wisdom to understand it if I will ask for it. (James 1)
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...
 
How do you know Paul wrote those words? You do not have the originals. Did you believe this truth before or after you read them in Greek? Certainly many believers in holy Scripture have not so much as read the "characters" you have written and yet they hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Graphe in the New Testament is a Greek word used to describe the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation is inherent in the very use of the word.

(Dear brother, Would you please consider changing your screen name so that it does not include an expletive. The name of Jesus is sweet to a believer's ear, but the way it sounds in your screen name is grating.)

Matthew, thank you for your comments. I'm content to disagree and not go to the mat or die on a battle hill.

In regard to my screen name, you're the first person in 15 years of using it in multiple Christian forums that I've been a part of that claims it includes an expletive. Maybe you have words in your land that we don't have in mine.

Background...when I created my first email in 1997, I wanted "TrustJesus" in my email address. The company would net let me have "Jesus" in my email address. So I created a work-around.

"Jesus" is not likely what he was named as I understand things. It's English. He was a Hebrew. His Hebrew name got squeezed through Greek, then Latin and into English. I don't think like a Jehovah's Witness, so I don't think God requires we get the pronounciation exact and thus also the spelling. When we sing songs like "There's Something About That Name", I doubt he's offended by us saying his name as "Jesus". Since that's probably not correct itself, I doubt he's concerned that I spelled it Gzus in my email which has given me many opportunities to talk to people about trusting in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and not trusting in the filthy rags of their own deeds. I get these opportunities because people ask me what my email name means. It's turned out to be a blessing that the email company originally did let me use "Jesus" in my email address. If I had simply "TrustJesus", probably few would ask me to explain or expound and I'd have had many less conversations.

I'm a compliant personality type. I'm not the type that likes ruffling feathers for the sake of it. If leadership of this board, or any board, asked me to change my screen name, I would. Until such occurs, I am sorry that my screen name offends you. I will avoid responding to your posts so as not to draw your attention to my screen name unnecessarily.

Grace and peace to you, Matthew.

Joe
 
I will avoid responding to your posts so as not to draw your attention to my screen name unnecessarily.

There is no need to do that. I included my comment in brackets so as to show it was not front and centre. Besides, I will see it anyway. Perhaps you will think otherwise over time.
 
It was worse than that. For about 28 seconds earlier this year, the ESV people said that they were now calling it the "Permanent Text," in which changes would be minor and rare. Well, they got thoroughly laughed at and derided for that decision (and rightly so), after which they dropped the idea entirely. And I report this as a big fan of the translation.

By "Permanent Text" they meant that there would be no further changes, however slight. This coupled with the controversial and apparently agenda driven new renderings in Genesis that also contradicted their stated translation philosophy caused the outcry.
 
Holy Scripture does not teach this. Uninspired, errant men teach this.

Our Lord and His apostles referred to copies and translations of holy Scripture when they quoted the Old Testament. They relied on the words of these copies and translations as being inspired and infallible.

The doctrine of an inspired and infallible word can only be received by anyone today through copies, and only by those who do not know the original languages through translations. Their faith in holy Scripture presupposes what they have is the inspired and infallible word of God.
NO translation has been inspired though by the Holy Spirit, as that was just extended towards the authors of the canon.
 
Paul wrote πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. Are you saying that when Paul writes πᾶσα γραφὴ that Paul is claiming translations are θεόπνευστος? Are translations properly identified as γραφὴ?
The inspiration only applies towards the originals.
 
By "Permanent Text" they meant that there would be no further changes, however slight. This coupled with the controversial and apparently agenda driven new renderings in Genesis that also contradicted their stated translation philosophy caused the outcry.
Interesting that they would try to have a fixed version, as they are based upon a changing textual source itself, the critical Greek text.
 
NO translation has been inspired though by the Holy Spirit, as that was just extended towards the authors of the canon.

It does not require inspiration to translate the inspired word of God into another language.

"Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" is the inspired word of God. The fact it is rendered in English does nothing to its inspiration.
 
It does not require inspiration to translate the inspired word of God into another language.

"Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" is the inspired word of God. The fact it is rendered in English does nothing to its inspiration.
True, but there is no translation that would be error/mistake free.
 
Interesting. Can you prove that no translation is or ever will be 'error/mistake free'?
There are no Original texts/books preserved by God unto us now, but there are very close to that in the various Greek texts used to translate off from for our versions, but even those have know errors/mistakes in copying, scribal comments getting added into the text etc...

