KING JAMES' BLUNDERS

[Buff Scott Jr.]

I agree that baptism is an outward sign. I certainly do not believe that baptism in water makes a sinner into a Christian, as some teach. Rather, it is a sign of what Jesus Christ has already done in saving that sinner.

And I say that immersion in water reflects our faith and trust. If one refuses to be immersed in water, for whatever reason, he most likely is lacking faith and trust in Jesus.​

 

[Josheb]

I hear you, brother. I, too, link my sentiments to the Greek.

Then the question asked should not have been asked and we can discuss the Greek to note the KJV blunder in agreement.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Mr Glee, you posted above, "The word baptize is simply 'wash' like wash dishes it's never about the procedure dip, sprinkle, immerse, spray."

It is apparent the early believers understood and practiced baptizo as immersion—or complete covering. "And he (Philip) commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized (immersed) him. And when they both came out of the water..." (Acts 8:38-40).

"Going down into the water" and "coming out of the water" entails far more than dipping, sprinkling, or spraying. See also Acts 10:47. It is interesting that when Jesus was immersed—covered over or overwhelmed—"He went up from the water..." - a strong indication He went down into the water, for one cannot come out of the water without first going down into the water. Again, sprinkling, spraying, or dipping are not implied.

Believers are "baptized" with the Holy Spirit. If "baptizo" can be translated dipped, sprinklered, or sprayed, which of these did you receive when you gave your life to the Lord? I could share more and more, but this is enough again to counter King James.​

​

I was "Placed into union with Christ."

As the children of Israel were "placed into union" with Moses..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But baptism in water is a command in Scripture:

“"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Mt 28:19 NKJV)

We find several examples of people being baptized in water when they had become Christians. The Ethiopian whom Philip baptized, the jailer at Philippi, Cornelius, and others.

So why do we read in Scripture of people being baptized in water, if water baptism is merely a carnal ordinance, and no different to the Jewish special way of washing before meals:

“For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [their] hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.” (Mr 7:3 NKJV)

baptism is to the church as circumcision was to Israel.

the physical acts are symbols of the very things God himself done. as seen in Col 2. as the ones done not by the hands of men but by the hand of God.

 

[David Lamb]

baptism is to the church as circumcision was to Israel.

the physical acts are symbols of the very things God himself done. as seen in Col 2. as the ones done not by the hands of men but by the hand of God.

To an extent, but not entirely. Circumcision was only for males. Baptism is not. Circumcision was to be performed on babies at 8 days old. Baptism is a sign for people who already have come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why Philip, when the Ethiopian asked if he could be baptised, answered:

“If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."” (Ac 8:37 NKJV)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

To an extent, but not entirely. Circumcision was only for males. Baptism is not. Circumcision was to be performed on babies at 8 days old. Baptism is a sign for people who already have come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why Philip, when the Ethiopian asked if he could be baptised, answered:

“If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."” (Ac 8:37 NKJV)

yes

but what I mean is the both represented cleansing.

the circumcized represented a nation cleansed by God as apposed to the uncircumcized gentile filth

water baptism does the same.. it represents what God did to those who are sanctified from the lost.. through the washing of the Holy SPirit (titus 3)

 

[David Lamb]

yes

but what I mean is the both represented cleansing.

the circumcized represented a nation cleansed by God as apposed to the uncircumcized gentile filth

water baptism does the same.. it represents what God did to those who are sanctified from the lost.. through the washing of the Holy SPirit (titus 3)

In that case, I agree. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

In that case, I agree. Thanks for the reply.

sorry it took me awhile to explain it ..

 

[David Lamb]

sorry it took me awhile to explain it ..

Don't worry about it - no need to apologise, but thanks anyway!

 

[EddieM]

I don't use the KJV, and this post is not intended to discredit it.



He should have never put it in there!


The King James Version (KJV) was originally published, in 1611, by the royal

printer, Robert Barker. In the margins of that very first edition, there

were some 8,422 notes. Several of these notes indicate that a particular

verse itself may not be exactly correct.



For example, here is Luke 17:36 as it appears in the New King James Version



“Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”



Here is the note that appeared in the margin of that original 1611 edition:



“This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.”



If you have a NIV, don’t bother looking this verse up. It is not in that

Translation. What the note said in essence was, “we have reason to believe that this verse should not be in here at all.”



Well, therein lies Textual Criticism, which is the study of what the

Original Autographs (these are the actual writings of the Apostles

themselves) exactly contained. In other words, before we can know what the

Bible says, we need to know what the Bible is. And this is no small task.

Once a group of Textual Critics finish their work, they turn their work over

to the printers to publish. That way, we can read the Bible.



In this article, I would like to draw our attention to some amusing mistakes

that found their way into the KJV. Fortunately, they have all been fixed

with subsequent Editions. Bear in mind, the King James Version went through

many revisions, including one the very next year in 1612. And again in 1613.

