Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Jordan Jordan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 55

Can someone explain these errors in the KJV translation?

Then how do they explain all these errors in the KJV?

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 in the KJV indicates that one sixth of the invaders will be allowed to survive, but in the original Hebrew there is no mention of anybody whatsoever surviving. I have no idea how the KJV translators came up with one sixth surviving.

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."
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
Old 06-08-2008, 06:58 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

Rather than allow God's Word be true, various foolish objections are raised, often based on particular interpretations being imposed onto the Scripture rather than deferring to the truth itself. If the King James Bible is not right, by what authority are these "corrections" right?
Old 06-09-2008, 12:34 PM
pbiwolski's Avatar
pbiwolski pbiwolski is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Penna.
Posts: 223

Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
Can someone explain these errors in the KJV translation?
Errors? Where did you get the idea that the King James was incorrect in it's translation?

I know you didn't type that list yourself!
Old 06-09-2008, 02:35 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Originally Posted by Jordan
.. explain these errors in the KJV ..
Hi Jordan, before we go into details on the infamous Richard Nickels laundry list of supposed 'errors' .. I have a question for you.

How many of these verse claims have you studied closely yourself ?

Which one or two or more have you studied very carefully and come to your own personal conclusion, with conviction, that these are 'errors' as you assert above ?

Old 06-09-2008, 10:59 PM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default Re: Jordan's Post #31 > Some People Should Realize . . .

Re: Jordan's Post #31 > Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize . . .

The following Threads & Posts are instructive of what to expect from a “public school” (or possibly a “private” school or even a “Christian” school) education and the kind of “product” that is coming out of them.

Should you have any doubt about the pervasive influence of a Humanistic “education” and the perverse results in a young man’s life – look no further than “Jordan”. And if you want to see what the “definition” of a “sophist” is and how he operates read on.

Jordan’s first Post – A plea for “Help” {I trow not!}

“Help Me” > 05-07-2008, 04:52 PM >
Bible Versions > Help me > Post # 1 (Jordan’s 1st. Post – Jordan's Thread)

I am looking to order a KJV Bible but am having trouble finding one for a reasonable price on the internet. I came across a couple that I will link you too.

There's this one:
This one:

I'm just not sure which one is going to be the best value for me, please give me some insight if you can.

In Christ,
It “looks” and “sounds” so innocent – doesn’t it? And what follows on this thread continues to "appear" quite innocent for awhile until:

05-31-2008, 11:10 PM > Bible Versions > Help me > Post # 42 (Jordan’s 20th. Post)
So, with the one that I ordered, is it the "true" Word of God then?
NOTICE: The questioning? – “Subtle” isn’t it? – “is it the "true" Word of God then?

06-04-2008, 09:06 AM > Bible Versions > Help me > Post # 48 (Jordan’s 22nd. Post)
OK I know that, but how do I know if I'm using the right translation of the KJV?
NOTICE: The questioning? – “Subtle” isn’t it? “how do I know if I'm using the right translation of the KJV?”. This “methodology” is known as the “Socratic” method - the nearly unanimous “methodology” (originating with a Pagan Philosopher – Socrates) employed by nearly all of the educational institutions (Primary, High School, and College) in the good ole U.S.A. (including most “Christian” schools and colleges.)

The “Socratic method” is simple: An individual sets themselves up (with a corrupt mind and very limited understanding & wisdom) as their own “final authority” in all matters and on all issues that may confront them and simply question’s everything – it’s not that difficult to do and if you have ever had an occasion to converse with a psychiatrist or psychologist you will see the “method” used extensively.

In the Post following, we have “Bibledefender” innocently trying to answer “Jordan’s” question, which, unbeknownst to “Bibledefender”, "Jordan" already knows the answer to (his biased point of view) and is no more interested in “Bibledefender’s” information than he is in any one else’s on this Forum! {If you don’t believe me, see “Jordan’s” Thread – Some People Should Realize...-posted 05-08-2008, 05:34 PM NEARLY A MONTH EARLIER! And ONLY ONE DAY AFTER making his supposed “appeal” for “help”! }

06-04-2008, 05:58 PM > Bible Versions > Help me > Post # 49 (Bibledefender’s Post)
There is only one translation or version called the King James Bible.
06-05-2008, 02:12 PM > Bible Versions > Help me > Post # 50 (Jordan’s 23rd. Post)
No there isn't. There has been many revisions to the KJV Bible. What exact Bible are you using? Can you find it on a website and show it to me?
NOTICE: The “shift” from wanting some “help” to declaring that he already knows? Does any one (who has a sound mind) think that this young man is “sincere” about anything?

06-08-2008, 12:19 PM > Bible Versions > Help me > Post # 54 (Jordan’s 25th. Post)
OK, cool! I just wanted to make sure that I was reading a wrong type of KJV.
NOTICE: The clever shift again – from “No there isn't” to I just wanted to make sure that I was reading a wrongtype of KJV. “Subtle” isn’t he? (And he’s just 18 years old – just imagine what he’ll be like in 10-20 years!) Is there such a thing as a “wrong type” KJV”? I trow not! Notice the clever introduction of the idea that there is both a “right type” and a “wrong type” KJV? This is the first step to admitting that there are Some King James Bibles out there that aren’t entirely true - If we ever admit that there are some KJV’S that are the “wrong type”!

And now we come to “Jordan’s” Second Post – which he posted JUST ONE DAY AFTER HIS FEIGNED PLEA FOR “HELP”. The difference in “attitude” from his first post would almost persuade some Christians that there might be some “substance” to psycho-babble after all (“split personality”), but those of us that are Bible believers and that weren’t born yesterday don’t buy it.

