The imperfect King James Bible

[FSSL]

Barry, it really gets wearisome correcting your misguided accusations. I didn't say, "'ALL' of the extant mss have errors and weaknesses" as you falsely state, why you even quoted my exact words and then turned around and twisted what I said.  I said, "All extant original language compilations have every weakness that you allege translations have - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men." I defined the weaknesses - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men. You presume that anything "fallible men" do must have "errors" in them, I don't.

What is wearisome is your vagueness and inability to cogently, succinctly and accurately express your own thoughts. Here we have you arguing in favor of Potatos while denying Potatos.

You presume that anything "fallible men" do must have "errors" in them, I don't.

The KJV has multiple editions. They cannot all be without error.

You have obfuscated definitions (I am not the only one who noticed) and I feel like I am Alice chasing a rabbit in the midst of a hookah cloud!

 

[Mitex]

...
Anyone that claims to be able to interpret the Scriptures without a knowledge and working understanding of the original languages or Golden Pipes (common definition is meant) is not in agreement with the translators of our Common English Bible. Miles Smith referred to the Golden Pipes, by which he meant the original languages.

It is ridiculous in the extreme to claim to be a Bible translator and not use Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the original sources for your translation.

The Douay-Rheims would be more to the liking of some, I would think, as it was translated not from the Golden Pipes, but from the Vulgate.

I believe you have jumped the gun in your assessment. For one, I personally don't claim to be a Bible translator, certainly not at the level of the AV translators, Tyndale, Luther, or those of the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.; nor do I claim to know Hebrew and Greek. The Polish Bible was already translated adequately from the Golden Pipes into the then current Polish in 1632. Since that time the Polish language has changed dramatically and therefore the archaic syntax and grammatical structures needed to be updated. Our project team has never made the claim to be doing a new translation, but rather a linguistic update of the already translated Gdansk Bible. As a Gospel preacher it was never my intention to get involved in such a project as this, but here I am doing the best I can with the abilities that God Almighty has given me. Thankfully, there are others much more gifted than I that are also working on this project.

I disagree with the idea that the common man needs to know Hebrew and Greek in order to correctly interpret the Bible. I further believe that the Bible - the Scriptures - are not limited to the originals. The Scriptures, as defined by the Scriptures - in any edition, are rarely, if ever, a reference to the originals - the autographs. Noble translators and genuine scholars down through the ages have stated that the very meanest translation of the Bible containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace.

Now, would you care to weigh in on the current debate? Namely, can a translator accurately and validly translate two word in a source text with one and the same word in the target language? Did not the Apostle himself inform us that Jesus said the same thing despite the presence of two different words in the Greek? Furthermore, would you side with the current antagonist in the assertion that every translator in history "mistranslated" So 7:2? I call that arrogance, how about you?

 

[Mitex]

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

Is it your contention that if a word is used literally in one place, then it can't be used as a euphemism in another?  If so, where did you learn this rule?

No it is not. Is it you contention that all the translators in history were too squeamish (imagine Luther being squeamish) to correctly translate the Hebrew? That each and every one of them made "a mistake in translation" in So 7:2?

 

[Mitex]

...

You presume that anything "fallible men" do must have "errors" in them, I don't.

The KJV has multiple editions. They cannot all be without error.

You have obfuscated definitions (I am not the only one who noticed) and I feel like I am Alice chasing a rabbit in the midst of a hookah cloud!

You avoided the argument. It is an erroneous presumption on your part to presume that anything "fallible men" do must have "errors" in it and that no translation can be without error.

Multiple editions are not proof of error, as you erroneously suggest. There are multiple Gospels, multiple editions of the 10 Commandments, multiple words used for one word that Jesus spoke originally. You and Alice can keep on chasing your rabbit, but the these facts remains constant:

• It is not an error to translate multiple words in the source language with one word in the target language.
  
• It is not an error to translate one word in the source language with multiple words in the target language.
  
• All translations do not, nor must they, contain errors. This is not to say that all translations are without errors.
  
• It is indeed arrogant to say that all the translators in history made "a mistake" in translation in So 7:2
  

 

[bgwilkinson]

Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, butall translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.

