KJV Mis-Translations

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

KJV Mis-Translations

Post by wackzingo »

The KJV too has mistranslations.
Source:http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm
The King James has made some major errors in translation. The following are just a few examples. Compare the KJV reading with that of the NIV:


Isaiah 45:7

KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

NIV: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.


Amos 3:6

KJV:
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

NIV: When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?


Luke 13:24 and 2 Timothy 2:24

Two distinct Greek words are both rendered "strive". The term in Luke has the sense "to strive to achieve" while the word in 2 Timothy has the sense of "to quarrel."

KJV: Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

KJV: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.

NIV: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

NIV: And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.



Daniel 11:9

KJV: So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

NIV: Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.



1 Thessalonians 5:22

KJV: Abstain from all appearance of evil.

NIV: Avoid every kind of evil.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Re: KJV Mis-Translations

Post by David »

wackzingo wrote:The KJV too has mistranslations.
Source:http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm
The King James has made some major errors in translation. The following are just a few examples. Compare the KJV reading with that of the NIV:


Isaiah 45:7

KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

NIV: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.


Amos 3:6

KJV:
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

NIV: When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?


Luke 13:24 and 2 Timothy 2:24

Two distinct Greek words are both rendered "strive". The term in Luke has the sense "to strive to achieve" while the word in 2 Timothy has the sense of "to quarrel."

KJV: Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

KJV: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.

NIV: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

NIV: And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

Major errors? Did you read it before you pasted it? 20/20 rule would be very helpful with these. So would a good dictionary and Strongs concordance



Daniel 11:9

KJV: So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

NIV: Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

My friend you proclaim Daniel 11:9 as written in the Holy Bible 1611 Ed.(KJV) as a MAJOR ERROR. I beg to disagree at the time it was recorded (aprox 530 B.C.) it was prophecy. Today it is prophecy fulfilled our history. History and scripture speaks of Berenice and says "Out of a branch of her rootes" refering to her brother Ptolemy Euergetes the King of the South attacked the kingdom of the North and invaded it. After utterly defeating the king of the North (Seleucas Callinicus) the king of the South hearing news of sedition in Egypt hurriedly returned to it carrying with him and immense number of captives with "their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold".

The king of the North died shortly afterwards after falling from a horse Ptolemy lived and reigned four years longer than Callinicus "and he shall continue moe yeeres then the king of the North" So I believe the NIV translation is in grave error and so are those who read it since the king of the north died shortly after he was defeated.

His sons (Seleucas Ceraunas and Antiochus the Great) however planned to attack the king of the South. Ceraunas died before this happened leaving Antiochus to lead the charge. This is where the northern king attacked the kingdom of the south but Antiochus did not retreat he was instead defeated by the king of the South Ptolemy Philopater at the battle of Raphia and put under tribute. Ptolemy Philopator lived and died like Alexander.


1 Thessalonians 5:22

KJV: Abstain from all appearance of evil.

NIV: Avoid every kind of evil.
I agree makes sense to me to avoid every kind. But this is a command to avoid even the appearance of evil. An example two believers one man one woman living in the same home but they are not married they sleep in different rooms and beds. They love the Lord they obey His commandments. But what do think this would look like to others in the church why these two should be married! But it stirs up rumors, gossip and hurts the church and those involved, don't do it. So yes you should avoid even the appearance of evil.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

Thanks for the for the feedback. I know it's probably going overboard calling the major mistranslations. The point is that that is exactly the same mentality and position KJV only people take. I think this discussion is actually a waste of time since they will never change their mind because in their mind if you even consider and discuss like you, jim and myself have been doing then we are looking trying to turn away from God's only Word.

In my opinion the most profitable thing for everyone would be to warn against the obvious real perversions like the TNIV and encourage people to read multiple reliable translations. When you read more than one translation and you come to a verse that has been translated differently then you have a good reason to do some study and see why they translated each the way they did. Warning about the verses that may be mistranslated in a particular version would be much more profitable than making only one version an idol and declaring all others perversions.