Jordan” is just displaying the results of 12 years of “schooling” in America. You couldn’t ask for a better example of “humanistic” thinking and reasoning than if we had paid for it. America has become a nation of Sophists, where everyone is his or her own “final authority” – Kind of like in the days of the Judges of Israel (before there was a King in Israel) >
Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

The following Post is "Jordan's" 2nd. Post - Please keep in mind: “Jordan” made this Post just One Day After his supposed plea for “help”.

Some People Should Realize... > 05-08-2008, 05:34 PM >
Bible Versions > Post # 1 (Jordan's 1st. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

That the KJV isn't the only "true" translation. Words have changed in meaning since it was published (1600's) and the word's have been replaced with something that is an alternative that means THE SAME THING. I think it's good that we have different versions of the Bible, like the NASB, NKJV, AMP, etc.
NOTICE: The declarative statement – the KJV isn't the only "true" translation.” Now how do you suppose that Jordan knows this to be “true”? Is it possible that “Jordan” has possibly read a book or two on the subject or maybe a couple of articles? Did “Jordan” come here looking for “help” or spoiling for an argument?

05-08-2008, 08:46 PM >
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 4 (Jordan's 2nd. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

How do you know the original translators didn't make mistakes? You don't do you?
NOTICE: The “shift” again? The questioning - How do you know” – the doubting - “mistakes?” - And then the declarative statement – “You don't do you?” Yea hath God said?

05-08-2008, 10:31 PM >
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 6 (Jordan's 3rd. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

No I'm not saying that but I'm saying that they weren't the smartest people ever in the universe or anything. I'm just saying it's all God's inspired Word, why can't we all be nice?
NOTICE: they weren't the smartest people– How would this young man know anything about the AV 1611 translators, unless he has been fed some “trash” from someone? Does he have any idea that there has never been such a naturally talented, uncommonly bright, and extremely intelligent, and God fearing group of translators – not before them and certainly not after them? Ask yourself – What’s going on here?

05-09-2008, 07:15 AM
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 11 (Jordan's 4th. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

You guys are just too closed minded...
NOTICE AGAIN: The “standard” answer put forth by a Sophist when he can not deal with evidence or facts. Make accusations or slander someone. It’s far easier to be a destructive critic, than a defender of the truth. It only took a matter of hours to destroy the “TwinTowers”. It took years to build them.

05-09-2008, 08:07 AM
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 12 (Jordan's 5th. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

What about what S. Augustine says in the preface of the 1611 edition of the Bible?
NOTICE: The introduction of an “alternate authority” (and “Augustine” at that! Augustine - a "saint"?) I wonder, has Jordan ever read “The City of God”, Augustine’s crowning "achievement" and “theological” work, which became the base and foundation of the Roman Catholic Church? “Ignorance may be bliss” for some folks, but in Jordan’s case I’m afraid it may lead to a rejection of all truth.

05-09-2008, 11:42 AM
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 14 (Jordan's 6th. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

So then we shouldn't read it. Jesus didn't speak English so we should read it in the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
NOTICE: This is such an immature and sophomoric statement that it warrants no comment.

05-10-2008, 07:57 AM
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 23 (Paladin54's Post - Jordan's 2nd. Thread)
Jordan, why did you buy a King James Bible?
Did you Notice Paladin54's sincere attempt at trying to engage "Jordan" in a reasonable discussion?

05-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 24 (Jordan's 8th. Post – Jordan's 2nd. Thread)

Because I like the translation.
NOTICE: This is a “reasonable” answer – for someone who is 5 or 6 years old , not for a young man entering adulthood. Please notice the vast difference in attitude and maturity between Paladin54 and “Jordan”.

And then we finally come to the “piece de resistance” – The “real reason” why “Jordan” came here in the first place. Please notice the 2 questions stated one after the other before “Jordan” regurgitates some more garbage, which he picked up from another (older) Sophist, just like him: “Can someone explain these errors in the KJV translation?” – “Then how do they explain all these errors in the KJV?”

Does “Jordan” really, honestly, and sincerely want an explanation from those of us on this Forum? I trow not! If we were to waste a couple of hours trying to demonstrate that his “concerns” are really “straw dogs”, do you think that “Jordan” would honestly consider another point of view or explanation other than the one he has already accepted? I doubt it!

If “Jordan” were sincere, he would not have assumed that those areas of such extreme “concern” to him were “errors”. He has already made up his mind that these words are errors, without first inquiring as to whether they may or may not be. A closed mind is such a wonderful thing to behold! I wonder if Jordan has ever heard of the word DISINGENUOUS? Or how about - GUILE; DECEIT; and INSINCERE?

Should you be interested (and at this point I no longer am), you can check out “Jordan’s” last Post (cited below - I refuse to re-post it). It’s taken awhile, but finally we know “Jordan” for what he truly is. Soon after he showed up on this Forum I “suspected” that he wasn’t sincere and after a couple of my own posts (early on) to him were ignored and after seeing how he has “strung” some of the brethren along – I finally got his number.

I have some advise for “Jordan”, although I do not expect him to take it:

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: . . . . .” Hebrews 11:6
“. . . . . for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23
. . . . . be not faithless, but believing.” John 20:27

06-08-2008, 01:33 PM
Bible Versions > Some People Should Realize > Post # 31 (Your 12th. Post – Your 2nd. Thread)

Can someone explain these errors in the KJV translation?
Then how do they explain all these errors in the KJV?

What follows in "Jordan's" Post is a long list of supposed "errors" in our King James Bibles - that is, according to "Jordan" and whomsoever he copied the list from.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

Contact Us AV1611.Com