Huh.

Episiotomy

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

Circumcision of females

This practice is found in Africa and the Mid East from the times of Abraham.

It is practiced on infants as well as older girls.

 

[FSSL]

You avoided the argument. It is a erroneous presumption on your part to presume that anything "fallible men" do must have "errors" in it and that no translation can be without error.

Hey! If you believe man is able to develop an error-free translation of 785,000+ words... I will let you continue in that delusion.

Multiple editions are not proof of error, as you erroneously suggest.

Ummm.... the fact that the editions exist because there were errors is proof that you are spinning a silly tale.

There are multiple Gospels, multiple editions of the 10 Commandments, multiple words used for one word that Jesus spoke originally.

You just cannot stay on track, can you?!

It is indeed arrogant to say that all the translators in history made "a mistake" in translation in So 7:2

Where did I say this? If that is arrogant, then praytell, why do you get rid of "Easter" in your new update?

 

[Mitex]

Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, butall translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.

Huh.

Episiotomy

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

Circumcision of females

This practice is found in Africa and the Mid East from the times of Abraham.

It is practiced on infants as well as older girls.

You are right and I stand corrected. Thank you. However, my point wasn't so much about the possibility of episiotomy, or now female circumcision, as it was the context of Ezekiel 16:4, which as Prophet correctly stated, "the picture is an abandoned new born, thrown out in the wilderness with the placenta still attached, and the post natal goo still covering it and as rsc2a's own source states, "But the only other place the Hebrew word occurs (Ezek 16:4), its only possible meaning is 'navel' or 'umbilical cord'" and even Barry stated, "the word is transliterated as 'shor' and it can mean 'navel/umbilical cord.'". Rsc2a accuses all the translators in history of "deliberately mistranslating" the Hebrew word in question. Do you agree or disagree? Even the use of euphemisms or idioms cannot rightly be called a "deliberate mistranslation", surely, you can understand this.

 

[rsc2a]

One could wonder why Mitex is avoiding the comments below (actually the entire post) but I think the reason is pretty obvious to everyone else observing.

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Mitex]No, it is based upon the text of Scripture as found in any standard Bible in any language including Greek. John told us that Jesus said the same thing three times despite the use of different words in the extant, but non-original Greek...

...This is the second time you asked the same question, shall we try for a third to make a point? The Standard Bible is not a sectarian Bible, such as the JW edition, it is not Wesley's, Darby's, Weymouth's or Verkuyl's (Berkely) no matter how well they are or are not translated. The Standard Bible is the Bible recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any given language. The AV is certainly one such Standard Bible. Sorry, if I intruded into your opportunity to ask the same question "the third time", but you no doubt caught my drift despite the intrusion.

And where there are differences?

*crickets*

Hmm. Did I miss something? Is the question, what about the differences in Standard Bibles recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any major language group? Despite the over zealousness of wild-eyed wanna-be-scholars in love with their recently compiled Greek NT and their counterpart wild-eyed KJV English Onlyists in love with their most recently published English edition, differences do not always, nor must they, constitute error. Things different can indeed be the same. This should not be construed to mean that all things different are the same.[/quote]

You have a very unfortunate translation of one of the ten commandments(!) in the KJV. This is corrected in later translations.

If you read the KJV, you'll find where you could mine "brass" out of the hills. Newer translations correctly state that you could mine "copper" out of the hills. Now I'm not metallurgist, but I know that brass and copper are different things.

Acts refers to "Easter" in one passage where the later translations correctly refer to this as Passover. In spite of their shared dates on the calendar, these are not the same observances. Again....different things in different translations.

Of course, this doesn't even address the wording in the KJV where the same words mean completely different things in modern English.

(Of course, this isn't to say that the newer translations are without error either.)[/quote]

 

[Ransom]

Is it you contention that all the translators in history were too squeamish (imagine Luther being squeamish) to correctly translate the Hebrew? That each and every one of them made "a mistake in translation" in So 7:2?

