Translations Post # 3 – Full of Errors?
8 Comments so far
Leave a comment
May 9, 2008, 2:53 am
Filed under: Bible Study | Tags: Errors, Inspired, King James Bible, Preserved Word of God, Translations of the Bible
Filed under: Bible Study | Tags: Errors, Inspired, King James Bible, Preserved Word of God, Translations of the Bible
I appreciate everyone who has commented on this subject so far. As this study and discussion continues I would like to try to keep the posts seperate so that the content will be easy to keep up with and on subject. Keep the comments coming! Those of you who have yet to comment, this would be a good time for you to get in.
In this post I would like you to list anything that you would call an error in the King James Bible. If it was your purpose in life to convince someone that the KJV is not the preserved inspired Word of God (in English) what guns would you pull out? List what you would call specific errors. Also clarify the manuscript you are comparing it to.
8 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I am amazed at the number of people visiting this particular subject. It is crazy! Leave your comments for this post when you are finished researching.
Comment by Billy May 9, 2008 @ 6:08 pmThe 9 uses of unicorn in the KJV: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It us correctly translated as wild ox in others.
The use of Easter in Acts 12:4. Should be Passover.
The voice of the turtle in Song of Solomon 2:2. It should be turtledove.
The mention of the satyr in Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14. Should be wild goats.
I don’t want to take up space with an exhaustive list, but these are big ones.
Comment by Neal Pumphrey May 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pmThanks for your comments Neal.
I personally do not see the above (what you listed) as errors.
Unicorn:
A thorough investigation of the word “unicorn” would help one from running with the modern mystical idea of this extinct animal. This word is used 9 times in the KJV and is not translated otherwise. The Geneva Bible reads the same. It is easy to research earlier use of the word.
Easter:
First, “Easter” is not a ref. to the resurrection as we use the term today. It is a pagan festival with ancient roots. Second, the same translators that translated this word 28 times as “Passover” made the decision to translate Acts 12:4 as Easter. Why? Did they have a brain fart? Were they led by evil spirits in this one verse? Did they just want to place a clear error to prove what they were translating is not perfect? Or were they led by the Spirit of God to do so? Third, Herod was a Roman, a pagan, and Easter was celebrated in the same month as Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Fourth, Acts 12:3 says they were already in the days of unleavened bread. Passover always occurs (in Scripture not foot notes) before the days of Unleavened Bread.
Turtle:
The very first definition in the Oxford Dictionary is that of a turtle-dove. The reptile meaning is the second definition. This is because the Oxford, like Webster’s and many other dictionaries, arranges its definitions not according to the most common modern meanings first, but according to chronological development, that is to say the earliest meaning is presented first and later meanings appear in order of their historical appearance in the English language. The word in question, as we can see by the Oxford’s lexicon below, goes back to Old English, several hundred years before Shakespeare and the King James Bible [http://www.oed.com/].
“Turtle 1.
1. a. = TURTLE-DOVE 1. (Often mentioned as a type of conjugal affection and constancy: cf. 2.)
c1000 Ags. Ps. (Th.) lxxxiii[i]. 3 Him eac spedlice spearuwa hus begyte, and tidlice turtle nistla. c1000 Ags. Gosp. Luke ii. 24 Twa turtlan oe tween culfran briddas. c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 49 Turtle ne wile habbe no make bute on and after at non..e bitocninge at is imene turtlen and duues… Eier turtles and duues habbet sorinesse for song. c1200 ORMIN 7588 Tweenn cullfre briddess..Or..tween turrtless. 1382 WYCLIF Ps. lxxxiii. 4 [lxxxiv. 3] Forsothe the sparowe fonde to hym an hous; and the turtil a nest. c1400 tr. Secreta Secret., Gov. Lordsh. ciii. 104 Pytous as turtyll. 1483 CAXTON Gold. Leg. 373/2 Lyke a turtle that allone without make waylleth and wepeth. a1548 HALL Chron., Hen. VI 118 As louyng to him, as the Turtle to her make. 1611 SHAKES. Wint. T. IV. iv. 154 Your hand (my Perdita) so Turtles paire That neuer meane to part. 1670 G. H. Hist. Cardinals I. III. 91 A Mass is sung, and his Holiness presented with two young Turtles. 1713 STEELE Guard. No. 22. 2 [She] kept a pair of turtles cooing in her chamber. 1802 MONTAGU Ornith. Dict. s.v. Dove-turtle, The Turtle visits the southern parts of England in the spring. 1851 MAYHEW Lond. Labour (1861) III. 64 His pigeon-cote..is no longer stocked with carriers,..jacobins,..turtles. 1860 C. ROSSETTI O. & N. Year Ditties iii, Turtle calleth turtle in Heaven’s May.”
The reptilian definition did not appear in English literature until about 1657 and at that time the spelling differentiated it from the dove. The spelling of the two words eventually merged, but both meanings continued to exist side by side until some time after the 1860’s, and initially the reptilian word was largely restricted to use by sailors.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary of (1913) also defines “turtle” as turtle dove.
Satyr:
Comment by Billy May 13, 2008 @ 5:16 pmFrom even the modern Wikipedia:
In the King James Version of the Bible, Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14, the English word “satyr” is used to represent the Hebrew sh’lrlm, “hairy ones”. In Hebrew folklore, sh’lrlm are a type of demon or supernatural being which inhabits waste places. There is an allusion to the practice of sacrificing to the sh’lrlm (often translated as “devils” ) in Leviticus 17:7. They correspond to the “shaggy demon of the mountain-pass” (azabb al-akaba) of old Arab legend.
Some have made the claim that the word “baptize” is an error because it was transliterated.
The newer versions seem to like the “error” too. I don’t believe it was an error for the following reason. Since baptism is not just any kind of dipping or immersion, God chose transliteration of the word as a special use to describe the scriptural teaching of baptism. Honestly, John the dipper just doesn’t sound right even in modern language. This word causes no problems today, only the people that refuse its literal meaning.
Comment by Billy May 13, 2008 @ 5:24 pmBilly,
I really have no desire to convince anyone that the KJV is not a good translation. I just happen to prefer other literal versions like the NASB. You know me, I can’t have any unicorns up in my stuff.
Comment by Neal Pumphrey May 13, 2008 @ 6:11 pmI understand that Neal. That has never been my purpose either. Keep the comments coming on this post! This is an ongoing subject that obviously many are interested in.
Comment by Billy May 14, 2008 @ 2:41 amNeal,
Are you comfortable using a translation that puts Acts 8:37 (profession of faith as a prerequisite of baptism) in brackets? Serious question, brother.
Comment by younglandmarker May 15, 2008 @ 3:43 amIf it is not in the majority of manuscripts or early manuscripts, then I have no problem. There are plenty of other verses that teach the same thing. I would never lead someone else to have doubts, but I personally have no problem.
Comment by Neal Pumphrey May 15, 2008 @ 11:58 am