Compare Ezra 1:1-3a (above) and II Chronicles 36:22-23 (below) from KJV -- Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD ---------by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, that the word of the LORD [spoken] by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and [put it] also in writing, saying, and [put it] also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah. which [is] in Judah. Who [is there] among you of all his people? Who [is there] among you of all his people? --------- his God -be- with him, and let him go up The LORD his God [be] with him, and let him go up. Notice that in the first verse comparison the king's revisers felt compelled to insert the word "spoken" in II Chronicles but not in Ezra. Is "spoken" really neccessary here? Then the translators decided to use "fulfilled" in Ezra but "accomplished" in II Chronicles for the same Hebrew word kalah (Strong's #3615) which can be rendered in proper context variously as: accomplish, cease, consume, determine, end, fail, finish, or complete. In the second verse comparison there is a difference between "at" and "in" before the name of the Holy City. Also the phrases "the LORD God of heaven" and "all the kingdoms of the earth" are reversed with the words "hath" and "given me" deployed differently. In the thrid verse comparison notice that the translators indicate that they inserted the English word "be" (in print by italicizing but here as [brackets]) in II Chronicles but have "be" in just ordinary text in Ezra. Should "be" actually be there, or it should not be there? Examining the Hebrew to the best of my ability, I have found just 6 minor differences between the two passages. Three variations affect the spelling of the proper names of Jeremiah, and Cyrus (twice) which obviously are not reflected in the KJV translation. There is an isolated extra Hebrew character marking the end of II Chronicles 26:22 which seems to be untranslated. Another minor difference is a single letter altering the Hebrew word to mean either 'from-mouth-of' (Ezra) or 'in-mouth-of' (II Chr.), which in any case is not noticed in the KJV rendering of "by the mouth". The significant discrepancy is caused by the addition of a single letter to a Hebrew 3-letter word meaning 'he-shall-be' (untranslated in Ezra) to become the Tetragrammaton or 'yehweh' ("the LORD" in II Chronicles); could this explain why the KJV did not capitalize "his" the first word of the next sentence (following the question mark)? The word order is same in both passages, so there seems to be no justification for one of the renderings resulting in the reversing of the two phrases noticed in the second verse comparison (II Chronicles follows the preserved Hebrew word sequence).