Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

[John146]

that has 0 to do with when they left the garden

you folks just cannot admit to anything

I guess that would be catastrophic for y'all or something

there is absolutely NO reference to the time frame for when the devil had his conversation with Eve

babies take 9 months so it could easily have been 128 years

you just DO NOT KNOW

Amen....case closed

Just so you know, it was over 250 years before Satan perverted the KJV with the "updated" RV.

 

[John146]

sounds more like a Greek 'god' than God who is HOLY

God is Holy.

God does not tempt anyone. anymore than He tempted Eve

the Olde english you are reading has you quite confused

I grew up on the KJ and I am well read. I am familiar with the version and the expressions so they do not throw me off but sometimes I still have to look something up cause it is ARCHAIC

I did not say God tempts anyone with sin. I said that God is just. He destroys those who deny Him. See the examples I gave.

 

[preacher4truth]

There are million of people that walk about saying God is evil, created evil, and does evil; based off of the scripture that was mistranslated. I've heard it all my life, and still hear it daily in the chats. That's the point, since we are talking about the KJV!

No one here is saying that, but you're asserting this is what the texts say. They don't. Exegetical rendering is needful, not defense mechanisms as evil and calamity can be interchangeable terms. And who says we need to truncate God to soothe others consciences anyhow? (NOT saying you are saying to do or are doing that yourself, it's just a point.)

And you're being a tad disingenuous. Your posts show this to be true brother. I think you need to take a more apologetic and polemic angle.

Why not argue against, say, the post I made (#300) that sheds some light (hopefully) on this issue instead of beating on that same old straw man? Perhaps it could serve to help us understand this whole thing in its big picture instead of limiting it to the subjectivity of emotion.

 

[Epiales]

No one here is saying that, but you're asserting this is what the texts say. They don't. Exegetical rendering is needful, not defense mechanisms as evil and calamity can be interchangeable terms. And who says we need to truncate God to soothe others consciences anyhow? (NOT saying you are saying to do or are doing that yourself, it's just a point.)

And you're being a tad disingenuous. Your posts show this to be true brother. I think you need to take a more apologetic and polemic angle.

Why not argue against, say, the post I made (#300) that sheds some light (hopefully) on this issue instead of beating on that same old straw man? Perhaps it could serve to help us understand this whole thing in its big picture instead of limiting it to the subjectivity of emotion.

The thread is about the KJV, and so I pointed out translation errors in it. That's what I"m debating. And the evil reference is in reference to just that... I'm not discussing whether or not God created evil, but pointing out in scripture why people say God created evil; based on a poor translation of the scripture. Not being disingenuous, but real.

 

[John146]

There are million of people that walk about saying God is evil, created evil, and does evil; based off of the scripture that was mistranslated. I've heard it all my life, and still hear it daily in the chats. That's the point, since we are talking about the KJV!

Actually, the definition you are using is a mistranslated definition to fit the KJV. By definition, using the KJV, evil is the opposite of good. God can do good or evil depending upon man's response to His word.

 

[John146]

The thread is about the KJV, and so I pointed out translation errors in it. That's what I"m debating. And the evil reference is in reference to just that... I'm not discussing whether or not God created evil, but pointing out in scripture why people say God created evil; based on a poor translation of the scripture. Not being disingenuous, but real.

Instead of assuming that the KJV is wrong, you also would be much better served by merely looking up the word “evil” in any good English dictionary or like I said earlier, the Bible itself to learn more about his own native language. I have often found that simply learning a bit more about our own language goes a long way in clearing up many an alleged “error” in the King James Bible.

The various meanings of the word EVIL.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language defines evil in this way.

e·vil

ADJECTIVE:
e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. CAUSING RUIN, INJURY, OR PAIN; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future MISFORTUNE; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
NOUN:
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. THAT WHICH CAUSES HARM, MISFORTUNE, OR DESTRUCTION: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. SOMETHING THAT IS A CAUSE OR SOURCE OF SUFFERING, INJURY, OR DESTRUCTION: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

The KJV itself has variously translated the underlying Hebrew word as “evil, wickedness, affliction, mischief, troubles, harm, adversity, sorrow, bad, ill and distress."

The NASB has translated this same word as “evil (136 times), bad, deadly, great, harm, miserable, misfortune, sore, trouble, ugly, wild, disaster and wretched”.

