Contradictions within the KJV

Olive Branch,

It (1 Cor 11:24) does not say broken bones - just a broken body.

The manuscripts differ here. The oldest ones say only, "to hyper humin" - literally something like,"which is (for) you". Later ones add various participle forms of "klao" which is used earlier in the verse and almost always means to break bread. The KVJ correctly translates its manuscripts - which probably do contain a scribal addition of a participle form.

But why would you call this a contradiction? There is no doctrinal contradiction, just a slightly different use of a word. We do this alot in English!

 

But when we directly quote something, we quote it properly. Jesus said he was breaking bread in remembrance of his body given, not breaking bread for his body being broken. The word for breaking bread is used twice in that verse. So, what it says, in actuality is He took bread, brake it, then said this is my body, bread that I brake for you.

 

Will you solve these problems on list of verses?

 

Sorry, my mind was on two thoughts there. The other thought was why break the bread as representing His body, if his bones were never broken. Scripture repeats itself on that, but does it ever refer to Him broken in any other way? I have heard numerous hymns refer to Him being broken, but I don't recall scripture, except in the breaking of bread.

 

A few points:

1) If tempt can mean different things either based either on multiple possible definitions of the term or based on the coloring of context, a contradiction cannot be proved. Scofield, and others doutless, feel this way. He takes the two senses to be "solicitation to do evil" and "testing under trial". He comments God does the second, but not the first.

2) I, however, don't think we should leap to resolve this apparent contradiction, but rather wallow in it a bit. James, IMO, is intentionally using an apparent contradiction to highlight a truth he is trying to teach us. It's true, it is always improper to try and blame God when one is tempted, for without our desire to sin, temptation could have no power over us. The real problem is our desire to do evil.

He's done similarly in other places, e.g. "ye see by works a man is justified".

I have no problems with apparent contradictions based on what God has actually said, they are always fruitful unto our edification. In fact some of the greatest truths of our faith are apparently contradictory (unity/persons of god, eternal election/whosoever will, equal excellence of justice and mercy, eternal security/falling from grace, etc). But adding in contradictions based on modern sensibilities ("merely" in 1Peter 3:3) or textual prejudices (the hard reading is to be preferred) is just foolish.

3) As far as the translators choice of 'kill', I think its the best translation. The problem with 'murder' is that it allows, in people's minds at least, any justified killing. So not only self defense and war are included (BTW and IMO prohibited to the NT Christian anyway), but also suicide and euthenasia and abortion and any other killing one personally can feel justified in. Using "kill" sets the general rule, allowing God himself to illustrate what exceptions are allowed/required.

Of course, one of the senses of "to kill" is "to murder". But "kill" is the better translation, since it better covers all the senses of the underlying hebrew term, while "murder" does not and therefore represents more of an interpretation than a translation.

The same basic hebrew term appears in this verse:

Num 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.

Obviously "murderer" is not meant here.

 

Abraham was TESTED.If people would quit trying to grasp for straws and READ,they would see that Abraham's "tempting" was a testing.
</font>[/QUOTE]If it *means* "testing," then why doesn't it *say* "testing?" The KJV has an unclear and confusing translation that creates an apparent contradiction.

 

Then why dont you correct all of the so called "errors"? and then we will FINALY have a perfect Bible.

Simple,No?

 

The problem is that you've got God excepting what is a divine law. Looking at the Hebrew (which I understand some KJVO's don't really like to do, apparently), we see that murder is a much, much better word for the Hebrew than kill. You've got a plain contradiction, which is further proof that the KJV is not infallible. It is a man-made translation.

Another of the senses is "killing in war" and "killing because God told me too." Murder is about as exact a term to the Hebrew as we have in the English, and every single Bible commentary and Hebrew dictionary I've seen has said such.

 

Then why dont you correct all of the so called "errors"? and then we will FINALY have a perfect Bible.

Simple,No? </font>[/QUOTE]Hey - that's what the different reprintings of the KJV were trying to do. Fix the errors of the 1611 version of the Bible.