And many more after that.



Oddly enough, the KJV was translated from only about six Greek manuscripts

dating no earlier than the 10th century. Although there are more than 5,400

Greek manuscripts today, back in the 1600’s that was not the case.



The relatively few Greek manuscripts that are behind this KJV date between

the 10th and 14th centuries. Since the publishing of the first KJV, more

than 2,000 Greek manuscripts have been found. And some of these date back as

early as the 2nd century. (Remember, the earliest Greek manuscript

supporting the KJV is 800 years later.) With the new discovery of older

manuscripts, modern versions have come on the scene. The NIV is based on

different Greek manuscripts than is the KJV. That is why they differ at

places, as noted above.



Here is one example as to why they differ. When a man by the name of Erasmus

was putting together the Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, he could

find no existing Greek manuscript that contained the words in 1 John 5:7,

which reads in the KJV, “For there are three that bear record in heaven; the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” It’s in the

KJV even to this day, but Erasmus refused to put it in his Greek Edition,

unless…



That was his mistake! Erasmus went on public record saying that if anyone

could produce even one Greek manuscript with the disputed passage in it, he

would put it in his next Greek Edition. (These disputed words were first

noticed in a not-so-old Latin version.) Erasmus’ first two Greek New

Testaments did not contain this passage.



Well, along comes an enemy of Erasmus, by the name of Edward Lee, and he

mysteriously produces a Greek manuscript (a very highly suspect one, I might

add) that contained these words. So, Erasmus, true to his word, yet being

convinced it would not do too much damage to sacred Scripture, unwillingly,

put it in his third Edition. Erasmus did note that he doubted its

authenticity. Right here is where my opening line fits in. He was true to

his word, but not the Word of God.



Well, no early Greek manuscript has this passage in it. Not one early

manuscript! No Greek manuscript dated in the first 5 centuries has this

passage in it. So, if we look at most modern versions, we simply will not

find that passage in it. There are a lot of these types of disputes in the

various manuscripts, practically all of them very insignificant. So, one set of Greek manuscripts read one way and another set of manuscripts say something slightly different, and that’s why we have different versions today.



These differences in Greek manuscripts are actually to be expected. Let’s

suppose, for example, you asked 100 people to copy the book, Moby Dick. Do

you think any two would be exactly alike? Of course not! And if we took the

original book away, and then tried to recreate it, using only the 100

copies, how close to the original Moby Dick do you think we could get? Real

close! If on page 28, I wrote Moby Dock, and my brother, Tiger, wrote Muby

Dick, and 98 other people wrote Moby Dick, would you consider my wording

(Dock) or my brother’s wording (Muby) correct? There is your answer to the

Greek manuscripts. The variants are about as tough to work through as this

preceding example. (In fact, I know my brother well enough to also say the

he will misspell “receive” every time. He puts the i before the e. And

remember, every time that “receive” is misspelled, that’s another variant, even though it’s the same variant each time. If, for example each time misspelled is observed, that’s 48 times, that’s 48 variants. As you can see, they add up pretty quickly.)



Let me show you why some people are initially shocked when they begin their

study of Textual Criticism. The Greek New Testament has roughly 138,162

words. Taking all the 5,400 manuscripts together, there are somewhere

between 400,000 and 500,000 variations. That’s about 3+ variants PER WORD!



Maybe this will help. Let me give you a couple of those variants in one

small phrase in the Bible:



In John 4:1 some manuscripts read, “Then when Jesus knew.” Some other

manuscripts read, “Then when the Lord knew.” One manuscript has, “Then when

Jecus knew.” So, some say “Jesus” and some say “the Lord” and one misspelled

“Jesus.” (There are actually a few more that misspell “Jesus”)



So, how many variants do you see? Are you concerned with any of them? Here’s

the good news: That is just about the extent of the vast majority of

variants in the New Testament. As you can see, not knowing the history of the Bible makes us vulnerable to every wind of doctrine, or false claims against the Word. But when we add up all the ‘discrepancies’ and ‘variants’ there is absolutely nothing to be concerned with. Absolutely nothing! The preservation of the Word of God over the years, one could argue, has a supernatural element to it.



I mentioned earlier that since the first publication of the KJV of 1611, of

which there have literally been thousands of corrections to it, many Greek

Manuscripts have been discovered. How one or two of those manuscripts were

discovered are interesting stories.