Likewise the NIV translates it as: “evil (190 times), wicked (24 times) bad, wrong, trouble, disaster, malice, wild, ugly, deadly, painful, ruin, ferocious, grievous, terrible, harm, great, sorrows, severe, unjust, vile, worse and wretched.”

You should take note of the significant fact that none of these Bible versions translates this Hebrew word as SIN.

God does in fact create and bring EVIL upon this world, either for punishment, judgment or correction.

In the book of Job we read: “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive EVIL? (Job 2:10).

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Just so you know, it was over 250 years before Satan perverted the KJV with the "updated" RV.

well then you agree with Angela? takes years for the devil to do his dirty work?

well at least you admitted to that

however, 'news flash' the devil is not called the deceiver for nothing. he is still very succesful at what he does...leading even Christians by the nose

and this has 0 to do with the garden. just like your last response

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I did not say God tempts anyone with sin. I said that God is just. He destroys those who deny Him. See the examples I gave.

that is not what you said. this is what you said:

John146 said:
God is balanced, He's just. God can't be just unless He's balanced. If you're an enemy of God, He's quite terrible and can declare evil against you.

you said God declares evil. this is not a biblical concept

you are really aiding deception in your unbiblical declarations

I would hazard to guess your inability to understand OLDE English, as I already stated, hinders your understanding of what is written

and please note I am not calling anyone evil and you should stop declaring God dispenses evil

the only way God could deliver evil, would be if He was the One tempting and then snickering when someone falls for the temptation

again, God is Holy and holy in ALL that He does. perhaps study the attributes of God for a better understanding

 

[John146]

well then you agree with Angela? takes years for the devil to do his dirty work?

well at least you admitted to that

however, 'news flash' the devil is not called the deceiver for nothing. he is still very succesful at what he does...leading even Christians by the nose

and this has 0 to do with the garden. just like your last response

Satan deceived Eve with his subtlety by perverting what God had said. Yes?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Satan deceived Eve with his subtlety by perverting what God had said. Yes?

listen...enough of your rabbit trails

the question was the length of time before the devil had his way in the garden

No one can answer that so quit the attempts

done with the question but of course you may continue in your efforts to subvert the actual answer

people can still read and see what transpired

btw, the devil still uses the exact same question today...'did God really say that? oh come one. you must have understood.'

he is a liar

 

[7seasrekeyed]

The issue here is bringing into question God's right to be the potter and us the clay. God does what He wants, when He wants, how He wants, and to whom He wants. We have nothing to say about that. If we believe God is evil, then something is wrong with us imo... To say God does evil, is to contradict, and thus deny, the scripture that says He is a Holy God!

When we have the entirety of the Word before us, and then cherry pick a scripture to say God is evil, then we are being carnal and fleshly. The GOD I serve Was not... Is not... Never will be.. "evil", and will never be the author of "evil".

KJV is just another translation, but it's NOT perfect, just as the others are not perfect.

amen!

 

[John146]

The thread is about the KJV, and so I pointed out translation errors in it. That's what I"m debating. And the evil reference is in reference to just that... I'm not discussing whether or not God created evil, but pointing out in scripture why people say God created evil; based on a poor translation of the scripture. Not being disingenuous, but real.

How are you defining evil? If God causes the earth to open up and swallow thousands of people, is that good or evil?

 

[Dino246]

Just so you know, it was over 250 years before Satan perverted the KJV with the "updated" RV.

What a ridiculous comment. The KJV is still the KJV. The RV is the RV.

 

[Endoscopy]

the NIV mistranslates "sarx" which just means flesh as "sin nature". Thats a mistranslation. I know they probably meant well in that, but its NOT what the word means.

Its also got some weird readings like "The only begotten God" in John 1.

I also dislike how they put in the footnotes "verses X Y and Z not in the most ancient manuscripts". Casting doubt on what its really saying. When I read that im thinking "Well, what else is not in the original manuscripts?". We all know what verses those would be, the ones that hit home.

I guess you can look at it another way and say they are being honest and transparent in the footnotes and not hiding information from the public.