Are you able to explain the Hebrew word translated "navel" and exegete Song 7:2, without resorting to a 19th-century Hebrew lexicon like Strong's?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

Is it your contention that if a word is used literally in one place, then it can't be used as a euphemism in another?  If so, where did you learn this rule?

No it is not. Is it you contention that all the translators in history were too squeamish (imagine Luther being squeamish) to correctly translate the Hebrew? That each and every one of them made "a mistake in translation" in So 7:2?

There are some places that translators have indeed bowed to the sensitivities of the prospective reader.

Gal 5:12 "I would they were even cut off which trouble you."

This reading is basically what you find in the Vulgate.

It was followed in most Bibles that are based on the Vulgate which of course was the common Bible of all religious professionals during the early days of modern translations.

Now the clear meaning is covered and obscured in this rendering.

Is it an incorrect rendering?

No, but it is not clear and if it would not have been so sexual in nature it would have been translated using the word castrated instead. Removal of the male genitals.

Paul wanted them to go beyond circumcision all the way to castration.

The ESV uses the word emasculate which of course is the same as castrate.

It is clear from the context that Paul has in mind the removal of the private parts of his opponents.

While cut off is ok, emasculate or castrate gives a plain and unobscured rendering of what Paul had in mind for those of the Circumcision Party.

In keeping with the OP IMHO this illustrates a weak translation certainly not a perfect one.

 

[rsc2a]

Couple that with the fact that theologians have nearly always tried to allegorize SoS because of the subject matter....

 

[bgwilkinson]

One could wonder why Mitex is avoiding the comments below (actually the entire post) but I think the reason is pretty obvious to everyone else observing.

Because, in his Polish update, he rejects the KJV error of Easter.

He does see imperfections but will not admit them. That would be admitting a double standard.

Gdanska has wielkanocy  How could he change it?

How do you think that will go over with all those people in Poland who have wielkanocy eggs and wielkanocy bunnies? Just think of all those wielkanocy chicks.

updated Gdanska has Paschy. Now that's more like it.

Geneva has Passeouer.

Vulgate has Pascha.

Reina Velara Gomez has pascua.

Mom's Swedish Bible has påsken.

Dad's Luther Bible has Ostern. (Easter) Guess Luther liked the Ostern bunnies and chicks.

NIV has Passover.

I think most Bibles have Passover and did not follow the quirky Anglican Translators.

I guess we could blame King James as he commanded the Translators to use the Ecclesiastical words such as church instead of the correct translation of congregation, as Tyndale had that got him murdered.

If you were working under pain of death you would translate it as the king wanted, too, or move to France or Geneva.

All he had to say was, "remember what happened to Tyndale".

 

[prophet]

Total non-sequiter: b.g.wilk. Did you choose your moniker because you thought that the SDA invented KJO?

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

Total non-sequiter: b.g.wilk. Did you choose your moniker because you thought that the SDA invented KJO?

Anishinaabe

What is a non-sequiter? What does not follow? Seems to me this is right with the OP on imperfect King James Bible.

I do not think SDA invented one version onlyism. SDA started with Mr. Miller in 1844.

He reminds me of Mr Harold Camping the founder of the radio network.

Onlyism has a history extending back hundreds of years.

IMHO, I believe the Catholics invented it. They sure showed Tyndale what for.

The Catholics sure did murder a lot of people.

You may be able to show it goes back to the Jewish Greeks with LXX onlyism.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is another error in the KJV. Hat tip to the NET Bible.

1Sam 13:21 Word translated file is the Heb word PIM.
This word, which appears only here in the OT, probably refers to a stone weight. Stones marked ~yPi (pim) have been found in excavations of Palestinian sites. The average weight of such stones is 0.268 ounces, which is equivalent to about two-thirds of a shekel. This probably refers to the price charged by the Philistines for the services listed. See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 238; DNWSI 2:910; and G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, 259.

If you are using the Old Strongs as your Heb dictionary you would have no way to know this.

NKJV uses PIM instead of file.

Link to more info.  http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c4/c4j.htm

 

[bgwilkinson]

Someone asked me. Why don't you find errors in the NIV or NKJV? You always seem to be picking on the KJV.