More than 200 years after the first KJV, in the Spring of 1844, a man by the

name Count Konstantin von Tischendorf, a man (genius) fluent in classical

languages and dialects, took a trip to Mount Sinai to visit a monastery. He

took this trip in hopes of discovering ancient biblical documents. The

monastery he visited was called St. Catherine’s, then occupied by Russian

monks. Initially, he was a bit disappointed when he was unable to find what

he was looking for. However, as he looked in a small room near the Library,

he noticed something very unusual in the trash can, of all places! His heart

began to race as he approached this waste basket. The contents, sheets of

‘paper’ written on animal skin, seemed all too familiar to him. He was well

aware that ancient documents were written on the very kind of “trash” he was

looking at. Well learned in Koine Greek, he picked up a sheet and began

reading it. It was the Old Testament! As he kept digging deeper, the New

Testament was also there. There were 129 pages of the oldest known

recordings of the Bible, written almost 1,500 years earlier. Who knows how

many pages had already been burned to warm those Russian monks.



Let me add an interesting twist (the second story). Tischendorf had a friend

named Samuel Tragelles. Tragelles was also a scholar. Excited by von

Tischendorg’s discovery, and in hopes of finding more biblical manuscripts

himself, Tragelles asked the Pope if he could visit the Vatican library. The

Pope agreed to let him in, but put some unusual restrictions on him. The

Pope insisted that he not bring any writing material with him into the

library. To insure compliance, he would be searched on his way in and out.

Additionally, he was only allowed to sit there for six hours a day. All of

this Tragelles agreed to, and did so for three months. Tragelles discovered

a document similar to that of his friend, Tischendorf. Rather than notifying

the Pope that he had just stumbled upon an ancient manuscript of the Bible,

he took another route. You may not believe this, but Tragelles, apparently

endowed with a great memory, memorized the entire manuscript, piece by

piece, not just the Greek and Hebrew, but the Aramaic as well! What he did

was memorize a small portion, about six hour’s worth, then went to his

personal room and wrote down what he had memorized. After three months, he

was able to memorized most of the Bible in its original languages!



Hope you enjoyed that brief digression.



Well, I think I said I wanted to list a few amusing mistakes that the

printers made while publishing the KJV. Here they are:



In the KJV, the seventh commandment was slightly altered. The word “not” was

accidentally omitted. With this oversight, the KJV read, “You shall commit

adultery.” Not sure how many copies were circulated before this omission was

noticed. I do know this, after this error was duly noted, and corrected I

might add, scoffers labeled this edition the “Wicked Bible.”



In the garden of Gethsemane, the first KJV had “Judas” going there to pray,

not Jesus.



When John in Revelation 21:1 saw the new heaven and earth, he described it

as having “no more sea.” The KJV, in an early edition, once again omitted a

word (no). Hence, in this version’s rendition of the new heaven and earth,

there was actually ‘more sea.’



Here’s a good one. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, it’s not the ‘righteous’ who

inherit the kingdom, it’s the “unrighteous.” Not so sure I don’t like that

better!



John 5:14 is a close second for the funniest. After Jesus heals the

paralytic man, he admonishes him to “sin no more.” However, two letters

where reversed in this KJV. Can you guess which two? Yup! If the printer was

right, that man was asked to sin ‘on’ more! Must have been the same person

who worked on the Commandments.



Psalm 119:161 was goofed. But in this case, we can see why. Here is that

verse as it should have appeared:



Princes persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



Notice how the printers subliminally personalize it, albeit by mistake. Here

is how it appeared in that KJV:



Printers persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



In Luke, you recall when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three

times. Nope, It was Philip, as far as the KJV printers could tell. At least

both names start with a P.



Although a rather obscure passage, the mistake in Ezekiel 47:10 should have

been caught (get it?). In this verse, the fisherman stand (that’s the

correct wording), but according to the KJV, the fish stand. That would be

quite a feat.



This last one I mention is found in the section of Scripture from which I

chose the name for my daughter. The KJV got all the words right, they just

put two in the wrong order. As we can see they switched them. Here is how it

should have appeared:



“Then Rebekah and her damsels arose, and they rode on the camels and

followed the man.”



Now, I close with this final error. This is how it actually appeared in the

KJV. Talk about a damsel in distress!


“Then Rebekah and her camels arose, and they rode on the damsels and

followed the man.”


How in the world can anyone make a misteak like that?

 

[Josheb]

How in the world can anyone make a misteak like that?

Gotta ignore the elephant in submarine .

Good post. Well done.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

I don't use the KJV, and this post is not intended to discredit it.



He should have never put it in there!


The King James Version (KJV) was originally published, in 1611, by the royal

printer, Robert Barker. In the margins of that very first edition, there

were some 8,422 notes. Several of these notes indicate that a particular

verse itself may not be exactly correct.



For example, here is Luke 17:36 as it appears in the New King James Version



“Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”



Here is the note that appeared in the margin of that original 1611 edition:



“This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.”



If you have a NIV, don’t bother looking this verse up. It is not in that

Translation. What the note said in essence was, “we have reason to believe that this verse should not be in here at all.”



