Translation ERROR in KJV bible.

[Cix]

Would any of you KJV onlyists care to explain why there is an obvious translation error in Matthew 23:24? And please don't say it's a misprint since misprints get corrected in later printings. Translation errors perpetuate into later printings.

Since there is an error in translation, and God does not make errors, doesn't this mean that the KJV is NOT inspired?

Cix
Straining AT gnats since 2003.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Cix:
Would any of you KJV onlyists care to explain why there is an obvious translation error in Matthew 23:24? And please don't say it's a misprint since misprints get corrected in later printings. Translation errors perpetuate into later printings.

Since there is an error in translation, and God does not make errors, doesn't this mean that the KJV is NOT inspired?

Cix
Straining AT gnats since 2003.

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

 

[Pastor KevinR]

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

 

[Dr. Bob]

Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (Anglican Version 1611)

Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (King James 1769 revision)

Inspired Greek text (literal English following)
odhgoi guides
tufloi blind
oi diulizontes the ones filtering out
ton kwnwpa the gnat
de but
thn kamhlon the camel
katapinontes swallowing

 

[Ransom]

anyhow the 1873 did correct it.

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

 

[David J]

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?

 

[Ransom]

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.

 

[Cix]

Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
I'm a former sect member...anyhow the 1873 did correct it.

Then in the tradition of the KJVonly position, the 1611 and all other versions other than the 1873 version is CORRUPT TEXT NO DOUBT BY THE HANDS OF THE EVIL ONE?

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

 

[David J]

Seems our KJVOist are running for the hills!

There is a strange KJVO silence yet again!

 

[Cix]

Originally posted by David J:
Seems our KJVOist are running for the hills!

There is a strange KJVO silence yet again!

They are all on the Final Authority before 1611 thread. I posed this same bible translation error over there and Michele said "I don't understand the verse". I'm still waiting for her explanation is on what "straining at gnats" is.

 

[natters]

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.

 

[Cix]

Originally posted by natters:
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.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Would any of you KJV onlyists care to explain why there is an obvious translation error in Matthew 23:24? And please don't say it's a misprint since misprints get corrected in later printings. Translation errors perpetuate into later printings.

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

 

[Cix]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
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.

You are assuming that this is a printing error. You do not know for sure. If it were a simple printing error it would have been corrected in later printings. Translation errors however would not be corrected in later printings.

 

[Cix]

King James Bible Defects

 

[Craigbythesea]

You are assuming that this is a printing error. You do not know for sure. If it were a simple printing error it would have been corrected in later printings. Translation errors however would not be corrected in later printings.

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.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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?

 

[Cix]

More errors abound:

#1 --- In Psalm 8:5 there is a very familiar quotation in the KJV: "For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels." The Hebrew word here is actually "Elohim" which means "gods." The KJV translators were aware of this fact, for they correctly translated this word in Psalm 138:1 --- "Before the gods will I sing praise unto thee."

#2 --- Genesis 12:19 reads, "Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife." The Hebrew text actually says, "I took her." By changing the verb tense, the KJV has also changed the meaning!

#3 --- Psalm 77:2 reads, "My sore ran in the night, and ceased not." This isn't even close to what the actual text says, which is: "At night I stretched out my untiring hands." Their mistranslation would almost be humorous if it were not so seriously flawed.

#4 --- In John 20:17 the KJV has Jesus saying to Mary, "Touch Me not." It seems He is here forbidding what He has elsewhere allowed (Matthew 28:9). However, the Greek word employed here actually means "to cling to." Jesus was not forbidding Mary to touch Him, but rather forbidding her to cling on to Him as if to prevent His departure --- a completely different concept.

#5 --- In Acts 5:30; 10:39 the KJV, in speaking of Jesus' death, reads, "Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." The word "and" is not in the Greek text, and by adding it to the text at this point in the verse it leads to some confusion on the part of the readers. The conjunction "and" indicates grammatically that one action followed another (i.e.: two separate actions independent of one another). Some unbelievers have tried to use this verse to demonstrate that Christ was killed first, and then His dead body was hung on a tree. By inserting the word "and," numerous complications have arisen which could have been prevented by a correct translation of the original text.

#6 --- In Romans 3:25 the KJV speaks of "the remission of sins." The Greek word actually refers to "passing over" sins, not the canceling or remitting of them. The KJV translators confused two similar Greek words here.

#7 --- II Corinthians 2:17 reads, "corrupt the Word of God" in the KJV. The Greek word actually means "peddle" the Word of God. It refers to men who proclaim the Good News only for what they can get from it; a "huckster."

#8 --- There are two errors in James 3:2 in the KJV: "For in many things we offend all." This should read, "For we all stumble in many ways." In the Greek, the "all" modifies "we," it is not the object of the verb's action. Also, the Greek word employed here means "to stumble," and does not mean "to offend" someone. The KJV translators made two major blunders in just one short phrase. By means of these errors, they have presented a teaching other than the one intended by the inspired writer.

#9 --- The Greek word agape (a self-sacrificial love) is used over 300 times in the New Testament writings. The KJV translates it "love" in most places. However, the KJV renders it "charity" in 26 different locations. Since "charity" conveys a different meaning today than it did in the 17th century, this has led to some confusion among readers. Some have assumed that "charitable acts of benevolence" are being referred to, rather than "love." Such could easily have been avoided by consistent translation of the word in the KJV.

 

[HankD]

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")...

we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest (very worst) translation of the Bible in English,... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues;... Saint Jerome, fountains... If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles.

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER

Preface to the King James Version 1611

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 ]