God has indeed preserved the gist of the originals to us, but none of our translations can claim to be 100% accurate to the originals, but the doctrine of infallibility and trustworthy of the scriptures does not require the translation to be as the KJVO see them being.
 
There are no Original texts/books preserved by God unto us now, but there are very close to that in the various Greek texts used to translate off from for our versions, but even those have know errors/mistakes in copying, scribal comments getting added into the text etc...

God has indeed preserved the gist of the originals to us, but none of our translations can claim to be 100% accurate to the originals, but the doctrine of infallibility and trustworthy of the scriptures does not require the translation to be as the KJVO see them being.
You are missing the point of the question asked. Are we to assume that there is no such thing as error free in the works of man? When you write down your name, is it not without error? If I translate the number "ten" to decem have I not done so without error?
 
We are not perfect, and are not inspired by God in the translation process, so would we not assume to have some errors in the process?
 
We are not perfect, and are not inspired by God in the translation process, so would we not assume to have some errors in the process?

On that basis we would have to assume that there is some error in what you have claimed about assuming there must be some error. When you make the claim you are not assuming you are in error. It is a self-refuting position.
 
MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?
 
MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?

His argument only makes sense if he assumes man is always in error. If it were possible that man might not be in error he would have no reason to assume the translation must contain errors. This might be one of those occasions when the men have not erred.
 
MW, that would depend on whether he is talking probabilities or absolute proof. Since he used the phrase "should assume," that does not necessarily imply that he is thinking of absolute proof. It rather leans the other way. But since he has not clarified either way, you cannot assume his position to say one way or the other.
 
Why "should" we assume it? The word "should" expresses obligation. If there is the possibility they have not erred in this instance there is no obligation to assume it.
 
You are ignoring the semantic range of "should." If I say "$10 should be enough to buy something," I am expressing probability, not obligation. You have illegitimately narrowed the semantic range of the word, and are imposing a definition of the word on him which he may not own.
 
You are ignoring the semantic range of "should." If I say "$10 should be enough to buy something," I am expressing probability, not obligation. You have illegitimately narrowed the semantic range of the word, and are imposing a definition of the word on him which he may not own.

The word "enough" is sufficiency language, and that has broadened the context in which "should" is being used. David used no such word. In fact, if he used sufficiency language he "should" have lessened the assumption of error.

As it stands, though, he used the word "would," not "should."
 
In which case, he is not even making a statement, now, is he? He is only asking the question. Of course, it might be rhetorical. But without clarification on his actual view, you do not have the right to draw such a conclusion.

You are incorrect about a word like "enough" being necessary to broaden the context. Another example will prove my point. A young man says to a young lady he is interested in dating, "Hey, we should go out together sometime." The young lady says, "Yeah, we totally should." No words are there to indicate a broadening context, and yet it would be illegitimate to conclude that obligation has been expressed. They are indicating a desire and a probability, nothing more.
 
I replied to David, "On that basis we would have to assume..." The answer is stated in the same conditional phrase as the question.
 
Au contraire, Matthew, you add the word "have" which he did not. "We would have to assume" means something different than "we would assume" with a question mark.
 
Au contraire, Matthew, you add the word "have" which he did not. "We would have to assume" means something different than "we would assume" with a question mark.

"If we assume A we would have to assume B." That is typical for a conditional sentence.
 
Except that David did not make it into a conditional sentence, but left it as an interrogative. So you are forcing his sentence into a form that he did not choose, but you are choosing for him. I think we will have to wait for David to decide who has read him better.
 
We are not perfect, and are not inspired by God in the translation process, so would we not assume to have some errors in the process?

On that basis we would have to assume that there is some error in what you have claimed about assuming there must be some error. When you make the claim you are not assuming you are in error. It is a self-refuting position.

MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?

David,

Which describes what you are asserting?

Error is to be expected in all translation endeavors.

or

Error is to be expected in all translation endeavors requiring a lengthy process of time.
 
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
This quotation is from the Preface to the Reader of the King James Version. It was talking about translations done at the time, not more modern translations, obviously, but the thrust of it is clear: we have the word of God even with an imperfectly translated version of it. Presumably they would have said the same thing about more modern translations had they been available, though, of course, that is somewhat speculative. But the tenor of the Preface is generous to other translations, not parsimonious. One could wish that modern advocates of any translation, be it KJV or otherwise, who think that other translations are rot, would take these words to heart.
 
The modal "would" is clearly subjunctive in the context. Instead of raising numerous contexts to see what can be meant by a word it is common sense to look at the word in context to see what it does mean. I am happy for David to clarify what he means, but if he means something different to what he wrote he will have to write something differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top