Well, therein lies Textual Criticism, which is the study of what the

Original Autographs (these are the actual writings of the Apostles

themselves) exactly contained. In other words, before we can know what the

Bible says, we need to know what the Bible is. And this is no small task.

Once a group of Textual Critics finish their work, they turn their work over

to the printers to publish. That way, we can read the Bible.



In this article, I would like to draw our attention to some amusing mistakes

that found their way into the KJV. Fortunately, they have all been fixed

with subsequent Editions. Bear in mind, the King James Version went through

many revisions, including one the very next year in 1612. And again in 1613.

And many more after that.



Oddly enough, the KJV was translated from only about six Greek manuscripts

dating no earlier than the 10th century. Although there are more than 5,400

Greek manuscripts today, back in the 1600’s that was not the case.



The relatively few Greek manuscripts that are behind this KJV date between

the 10th and 14th centuries. Since the publishing of the first KJV, more

than 2,000 Greek manuscripts have been found. And some of these date back as

early as the 2nd century. (Remember, the earliest Greek manuscript

supporting the KJV is 800 years later.) With the new discovery of older

manuscripts, modern versions have come on the scene. The NIV is based on

different Greek manuscripts than is the KJV. That is why they differ at

places, as noted above.



Here is one example as to why they differ. When a man by the name of Erasmus

was putting together the Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, he could

find no existing Greek manuscript that contained the words in 1 John 5:7,

which reads in the KJV, “For there are three that bear record in heaven; the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” It’s in the

KJV even to this day, but Erasmus refused to put it in his Greek Edition,

unless…



That was his mistake! Erasmus went on public record saying that if anyone

could produce even one Greek manuscript with the disputed passage in it, he

would put it in his next Greek Edition. (These disputed words were first

noticed in a not-so-old Latin version.) Erasmus’ first two Greek New

Testaments did not contain this passage.



Well, along comes an enemy of Erasmus, by the name of Edward Lee, and he

mysteriously produces a Greek manuscript (a very highly suspect one, I might

add) that contained these words. So, Erasmus, true to his word, yet being

convinced it would not do too much damage to sacred Scripture, unwillingly,

put it in his third Edition. Erasmus did note that he doubted its

authenticity. Right here is where my opening line fits in. He was true to

his word, but not the Word of God.



Well, no early Greek manuscript has this passage in it. Not one early

manuscript! No Greek manuscript dated in the first 5 centuries has this

passage in it. So, if we look at most modern versions, we simply will not

find that passage in it. There are a lot of these types of disputes in the

various manuscripts, practically all of them very insignificant. So, one set of Greek manuscripts read one way and another set of manuscripts say something slightly different, and that’s why we have different versions today.



These differences in Greek manuscripts are actually to be expected. Let’s

suppose, for example, you asked 100 people to copy the book, Moby Dick. Do

you think any two would be exactly alike? Of course not! And if we took the

original book away, and then tried to recreate it, using only the 100

copies, how close to the original Moby Dick do you think we could get? Real

close! If on page 28, I wrote Moby Dock, and my brother, Tiger, wrote Muby

Dick, and 98 other people wrote Moby Dick, would you consider my wording

(Dock) or my brother’s wording (Muby) correct? There is your answer to the

Greek manuscripts. The variants are about as tough to work through as this

preceding example. (In fact, I know my brother well enough to also say the

he will misspell “receive” every time. He puts the i before the e. And

remember, every time that “receive” is misspelled, that’s another variant, even though it’s the same variant each time. If, for example each time misspelled is observed, that’s 48 times, that’s 48 variants. As you can see, they add up pretty quickly.)



Let me show you why some people are initially shocked when they begin their

study of Textual Criticism. The Greek New Testament has roughly 138,162

words. Taking all the 5,400 manuscripts together, there are somewhere

between 400,000 and 500,000 variations. That’s about 3+ variants PER WORD!



Maybe this will help. Let me give you a couple of those variants in one

small phrase in the Bible:



In John 4:1 some manuscripts read, “Then when Jesus knew.” Some other

manuscripts read, “Then when the Lord knew.” One manuscript has, “Then when

Jecus knew.” So, some say “Jesus” and some say “the Lord” and one misspelled

“Jesus.” (There are actually a few more that misspell “Jesus”)



So, how many variants do you see? Are you concerned with any of them? Here’s

the good news: That is just about the extent of the vast majority of

variants in the New Testament. As you can see, not knowing the history of the Bible makes us vulnerable to every wind of doctrine, or false claims against the Word. But when we add up all the ‘discrepancies’ and ‘variants’ there is absolutely nothing to be concerned with. Absolutely nothing! The preservation of the Word of God over the years, one could argue, has a supernatural element to it.