KJV is superior to NIV imo. I like the fact it says the word HELL instead of Hades. You say hades to people and they think of hercules and greek mythology

All translations have issues in them. A group of translators are used in translating most of the time to help prevent most of the issues. They do their best but are human. The big issue with the KJV is it was translated 400 years ago. Language changes over time plus scientific knowledge of nature as well. Thus the following problems with KJV. As you were saying. Any comments on this evidence.
____________
Why do you keep using the now flawed KJV translation. The language and understanding of nature has changed over the 400 years since then. There are words that are no longer used. Do you know what a gold ouches is?


KJV Issues
Here is a list of problems with the KJV because of the 400 years of language and science understanding the things of nature.

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples
etc.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers:

Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
(looked up ouches and today we put br in front of it and change the u to o. Brooches.)

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(looked this up, it means the person is a man, NIV uses the word man)


KJV Issues sites

https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

https://newrepublic.com/article/107222/making-it-new

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm

http://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/kjva1.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/different-gospel.html

The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: An Interview with Mark Ward
Jonathan Petersen
March 13, 2018

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...pJobID=1362532267&spReportId=MTM2MjUzMjI2NwS2

 

[Locutus]

What a ridiculous comment. The KJV is still the KJV. The RV is the RV.

No it's not, the RV was updated with SUV.

 

[jaybird88]

First of all, is this rumor or fact?

Secondly, how exactly did that affect the proper translation of the Bible?

Lots of mainstream academics agree on it. Im sure there are some that say different.
It's offenseve to me as a Christian. If I was going to put someone personal name I would go with Jesus or James or one of the great prophets.

 

[John146]

KJV Issues
Here is a list of problems with the KJV because of the 400 years of language and science understanding the things of nature.

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples
etc.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers:

Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
(looked up ouches and today we put br in front of it and change the u to o. Brooches.)

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(looked this up, it means the person is a man, NIV uses the word man)

These are not issues in the KJV, they're issues you have with the words that are used. You should study those words. By the way, why didn't the new versions update the word "dung"?

 

[Endoscopy]

That's a VERY big "if". Since it is an unproven idea, you should not be basing anything on it.

It's also easily falsifiable. The KJV borrowed heavily from earlier English translations of Greek editions. If the text of the KJV is inspired, then the text of the prior edition(s) is inspired. An identical block of text cannot be inspired in one version and uninspired in another. So either these previous editions were also inspired, or none of them are.

Here's another postulate for you: If you learn to apply some simple logical tests to your assertions before posting, you will post fewer ridiculous arguments.

As any Christian should know only the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Judeo Greek are the inspired Word of God! All translations are subject to human error. To reduce that committees are formed to reduce mistranslation errors. Thus translations possibly have flaws. Translations need to made often because language changes happen all the time. There was a time when stink was a complement. Then odor took its place. More recently smell did but today it's an insult unless you put a qualifying phrase after it. Language is constantly changing!!

 

[preacher4truth]

The thread is about the KJV, and so I pointed out translation errors in it. That's what I"m debating. And the evil reference is in reference to just that... I'm not discussing whether or not God created evil, but pointing out in scripture why people say God created evil; based on a poor translation of the scripture. Not being disingenuous, but real.

You disagree with the answers found in Scripture, i.e. post #300 that details that God allows (actually creates) this (evil/calamity) and shows the usage of the term in other contexts.

It's easy to click disagree, but I would like to see you actually become an objective person and do this rather than see you travel along on subjective emotion: offer some actual exegesis or substance.

You've yet to offer any exegetical analysis or contextual evidence for your "disagreeing" position or anything to help understand the text(s) correctly. This would assist you with those whom you allegedly engage in said debate. If you're doing the same with them that you're doing here you're failing to provide anything substantial let alone offer a solid apologetic.

Have to say it: your entire premise is purely subjective and based upon emotion, not objective truth, that's just one reason you're disingenuous, brother.

 

[Endoscopy]

These are not issues in the KJV, they're issues you have with the words that are used. You should study those words. By the way, why didn't the new versions update the word "dung"?

You are an ludicrous. Without looking up the word on the internet give a reasonable meaning to that list of words. Dung today is still used but the words listed are not part of the current language. Tell us why we should have to use the internet to look up word no longer used when using a modern translation it is not an issue. Also where are the sytars today.

My smartphone is my Bible. I use biblegateway.com on the browser and look up book and chapter. Then I can quickly go between translations. I use mostly NIV, ESV, KJV and AMPC. I sometimes look at other ones as well.