My favorite version is the NIV and I know there are mistranslation but there are over 31,000 and only a few are mis-translated. I'm aware of many of them so I just make notes of why I believe they are mistranslated and move on. Many good translations include the KJV and NIV but also NKJV, MKJV, DARBY, NASB, BBE, YLT, ASV and I'm sure there are others.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

wackzingo I agree some people can extremely over zealous regarding certain subjects. I for one use the Holy Bible 1611 Ed (kjv) yes I have read others and found error, ommission, and addition regarding some very key points. For instance the above verse about who invaded who and who retreated. I believe prophecy proves Gods exsistance I can defend that prophecy as God's word by looking at history. I cannot defend the Northern king invading then retreating. Did He say both? If He did wouldn't that make Him an author of confusion?

We are commanded to spread the good news of salvation thru Christ. But on occasion I have found we must also be able to defend it as well, I hope nobody would think me worshiping an idol because of it. The Holy Bible 1611 Ed. (kjv) there is harmony, truth, and over 400 years of withstanding all who would tear it down. All of a sudden there are more versions you shake a stick at and I can't honestly defend any of the ones I have read. Why would anyone want to explore further?

It's where I take my stand.

Another good thing about the Holy Bible 1611 Ed (kjv) is I can give every bit of it out freely without concerning myself with copyright infringment. :D
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,
"But on occasion I have found we must also be able to defend it as well, I hope nobody would think me worshiping an idol because of it. "
Are you worshiping the Word of God or do you worship a version?

I will defend the Word of God until the day I die but I will never defend only one version. Even as the King James translators themselves said we should consult different versions to find the true meaning.

Also, the KJV was not the first English translation. If God felt it necessary to inspire the KJV translators to provide translation that would be understood by the people. If God felt the need to inspire writers of the New Testament to write it in the Koine Greek (common Greek) so the average person would understand. Why would God fail to see a need to provide a translation that can be understood by todays newer Generation. Does God make us learn different languages to understand His Word? Why even have an English translation? Why not just learn Greek and Hebrew? I work with teen all day long in public settings and I promise you that the language of the KJV is as foreign to them as any other foreign language. Why would God fail to provide them with a translation that is understandable to them where they are at in their life? I'm only using simple logical reasoning.

The Holy Bible 1611 Ed. (kjv) there is harmony, truth, and over 400 years of withstanding all who would tear it down.
It is true that the KJV has been around for a long time but there are other versions that have been around longer like John Wycliffe's translations. And there are several versions that have been around for the last 100+ years and given enough time they will be around for 400+ years. What you said is true but it does not make any justification for why we should only use the KJV. In fact all it does it make the case for tradition and set yourself up to worship a Version rather than the Word. Using this reasoning you are very close to making a version an idol.

I can't honestly defend any of the ones I have read. Why would anyone want to explore further?


The problem is you are trying to defend a translation not God's Word. I don't have to defend God's Word, He is more than able to do that Himself. Time will show errors in translations and in the end God's real Word will last forever. As for translations... they will come and go as language changes, because they are made by fallible men there will be errors but other men will come along and correct those errors while probably making errors themselves. This is how God preserves his word. Through hundreds of translations by hundreds of fallible men the message is the same God preserves His Word.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

After reading what I wrote earlier, I thought it came across the wrong way. I didn't mean to as if you were worshiping the Word of God or a version as if that's your intention or as an accusation. I brought it up for the sake of discussion. I apologize if it came across the wrong way because of how I wrote it.

zach
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

You haven't by chance read a book by Mr. Robert M. Bowman, Jr. lately, particularly "When The Bible Becomes An Idol: Problems With The KJV-Only Doctrine."?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

No I haven't, is it good?
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Don't know haven't read it either.

Anyways I think I need to clarify my position regarding the Holy Bible we call the the Authorized King James Version. I look upon the words written in that book as God's preserved word in the english language. There are many versions out there indeed some so far off the mark to make it obvious they are in error, some others have subtle changes which like the above reference to the Northern king which are revealed by obeying that wonderful commandment to study.

I have found no error or contradiction only truth and harmony in The Holy Bible 1611ed it gives me great comfort because of that. I'm not having to second guess or doubt whats written in it time has shown there are no errors.