I mentioned earlier that since the first publication of the KJV of 1611, of

which there have literally been thousands of corrections to it, many Greek

Manuscripts have been discovered. How one or two of those manuscripts were

discovered are interesting stories.



More than 200 years after the first KJV, in the Spring of 1844, a man by the

name Count Konstantin von Tischendorf, a man (genius) fluent in classical

languages and dialects, took a trip to Mount Sinai to visit a monastery. He

took this trip in hopes of discovering ancient biblical documents. The

monastery he visited was called St. Catherine’s, then occupied by Russian

monks. Initially, he was a bit disappointed when he was unable to find what

he was looking for. However, as he looked in a small room near the Library,

he noticed something very unusual in the trash can, of all places! His heart

began to race as he approached this waste basket. The contents, sheets of

‘paper’ written on animal skin, seemed all too familiar to him. He was well

aware that ancient documents were written on the very kind of “trash” he was

looking at. Well learned in Koine Greek, he picked up a sheet and began

reading it. It was the Old Testament! As he kept digging deeper, the New

Testament was also there. There were 129 pages of the oldest known

recordings of the Bible, written almost 1,500 years earlier. Who knows how

many pages had already been burned to warm those Russian monks.



Let me add an interesting twist (the second story). Tischendorf had a friend

named Samuel Tragelles. Tragelles was also a scholar. Excited by von

Tischendorg’s discovery, and in hopes of finding more biblical manuscripts

himself, Tragelles asked the Pope if he could visit the Vatican library. The

Pope agreed to let him in, but put some unusual restrictions on him. The

Pope insisted that he not bring any writing material with him into the

library. To insure compliance, he would be searched on his way in and out.

Additionally, he was only allowed to sit there for six hours a day. All of

this Tragelles agreed to, and did so for three months. Tragelles discovered

a document similar to that of his friend, Tischendorf. Rather than notifying

the Pope that he had just stumbled upon an ancient manuscript of the Bible,

he took another route. You may not believe this, but Tragelles, apparently

endowed with a great memory, memorized the entire manuscript, piece by

piece, not just the Greek and Hebrew, but the Aramaic as well! What he did

was memorize a small portion, about six hour’s worth, then went to his

personal room and wrote down what he had memorized. After three months, he

was able to memorized most of the Bible in its original languages!



Hope you enjoyed that brief digression.



Well, I think I said I wanted to list a few amusing mistakes that the

printers made while publishing the KJV. Here they are:



In the KJV, the seventh commandment was slightly altered. The word “not” was

accidentally omitted. With this oversight, the KJV read, “You shall commit

adultery.” Not sure how many copies were circulated before this omission was

noticed. I do know this, after this error was duly noted, and corrected I

might add, scoffers labeled this edition the “Wicked Bible.”



In the garden of Gethsemane, the first KJV had “Judas” going there to pray,

not Jesus.



When John in Revelation 21:1 saw the new heaven and earth, he described it

as having “no more sea.” The KJV, in an early edition, once again omitted a

word (no). Hence, in this version’s rendition of the new heaven and earth,

there was actually ‘more sea.’



Here’s a good one. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, it’s not the ‘righteous’ who

inherit the kingdom, it’s the “unrighteous.” Not so sure I don’t like that

better!



John 5:14 is a close second for the funniest. After Jesus heals the

paralytic man, he admonishes him to “sin no more.” However, two letters

where reversed in this KJV. Can you guess which two? Yup! If the printer was

right, that man was asked to sin ‘on’ more! Must have been the same person

who worked on the Commandments.



Psalm 119:161 was goofed. But in this case, we can see why. Here is that

verse as it should have appeared:



Princes persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



Notice how the printers subliminally personalize it, albeit by mistake. Here

is how it appeared in that KJV:



Printers persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



In Luke, you recall when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three

times. Nope, It was Philip, as far as the KJV printers could tell. At least

both names start with a P.



Although a rather obscure passage, the mistake in Ezekiel 47:10 should have

been caught (get it?). In this verse, the fisherman stand (that’s the

correct wording), but according to the KJV, the fish stand. That would be

quite a feat.



This last one I mention is found in the section of Scripture from which I

chose the name for my daughter. The KJV got all the words right, they just

put two in the wrong order. As we can see they switched them. Here is how it

should have appeared:



“Then Rebekah and her damsels arose, and they rode on the camels and

followed the man.”



Now, I close with this final error. This is how it actually appeared in the

KJV. Talk about a damsel in distress!


“Then Rebekah and her camels arose, and they rode on the damsels and

followed the man.”


How in the world can anyone make a misteak like that?

