• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

KING JAMES' BLUNDERS

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.​
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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)
 
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)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
Back
Top