Men have given the Holy Bible 1611 edition many names to identify it. Some proclaim it the 'authorized version' but what does that mean? I for one never gave it a second thought since thats what everyone I knew called it and the first bible by which I read and heard God's word. But after this thread I read up on some history of the 'authorized' version I came to find out the term was originally coined in 1584 by Archbishop Whitgift long before the 1611 edition was printed. The only thing King James authorized was his printers to be used to print the book. The Holy Bible 1611 ed was only 'Appointed to be read in Churches' which means little more than 'assigned' or 'provided'. I have a facimille of the original 1611 and the front leaf does not contain or mention anything about being 'authorized'. But this is what many will argue and it makes no sense to me why yet Im sure the arguement will continue. I believe God is in control of all things and used these men in our history to preserve his word using the english language in the largest volume known as the The Holy Bible 1611 ed. I know there were other bibles before this particularly the Bishops Bible. Many had leanings that were not acceptable to all, another problem that exsisted was the number of editions which caused a lack of agreement between the Bible which men read in their homes and those they they heard in church.

Again it appears I find myself on the defensive with this issue but I don't mind I learned something new because of it. If there is a desire to seek the truth then lets do it. I really enjoy searching the scriptures and our own history to see if these things are so. If there is something you yourself have discovered then lets discuss it.

Oh, btw I do not look upon The Holy Bible as an idol only as God's preserved word but I do worship the Word. :wink:

---------------------------

edit time again

Taken from 'The Best Way to Live and Die' at http://www.al-sunnah.com/bestway.htm

Here we have a perfect example of what can happen when a particular version with subtle changes is thrown out to the wolves. This man is lost and will use the many newer versions to his advantage to convert other poor souls to that 'peaceful religon'. The religon who's god claims in writing over the very mount our King shall rule from 'Oh you children of the Book say not three'... 'Allah is one god far be it from his glory that he should have a son.' And why not? The highly praised newer versions back up his claim. How horrible.

FYI (pbuh) = peace be upon him

According to the Bible, it was customary to call any prophet of God, or righteous man, a son of God. Jesus (pbuh) called himself the son of man, not God or God's literal son.[8] Evidently, Paul was most responsible for elevating the status of Jesus (pbuh) to the son of God, distorting the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).[9]

What's more, Jesus (pbuh) did not appear to be the 'begotten' son of God (as it used to say in John 3:16) since this word has been cancelled from the Revised Standard Version (RSV), as well as many other new versions of the Bible. Furthermore, God emphatically says in the Qur'an that He does not have a son.[10] However, God also declared that He created Adam (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh): "Indeed, the example of Jesus to God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him "Be", and he was." (3:59)


another edit!

Just one more thing, the more I read over things like what Donald Flood writes those who argue versions the arguement is not really with me or The Holy Bible 1611ed. It is going to be with people like Mr. Flood when he takes the very word some use and turn it against them.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

Do you honestly believe the KJV has no errors in translation? Even the translators themselves admitted that it was imperfect and said we should consult other translation just as they did.

How about this one:

Isaiah 45:7

KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

NIV:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

This is a big translation error on the part of the KJV because if you listen to debates with Christians and Atheists they always refer to this as saying the bible contradict itself because it says God created good and evil. The proper translation would be disaster. The context of the passage talks about the sun, light, darkness, heavens, peace. Then it says "drop down ye heavens from above" does evil fit in this passage or evil? Did God really create evil? This doesn't say God allows evil but it says "I the Lord do these things? What things? create evil.

Whether you like it or not the KJV has errors, it's just a matter of how important you think they are.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Did you note my first response to these verses, it wasn't much, just a recommendation what to use to help understand. That way you understand with your own eyes rather someone else tell you. Much to do about the need to study. I shouuld also note that I have agreed with you on other word issues and their meaning but to call them major or minor erros is negligent

I seem to recall what would be helpful here is a dictionary and strongs concordance. You call them errors but if you look at the hebrew words, their meaning, and the context they are used you should be able to figure it out. Strongs concordance is useful for silly nits like me who don't understand greek or hebrew. But as far as I know you will not be able to use it with anyother book other than than The Holy Bible.