Here's a Link to the oldest English translation fro the Greek written by William Tyndale in in 1525.

file:///C:/Users/Buffs%20Computer/Desktop/ITEMS%20TO%20RETAIN%20(Jan.%202023)/1-1-20%20DESKTOP%20ICONS/Tyndale%201525%20-%201526..html

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Try this Link. It might be a better Link:

The New Testament translated by William Tyndale 1525 - 1526.​

 

[JesusFan]

There are many translational errors in the KJV. The most obvious is "agape" being translated as "charity" in 1 Cor. 13.

To me the classic ones would be calling the Holy Spirit as an IT, and calling Passover as easter

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Right on, brother! Another biblical researcher/pastor told me yesterday there are over 700 errors in the KJV. Sad that King James went mad when he commanded his translators HOW to translate the Greek into English.​

 

[JesusFan]

Right on, brother! Another biblical researcher/pastor told me yesterday there are over 700 errors in the KJV. Sad that King James went mad when he commanded his translators HOW to translate the Greek into English.​

The Translators in places brought over into their translation their bias for Church of England doctrines, and while the Kjv is still a very good translation, would really recommend any using kjv to also use the online Websters Dictionary, as that gives the meaning of the kjv words at the time of its translation

 

[Josheb]

To me the classic ones would be calling the Holy Spirit as an IT, and calling Passover as easter

Yep. The salient point being the KJV is not a perfect translation and circumspection, and investigation is always necessary when diving into the truths of scripture using that translation. None of us should be quick in thinking any English translation of a Greek manuscript of Hebrew and Aramaic content is perfect.

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. The salient point being the KJV is not a perfect translation and circumspection, and investigation is always necessary when diving into the truths of scripture using that translation. None of us should be quick in thinking any English translation of a Greek manuscript of Hebrew and Aramaic content is perfect.

In order to ascribe perfection and error free top the Kjv translation, they would have to hold to inspiration granted to the 1611 translators

 

[Rella]

Post 1 of 3

While thise thread is about King James blunders... I ran across the following and there is more about the King James then any other bible.
Some rather eye opening.

18 Alterations Made to the Bible and its Consequences - History Collection

18 Alterations Made to the Bible and its Consequences​

Larry Holzwarth - August 20, 2018

To some, the Bible is the infallible and unchangeable word of God, written by Him and eternally sacrosanct. But which Bible? There are many different Bibles which contain different books within, and the several differing translations of those books has changed their content over the centuries. Verses have been added, removed, and modified to alter their meaning. Some have been simply forgeries, inserted for political and social reasons. Words which mean one thing in Greek or Hebrew have been given entirely different meanings by interpreters, sometimes out of ignorance, and sometimes out of plan.

When the Bible has been edited to modernize its language, for the purpose of making it more readily understood, its editors have used verses already modified from the original and modified them yet further. Entire verses have been moved and footnoted, changing the meaning of the original, not only to make it more readable to modern eyes, but to reflect the opinions and beliefs of the editors. This has been done despite the scriptural admonition against changing one word of the biblical prophecy, a verse which has itself been changed, its meaning altered, until another future editor decides to alter it yet again.

1. Acts 8:37 from the King James Version of the Bible confuses readers on requirements of Baptism – but sometimes this verse is omitted entirely!​

In Acts chapter 8, the Apostle Philip preached the Gospel of Jesus to a eunuch, and when the two came to a “certain water”, the eunuch asked what “doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip replied in Acts 8:37 (KJV); “And Philip answered, If though believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Philip then baptized the eunuch in the ensuing verses, after which he was spirited away, so that the eunuch “saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8: 39). Numerous later translations of the bible removed Acts 8:37 entirely, while others modify the story.

In the New International Version, for example, Acts 8:38 tells of Philip stopping the chariot in which they were traveling and baptizing the eunuch without responding to his question. The verse was removed in its entirety, though in some editions it is included as a footnote, stating that some versions of the bible contain the verse. The Jehovah’s Witness bible (NWT), the New American Standard Version (NASV) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) all removed the verse from the King James Version. When the removal of the verse is not explained, it implies a change to the requirements for baptism, without delineating what those changes may be.

2. The Amplified Bible tries to improve readability by Inserting editorial comments and ideas throughout the text.​

The Amplified Bible, produced the by Lockman Foundation, with assistance from Zondervan, a subsidiary of News Corps which holds the commercial rights for the New International Version of the Bible in the United States and Canada, was first published beginning in 1965. Amplified means the addition of text to stress certain passages and by inference, reducing the importance of other text by the lack of such amplification. For example, in the KJV, Acts 16:31 reads, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” The American Standard Version (ASV) of the same verse drops the title Christ, but otherwise the verse is very similar to the KJV.