Here is the answer. I would find the errors in any translation that is being held up as an object of idol worship. Where people pray in the name of the KJV and use it as a magic religious amulet.

Do you know of any NIV onlyists?

Do you know of a HCSB onlyist?

How about a NASB onlyist?

Now I know that there are Douay-Rheims onlyists. If they posted here I would be glad to point out the errors in the Douay-Rheims.  It sure is an obscure translation. But it is the Word of God. Just obscure.

No one of that persuasion has posted here as of yet to my knowledge.
There were whole Books written in the 1500s pointing out the errors of the Rheims NT.

The errors of the NWT from the JWs are well known.

 

[Mitex]

One could wonder why Mitex is avoiding the comments below (actually the entire post) but I think the reason is pretty obvious to everyone else observing.

Because, in his Polish update, he rejects the KJV error of Easter.

He does see imperfections but will not admit them. That would be admitting a double standard.

No one accuses the Bible, the Scriptures, (that's what Barry calls the KJV) of error was it? Once again, archaic words are not proof of error or imperfections. The perfection of Scripture is not limited or tainted by the use of archaic words. Easter as found in Acts 12:4 is archaic for passover. Tyndale, Bishops and many old Bibles used the word Easter or its equivalent. The old Polish Bible used the word wielkanoc, which literally means, "Great Night" a great word indeed! Unfortunately with the passage of time it came to mean Easter and no longer has the common meaning of "Great Night" or Passover.

I certainly do not, nor have I "rejected the word Easter" as found in the English Authorized Version. I just happen to know that it is an archaic word. Again, not an error, not proof of imperfection of the Scriptures, but simply an archaic word which means passover. See the context.

 

[Mitex]

Someone asked me. Why don't you find errors in the NIV or NKJV? You always seem to be picking on the KJV.

Here is the answer. I would find the errors in any translation that is being held up as an object of idol worship. Where people pray in the name of the KJV and use it as a magic religious amulet.

Skeptics, unbelievers and Islamists, etc. make it a habit of "finding errors in the Bible". They do so because they don't believe the Bible. Makes me wonder why those professing Christians on this board make it a habit of "finding errors in their English Bible."

The only people that I know that make their Bible into an idol are Roman Catholics and they happen to do so with modern Critical Text Bibles. That is they set up a literal altar with candles and such and bow down before their modern Critical text Bible to pray and worship. I don't know of anyone who makes the KJV an "object of idol worship", nor do I know of anyone who "prays in the name of the KJV" or uses it as a "magic religious amulet". Certainly not anyone that posts on this board. Such outlandish comments betray the character of your argumentation.

Do you know of any NIV onlyists?

Telling.

Do you know of a HCSB onlyist?

Interesting.

How about a NASB onlyist?

So.

Now I know that there are Douay-Rheims onlyists. If they posted here I would be glad to point out the errors in the Douay-Rheims.  It sure is an obscure translation. But it is the Word of God. Just obscure.

"It is the Word of God" with errors. Interesting confession. The word of God, the Scriptures, are by definition without error.

No one of that persuasion has posted here as of yet to my knowledge.
There were whole Books written in the 1500s pointing out the errors of the Rheims NT.

Irrelevant, but interesting.

The errors of the NWT from the JWs are well known.

Why I thought you boys believed that a multitude of translations benefit the reader and that the very worst translations into our vernacular are good for the reader. You aren't now telling me that you actually reject some translations? That you limit yourselves to a certain number of translations - why that would make you an "onlyist" of sorts. Surely you don't limit the perfection of Scripture to the original languages recently compiled by fallible men using the ever changing axioms of the textual critical art-form? Why, that would make you an "Onlylist"!

 

[Mitex]

Is it your contention that all the translators in history were too squeamish (imagine Luther being squeamish) to correctly translate the Hebrew? That each and every one of them made "a mistake in translation" in So 7:2?

Are you able to explain the Hebrew word translated "navel" and exegete Song 7:2, without resorting to a 19th-century Hebrew lexicon like Strong's?