Peace as used in Isaiah 45:7 Hebrew Pronunciation Guide shalowm (shaw-lome') or shalom (shaw-lome'). Root word Shalom
Meaning:
1) completeness, soundness, welfare, peace
a) completeness (in number)
b) safety, soundness (in body)
c) welfare, health, prosperity
d) peace, quiet, tranquillity, contentment
e) peace, friendship
1) of human relationships
2) with God especially in covenant relationship
f) peace (from war)
g) peace (as adjective)

Here's a neat one that I never realized Hebrew for evil is ra' like that Egyptian god, sorry I digress <sp>

Evil as used in Isaiah 45:7. Hebrew Pronunciation Guide ra` (rah). Root word ra`a` (raw-ah')
Meaning:
adj
1) bad, evil
a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
c) evil, displeasing
d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
e) bad (of value)
f) worse than, worst (comparison)
g) sad, unhappy
h) evil (hurtful)
i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
2) deeds, actions

n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
a) evil, distress, adversity
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)

n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
a) evil, misery, distress
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)

No errors here that I can see. But now it's my turn to ask a question why did the King of the North invade then retreat was this a foreshadowing of things to come? Secondly pretent I'm Mr. Flood and explain to me the purpose of ommiting the word begotten from the many newer versions?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

So then why do you believe the bible if it contradict itself? Why believe in a God that would create evil? Better yet, I know God exists, so WHY DID HE CREATE EVIL? Why would God do something like this?

I think you said earlier in another post that God is not the author of confusion so why is He contradicting Himself and making things confusing for us.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Yes I have said God does not contradict himself neither are there contradictions in The Holy Bible (the original title mind you). Did you read the meanings of the Hebrew words Shalowm' and Ra' I posted? They agree with what you are saying I didn't deny that. I never said those translations were in error. Peace (shalowm) here means just that, peace, that all encompassing peace the God of Israel gives everything shalowm can mean (see above).

God is referring to evil (ra') as in the sense of calamity. In other words if there is a earthquake, or a thunderstorm and massive amounts of damage is done God is says I take full responsibilty for it.

This is very striking in light of Persian beliefs and this is what God is refering to here. The Persian gods Ormazd their one true god and Ahriman. Ormazd the god of light the other the spirit of darkness. One caused good things to happen and the other constant conflict and caused evil things to happen. But God contrasted his power to that of those idols the people turned to. Thats all thats being said here.

Im not in anyway suggesting some books are completly in error I have agreed with you on many things regarding the meaning of certain words. I found out the same you did after some reading, however I do disagree with the meaning of shalowm. But Im sure some of those delving in the prosperity gospel would disagree with me.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

This is the problem with words, you can say evil and calamity mean the same thing, I'll agree that you can stretch it to mean the same thing and say that evil does not speak of wickedness but calamity, disaster, destruction,etc. But in the English language especially today (but even back in 1611) evil means "evil" as in wicked, bad/harmful intentions, etc.

To say that they mean the same thing is really stretching things. It was an inaccurate or at the very least not as accurate as newer translations. The problem I have is people seem to think the KJV has absolutely not grounds or basis to prove that the KJV is 100% accurate and infallible. Something that even the translators themselves denied.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Isaiah was orginally written in Hebrew the Hebrew word used in that particular verse is ra'. I didn't make this up nor did I assign calamity to it as a new meaning. It's Hebrew and according to their language ra' can mean either, it depends what context it is being used. So what was God saying here? The persians believed two Gods were responsibile for good and evil things one against the other. God is boasting that it he and he alone not the false gods of Cyrus and the Persians.

I do understand what you are trying to say here God does not create evil (unless you're an extreme calvinist) but He is in control of all things it is He and He alone who rules His creation according to His will not that of false gods.

Those atheists and christian scolars can argur til the cows come home but this is what I believe God is trying to get across here.

Another thing I have heard before is in miiddle eastern countries this is how things are expressed. It is usually in extremes you either love or hate, something is either good and the other is evil. It's a cultural thing and considering the source of the scriptures it may be true. I haven't looked to much into though just scuttlebut.
Locked