In the amplified version, (which was revised in 2015 to make additional amplifications) the verse reads; “Believe in the Lord Jesus [as your personal Savior and entrust yourself to him] and you will be saved, you and your household, [if they also believe].” Thus the Amplified Bible not only alters the text and the translation of certain passages, but also inserts editorial comment. Punctuation alteration, such as the insertion of brackets which contain amplifying commentary, is used to stress certain verses, point out others which the authors claim to be inadequately justified by source documents, and improves readability.

3. Bible word counts differ substantially… Yet Revelations threatens God’s consequences if the text is altered.​

The word counts of the complete Bible text differ, obviously between the different translations, and sometimes within editions of the same translation. For example, one source reports the New International Version as containing 727, 969 words, another claims the NIV’s word count as 726,109. The King James Version is 783,137 words; the New KJV is reported by the same word count source as containing 770,430 words. Obviously many words have been removed from different editions or versions of the bible, which renders them works of the editors and scholars which prepared them.

Why is this of any significance? Revelations 22:19 (KJV) reads; “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It can be argued that the ominous warning in the verse applies only to the Book of Revelations in which it appears, but it still seems clear that modifying the book by addition or subtraction is a punishable offense. The same verse appears with different wording and phrasing in other translations. The Amplified Bible takes the modification a great deal further.

4. Amplified Bible Alterations also warn and threaten consequences to taking away from the text of the Bible.​

The same verse referenced above, Revelations 22:19, appears in the Amplified Bible thus; “And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy – these predictions relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions (warnings) pertaining to them – God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (pure and hallowed) which are described and promised in this book.” The additions to the verse are easily seen, and the result is the publication of an opinion based not on the words of the original text but on the beliefs of the editor.

Such changes to the source text are prevalent in all known versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, which is known for the virulence of some of its defenders. Some of these claim that all other versions of the Bible are false, little more than forgeries, and that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible which should be used. In doing so they ignore the many errors of translation between the original source documents, as well as the clear insertion of additional verses many years after the original documents were written. The Amplified Bible makes clear that the book is intended to be taken literally.

5. Changes to the Gospel of Mark give Christians instructions… But these instructions come from an unknown author.​

In the King James Bible, the Gospel of Mark ends with 16:20, “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Most translations of Mark follow the KJV, with varying verbiage for the verses of chapter 16, which closely follow the Gospel of Luke. They appear to have been added by an unknown author or authors other than the original author of Mark, based on the oldest known manuscripts of the work. The oldest extant copies of Mark end at 16:8, and there are numerous copies which indicate the work ended there. One is the Sinaitic copy, circa 370 CE, another is the Vatican copy, circa 325 CE.

There are many theories regarding the gospel stopping abruptly after 16:8, as well as when the additional verses were added. The additional verses describe the Ascension, and are included in the KJV without subsequent commentary, though many newer translations contain notes pointing out the unknown provenance of the subsequent verses after 16:8. Much of the later verses refer to the criteria for salvation (which differ from elsewhere in the Bible), proselytization, and the Great Commission, the command from Jesus to preach the word to all. The Great Commission is to many fundamentalists their Prime Directive, unaware that it was a later addition to the Gospel and of unknown origin.

6. Changes to Matthew and the Lord’s Prayer first appear in Byzantine texts – which is much later than commonly believed.​

The prayer known as the Lord’s Prayer appears twice in the gospels, in differing versions, in both Luke and Matthew. Commonly among Protestant congregations, the prayer includes the doxology; “For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” It appears thus in the KJV, Matthew 6:13. It does not appear in the similar in sentiment, but different in presentation version of the prayer which appears in the Gospel of Luke. It does not appear in the oldest known manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew, and appears to have been inserted into the gospel by an unknown writer, since subsequent verses are numbered out of order.

The doxology first appeared in the Byzantine texts of the gospel of Matthew. It appeared in the Didache, which was the first written catechism of the teachings of the twelve apostles and which appeared in the first century. Authorship of the Didache is unknown, other literary references to it appear during the third century, and though some Church Fathers argued for its inclusion in the New Testament it was not deemed to be sufficiently documented. When the doxology was inserted into the Gospel of Matthew is, likewise, uncertain. The modification of the Gospel of Matthew is acknowledged in new translations of the Bible, and many do not include it in their versions.

 

[Rella]

POST 2 OF 3

7. The Controversial History of the King James Bible sometimes creates doubt on whether it is a reliable source for the Word of God.​

Those who defend the King James Bible as the inerrant word of God miss an important point. It was never intended to be so. The Bible was commissioned by the British King after he convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where problems with earlier English translations which were contrary to the Puritan sect of the Church of England were discussed. Following the discussions of the meetings at Hampton Court, James directed the translators to ensure that the new Christian bible, which would be known as the Authorized Version because it would be the only bible allowed to be read in churches, would conform to the ecclesiastic policies of the Church of England.