Will we ever have a perfect Bible? Only when we find the original manuscripts. Even then, we will never have a perfect translation - there's no such thing.

 

The word still means murderer in this case. Look at the context.

 

"tempted with evil,"

This is the context of the James 1:13 passage.

"tempt" or "peirazo"
3985 peirazo {pi-rad'-zo}
Meaning: 1) to try whether a thing can be done 1a) to attempt, endeavour 2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself 2a) in a good sense 2b) in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments 2c) to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin 2c1) to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c1a) of the temptations of the devil 2d) after the OT usage 2d1) of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith 2d2) men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted 2d3) by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

Our English word "tempt" has a focused nuance toward sin.
The scope of this koine word is wider than our English word "tempt".
That is why James adds "with evil" because as others have indicated the object of "tempt-peirazo" is not always sin or evil but for good as well. The context determines the focused meaning.
IMO, it is proper to substitute "tempt-peirazo" with the English word "to test", "to prove" or "to try" if the original language syntax and context supports it.

John 6
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him-peirazo": for he himself knew what he would do.

There is a similar situation with the koine word epithumia which is often translated as "lust". In the following passage Jesus uses the word "epithumia"

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

for the two words "desire" and "desired".

"broken"
IMO, the obvious is that this is a figure of speech, metaphorical as in the psalms:

Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

HankD

 

The word still means murderer in this case. Look at the context.</font>[/QUOTE]Manslaughter is not murder. The hebrew word 'ratsach' can signify murdering, slaying, or killing. Limiting the scope of the word in translation IMO imposes an unwarranted interpretation on the text.

The ambiguity exists in the God breathed Hebrew, and the KJV. Another nice example of this is the KJV's handling of John 1:5.*

As often happens, the more people try to criticize the KJV translation the more its perfection shines through.

--

* IMO this is a major deficiency in paraphrases, all the God inspired ambiguity is gone.

 

You're using the KJV to define the Hebrew, instead of the other way around. Killing, according to the KJV, is outlawed. God tells the Israelites to kill verious times in the Bible. That is a blatant contradiction. If the word in Exodus 20 was more accurately translated as murder, we would have no contradiction. The KJV fails the test.

 

You're using the KJV to define the Hebrew, instead of the other way around.

I'm using the BDB Hebrew lexicon. What are you using?

Killing, according to the KJV, is outlawed.

And so it is according to the Hebrew. The Hebrew 'ratsach' includes the sense of a slaying for any reason in addition to murder, as does the English term 'kill'. It is a better translation than 'murder' for that very reason.

Are you following me?

tim: The ambiguity exists in the God breathed Hebrew, and the KJV.

scott: It's not ambiguity that appears in the KJV. It's downright wrong.

Scott, do you really want to argue with standard Hebrew and English dictionaries? If so, I'll leave you to it and excuse myself. But please understand if I prefer their opinions concerning word meaning over yours.

[ January 11, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

scott: God tells the Israelites to kill verious times in the Bible. That is a blatant contradiction.

Yes, and the word in question 'ratsach', the same used in the 6th commandment, is used.

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill(ratsach).

Num 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death(ratsach) by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill(ratsach) the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:

Have I demonstrated a blatant contradiction in the perfect word of God, Scott?

 

Then why dont you correct all of the so called "errors"? </font>[/QUOTE]That's not always necessary. The Geneva Bible already had a better translation of these two verses, one which was not confusing and did not create an apparent contradiction:

"And after these things God did prove Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham. Who answered, Here am I." (Gen. 22:1, Geneva Bible)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (Jas. 1:13, Geneva Bible)

But then the KJV "Bible correctors" came along and botched it up.

[ January 11, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

duplicate post

 

Here is an interesting anti-KJVO site:

http://www.signumcrucis.net/av1611.htm

It may be slow to load, it is picture intensive
cause it has several pictures of actual
different English Bibles preceding the KJV.