Are you going to answer the questions? Is it your contention that all the translators in history mistranslated Song 7:2? Is it your contention that when translators use an euphemism that it is proof of mistranslation? If so, what was all that blather years ago about pisseth against the wall (1Kings 21:21) and "do count them but dung" Phil 3:8.

Now as to your question, I don't make it a habit of going around trying to explain Hebrew words, not being proficient in Hebrew. I do my best to explain the Bible in the languages that I do know - English, Spanish and Polish. But I suppose I can do as well as the common plowboy of our day and certainly as well as you could, unless of course you are much more intelligent than I am. I'm not sure how any non-native Hebrew speaker could explain a Hebrew word without the use of lexicons - 19th century or otherwise.

In reference to the verse in question, I noted that in all the translations that I could find genuine Hebrew scholars translated the underlying Hebrew word as "navel" in direct contradiction to our resident wanna-be scholar who insists that all the genuine scholars erred, excuse me, "made a mistake in translation". That is to say the translators of the Jewish Publication Society Bible looked at the Hebrew word and concluded that it would not be a mistake to translate it as "navel", as did the translators from such a diverse array of scholars on the committees of the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, HCSB, NKJV, Geneva, Bishop, Brenton's English LXXX, and a host of foreign language translations. I did take note that the ASV used the word "body" instead of navel.

I also noted by using an online lexicon, probably using Strong's numbering system, that the Hebrew word in question is a derivative of the same Hebrew word found in Ezekiel 16:4. Our resident critic of all translators and their translations own source stated that they were the same words. The word in Ezekiel is CLEARLY - navel! I diligently read Gill, Barnes, Wesley, Clarke, Wycliffe, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Darby, Hawker, etc. to find any inkling of our resident critics interpretation and came up with nothing, zero, nada. He finally gave a link to some German commentary that gave his preferred interpretation, but even that commentator stated directly that the same Hebrew word was found in Ezekiel 16:4 is clearly NAVEL!

So, once again, the arrogant criticism of our English Scriptures goes unfounded. It is simply his arrogant subjective conjecture that "navel" was a translational mistake do to the squeamishness of ALL translators in history.

 

[Mitex]

I certainly do not, nor have I "rejected the word Easter" as found in the English Authorized Version. I just happen to know that it is an archaic word. Again, not an error, not proof of imperfection of the Scriptures, but simply an archaic word which means passover. See the context.

"Easter" is not an archaic word. It was the wrong word.

The KJV translators got the word "passover" right in two other passages.

The KJV revisionism you use is nonsense.

The Oxford English Dictionary (the BIG one) is considered the standard dictionary among scholars and plowboys alike. Admin blunders once again, I quote:

Easter, n.1
†2. The Jewish passover. Obs.
  971 Blickl. Hom. 67 Hælend cwom syx da¼um ær Iudea eastrum.  c1000 Ags. Gosp. Mark xiv. 1 Æfter twam da¼um wæron eastron.  1398 Trevisa Barth. De P.R. ix. xxxi. (1495) 366 Ester is callyd in Ebrewe Phase, that is passynge other passage.  1535 Coverdale Ezek. xlv. 21 Vpon ye xiiij. daye of the first moneth ye shal kepe Easter.  1563 Homilies ii. Whitsunday i. (1859) 453 Easter, a great, and solemne feast among the Jewes.  1611 Bible Acts xii. 4 Intending after Easter to bring him foorth. 
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition on CD-ROM, Oxford University Press

Care to retract your statement, sir?

The Saxon Gospels (1125), Tyndale (1525), Coverdale 1534, Matthew (1549), the Bishops 1568, etc. all use the word Easter, with different spellings of course, in translation of the Greek pascha.

I stand technically corrected as I stated that it was "archaic" when in fact it is obsolete - note the nuance!

Again archaic or obsolete words in this case are not errors, nor are they proof of imperfection.

Moderator note: This post was unintentionally modified by Scott. Fortunately someone else had quoted it in its entirety later, and so I was able to restore the original. The responsibility is entirely mine and not in response to any misbehaviour by Mitex. My apologies for the accidental vandalism. (The "quote" and "modify" icons are a little too close together!)