The Church of England depended on ordained clergy and a hierarchical structure which did not exist in the translations of the time, and altered their new bible accordingly. The King James Bible was not intended to be the inerrant word of God but the basis of the authority of the Church of England, and the monarchy of England as the church’s rightful head. James also ordered the translators to use as referential starting points and style guides two existing English translations, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible, both of which were problematic for the Puritans. Other existing bibles which could be referenced by the translators were required to be on a list approved by the king.

8. Early criticism of the King James Bible shows inaccuracies in translation from earlier texts.​

When the King James Bible was being written, it was done so by committees, with six committees translating assigned portions. The majority of the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew, with some sections from Aramaic. The New Testament was translated from Greek, and the books of the Apocrypha from Latin and Greek. Existing English bibles were used as references as well. All of the committees worked not for a word for word translation of the source documents, but from the view that the source documents were to be used to support the ecclesiology of the Church of England. This approach delivered significant differences between the resulting King James Bible and the Latin Vulgate Bible, as well as with existing English translations.

The highly esteemed English scholar of the Hebrew language expert (for his day) Hugh Broughton roundly condemned the approach taken by the translators, and the completed work as inaccurate, calling it an “abominable translation…foisted upon the English people.” Thomas Hobbes compared the new English translation unfavorably to the Latin, and in his critical work on statecraft Leviathan (the title taken from the Book of Job) he used biblical chapter and verse references from the Latin Vulgate, rather than those of the King James Version, which often did not correspond. King James ordered the printing of any other bible in English suspended for a time, ensuring the Authorized Bible’s use would increase.

9. Mistranslations in the King James Bible go on and on.​

The writers of the King James Bible had access in several cases to original source documents, but they did not use them in producing their new bible, relying instead on earlier translations by other scholars and existing English bibles. To these, they changed or added verses in order to achieve the goals mandated by their king. Old Testament verses were taken from the existing English bibles, including the Rheimish New Testament (when Christ quoted the scriptures), which they were explicitly told not to use as a reference and which they subsequently criticized in the preface to their finished work. Old Testament passages were altered where needed to support subsequent Christian theology and tradition.

For example, Psalm 16:22 read in the Hebrew texts as “…like lions my hands and feet.” The translators changed the passage to read “They pierced my hands and my feet”, to adhere to Christian beliefs. They also changed the titles of the Books of First and Second Esdras, renaming the Old Testament books Ezra and Nehemiah respectively, changing third and fourth Esdras to First and Second. The changes to the text of the Hebrew bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, were relatively subtle in comparison to the creativity applied to the New Testament, in which several verses were simply added, with some inserted in existing gospels in order to confirm their place in others.

10. The New Testament’s translation in the King James Version sometimes isn’t even based on ancient text – they don’t know where it came from!​

The chief source for the writers of the KJV New Testament was a Greek edition by Theodore Beza, which included a Latin translation of the gospels as well. A later noted biblical scholar, Frederick Scrivener, noted 190 instances where the scholars working on the King James Version deviated from the Greek and Latin texts, and opted instead to use the existing texts from other English translations. Scrivener noted numerous incidents – more than three dozen – where the resultant English text had no supporting Greek text from which it was translated. In other words, the King James Version contains many verses which do not appear in the translations of the original Greek.

Closer scrutiny of the original documents, or rather the oldest surviving manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, confirms many of the verses of the King James Version having no supporting source material, hence their omission or reduction to footnotes in subsequent versions of the bible. Supporters of the King James Version argue that such revision is in itself an abomination, since to them the King James Version is simply a translation of the word of God from its original ancient languages. In fact, the King James Version is a conflation of several different bible translations, from more than a dozen languages, compiled by 47 men in six committees.

11. Translation of words and the printing accident that caused a 17th century printer to print the mistake: “Thou Shalt Commit Adultery”​

A primary motivation for the translators preparing the King James Version of the bible was readability by their fellow English citizenry, as well as the flowing sweep of the language when passages of the bible were read aloud from the pulpit. Spelling and punctuation were often changed, however, by the printers, who altered the spellings of words or omitted punctuation marks in order to maintain the integrity of the columns in which the volume was printed. The first released edition in 1611 had been carefully set in type, later editions found printers who were less concerned with what would one day be called quality control, and punctuation, capitalization, and even the omission of words and phrases became commonplace.

In one instance, in 1631, printers Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, who had printed the first edition of the Authorized Bible (KJV), made a printing error which cost them their license as the Royal Printer and a fine equivalent to approximately $75,000 today. In Exodus 20:14 they omitted the word not and printed “Thou shalt commit adultery”. An outraged King ordered all copies of the misprinted book be seized and burned and possession of the bible became a crime, but a few copies survived into the 21st century. While not all misprints and similar errors were as obvious, the incident illustrates how the simple misplacement of a single word can change the meaning completely.

​