Translation ERROR in KJV bible.

This is the way this works,first you post the error THEN you make smart remarks.

 

I'm a former sect member...anyhow the 1873 did correct it.

 

anyhow the 1873 did correct it.

Only took God 262 years to spot the mistake, too.

 

Remember that KJV errors are advanced revelations!

Here is another error:

Deut. 8:9,"A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass." KJV

Brass?

 

Yes, a land renowned for its brass and 316 stainless steel mines, yea, and plywood trees; verily, it runneth over with vodka and refined glucose.

 

Matthew 23:24 (KJV1873):
Ye blind guides, which strain out a
gnat and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:24 (nKJV1982)):
Ye blind guides, which strain out a
gnat and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:24 (KJ21,1994)
(The Millinnium Bible)(New Authorized Version):
Ye blind guides, who strain out a
gnat and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:24 (TMB,NAV 1988)
(21st Century King James Version):
Ye blind guides, who strain out a
gnat and swallow a camel.

The KJ21 and TMB both claim to be translated
from the KJV. The KJVO movement has made
a terrible mistake and this points it out.
The KJVO can never change from the KJV1769.
They have no mechanism. As long as the Lord tarries,
the KJV1769 will get farther and farther from
being the truth that English speakers can understand.

So not only do KJVOs mock my Bible, they
are strangling off their own KJB

 

Seems our KJVOist are running for the hills!

There is a strange KJVO silence yet again!

 

Cix said "I'm still waiting for her explanation is on what "straining at gnats" is."

Maybe 2000 years ago, gnats were very very heavy.

 

There is no translation error in Matthew 23:24. The word "at" should read "out." However, this printing error has been retained in most printings, perhaps originally for reasons of euphony, and then for the sake of familiarity.

The Geneva Bible reads here,

“Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell. “


Mat 23:24 -
Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. – This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense. Indeed, it is likely to have been at first an error of the press, At for Out, which, on examination, I find escaped in the edition of 1611, and has been regularly continued since. There is now before me, “The Newe Testament, (both in Englyshe and in Laten), of Mayster Erasmus translacion, imprynted by Wyllyam Powell, dwellynge in Flete strete: the yere of our Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edwd. VI). moste gracious reygne.” in which the verse stands thus: “Ye blinde gides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammel.” It is the same also in Edmund Becke’s Bible, printed in London 1549, and in several others. - Clensynge a gnatte. - MS. Eng. Bib. So Wickliff. Similar to this is the following Arabic proverb: He eats an elephant and is choked by a gnat.
Albert Barnes

 

Printing errors of this kind were very common in the early printings of the KJV. We have, however, no examples in the KJV of such a ridiculous translation error. Even Tyndale got it right.

And the Catholic Rheims translation of 1582 reads,

Mat 23:24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

The ONLY reason for thinking that this is a translation error rather than a printing error is that the error has been retained in most printings at the discretion of the printers. There is absolutely no evidence that this is a translation error, and an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is not.

 

Not all of the printing errors in the KJV have been corrected. For example, in Matt. 4:2 we find very many printing errors in various printings of the KJV. A quick look at the King James Bibles in my home library produced the following results:

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different printings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.


By the way, do you know which is the correct printing?

 

Personally I prefer the word "flaws" or "blemishes" over "errors" because the KJV is a translation of the Word of God although I have probably used this language myself.

We are falling into the hands of the evil one and his wiles.

Whether we know it or not when we use this kind of terminology we become like the KJVO who IMO denigrate the Word of God (the original language texts) because the general web surfing population 1) hear the word of God maligned by the KJVO when they pour contempt on the NIV, NASB, etc, then 2) they hear us digging up "errors" in the KJV to show the KJVO these human blemishes in the KJV.

So, first the KJVO invade a website such as the BB where all sorts of visitors browse and hear the Modern Versions (which they have no problem understanding) visciously attacked and called "satanic counterfeits" claiming the KJV as the Only "pure words of God" in the English language, then unwittingly we respond to show that the KJV is a translation of the Word of God and as such contains human blemishes as do the Modern Versions.

In the final analysis we are being duped to do the will of the evil one if we are not careful in how we present our case.

To all our visitors: the KJV translators themselves had this to say concerning their work, notice also that they identified "the Scriptures" as the original language texts of Greek and Hebrew (with an upper-case "S")...

All the works of sinful men are flawed as the KJV translators admitted and proved by their violence (the king and his "bishops") towards the dissenters and baptists and two centuries of refinements with some issues still unresolved.

Though I disagree with the Wescott and Hort theories, personally I place the greater blame on the KJVO because the strife and division insult and innuendo with accusations against the brethren does not start until these self appointed "defenders" arrive.

The true issue is the manuscript families and their scribal trustworthiness or the lack thereof and not an invasion of accusations and innuendo.

HankD

[ August 21, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]