Addressing KJV Errors

[JesusIsFaithful]

I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

StanJ, a poster of this forum, submitted a link to this site spouting KJV errors.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

May the Lord Jesus Christ help us address them with His wisdom.

When we compare the KJV of Acts 19:37 with the 1599 Geneva Bible, we see this.

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. ~ KJV

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which have neither committed sacrilege, neither do blaspheme your goddess. ~ 1599 Geneva Bible

We would wonder what sacrilege or the appearance of it that these saints were accused of.

Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. KJV

So to avoid the appearance of committing sacrilege within the temple of Diana in His words, the sacrilege was better defined as the accusation of being robbers of temple or churches.

The charge by the web site that it should be temple instead of churches...that can hardly be an offense when they mean the same thing. Is it that hard to read, let alone understand?

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

So the charge is frivolous at best for being an error.

Next.....

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

At this site provided by StanJ are supposedly the errors of the KJV.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The second charge at that site addresses the use of the word "Lucifer" as proof as an error of Isaiah 14:12

""O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) "

Although the application of Lucifer as referring that to be Satan's original name is an error, that is not what the KJV was doing. Lucifer is just a reference to Venus, the son of the morning. This use of the term Lucifer can alos be found side by side in comparison in the 1599 Geneva Bible with the KJV.

Isaiah 14:12 KJV;GNV - How art thou fallen from heaven, O - Bible Gateway

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! KJV

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O a]">[a]Lucifer, son of the morning? and cut down to the ground, which didst cast lots upon the nations? 1599 Geneva Bible

Look at the footnote in the 1599 Geneva Bible as provided.

"footnotes:

1. Isaiah 14:12 Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven: for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared. "

So the site accusing the KJV of using Lucifer as if applying it as reference to the devil is ludicrous. Was the 1599 Geneva Bible doing it for using the term, Lucifer, as referenced from the TR ? No. So neither was the KJV. It was the error of men in history that apply that verse having that name of Lucifer for Venus, taken out of context to use that as a reference to the devil when it never was.

It is obvious that the KJV is not guilty of inserting Lucifer into the Bible, but just because men have taken that solitary verse our of context to misapply it to be referring to the devil is not the fault of the KJV Bible nor the 1599 Geneva Bible, but of errant men misuse of that verse.

Next... God be willing...

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The next charge which is the third one which is the use of Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4 as shown at this site provided by StanJ.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

We look at comparing the 1599 Geneva Bible with the KJV and we find Passover in the 1599 Geneva Bible from the translation of the Greek word of the Chaldee origin ( not Hebrew origin ) of pasca.

Acts 12:4 KJV;GNV - And when he had apprehended him, he put - Bible Gateway

At least 60 men were involved in the translations for the KJV and they were all university graduates. They all had a familiarity with the ancients languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and many more. More on the translators at this link:

King James Bible Translators

They certainly had their 1599 Geneva Bible to refer from. So why Easter?

It is important to note when this arrest was made in Acts 12 which was during the days of the unleavened bread as stated in verse 3.

Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. KJV

Passover is one day. It is after Passover are the days of the unleavened bread in according to His words. So if Peter was taken during the days of the unleavened bread which was after Passover, then it cannot be Passover in the minds of the KJV translators when Herod was going to please the Jews.

Numbers 28:16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. 17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

The passover is NOT the feast of the seven days of the unleavened bread. The passover is a designated solitary day before the feast of the seven days of the unleavened bread.

You cannot call the seven days of the unleavened bread as the Passover. So what can you call it? The word "pasca" is of the Chaldee origin and not a Hebrew origin. The Hebrew original word for Passover is pecach. Not the same.

Whether or not the Greek have been using that word for other references cannot be determined at this time as some could allude to being a reference to some pagan holiday that King Herod was celebrating or a pagan holiday(s) that pagan citizens were celebrating or pasca could be just a reference to the time that includes Passover with the seven days of the unleavened bread without the confusion of just saying Passover when it is out of context of the time frame of what was happening in the Book of Acts.

But the KJV translators caught this misrepresentation of the Jewish Passover so as to mayhap silence the Jewish critics that there were errors in the New Testament because Passover comes before the days of the unleavened bread; not afterwards.

So the KJV has it right, and the 1599 Geneva Bible and all modern Bibles has it wrong for using the term Passover for pasca when they had placed Passover after the days of the unleavened bread.

I can see why Easter was put in there in place of Passover. Not sure why the majority of believers cannot see that. One has to really ask how all those translators would change something so significant that it was even in the 1599 Geneva Bible and yet they all agreed to have it changed.

That's why. It could not be the actual solitary day of the Passover when Peter was arrested during the seven days of the unleavened bread which was after Passover.

Next....God be willing....




https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+12:4&version=KJV;GNV

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

Charge # 4 regarding baptism at the site provided by StanJ at the link below;

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

The charge is as quoted below:

"immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it. "

You can read those verses at Bible Gateway as it is being compared with the 1599 Geneva Bible that it is not saying anything of the sort for this charge to be applied as such. It teaches to be baptize; it does not say immersion nor does it say sprinkling either. Just to be baptized.

Acts 2:38;22:16 KJV;GNV - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and - Bible Gateway

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ~ KJV

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ~ KJV

You can read those two verses yourself and see it does not jelly out any reference to immersion or implied sprinkling as the mode of water baptism. If you read those verses in any modern Bible, you can make the same ridiculous false charge that the modern Bibles jellied out immersion or implied sprinkling was the mode of water baptism, but it doesn't say that either. Just because that site says the KJV is in error, doesn't make it so, especially when all modern Bibles pretty much say the same thing. You can peruse Bible Gateway if you like to see it is not different in those verses.

The NASB, ESV, & NIV are at this link for comparison of those same verses which is hardly any different than the ones in the KJV posted above.

Acts 2:38;22:16 NASB;ESV;NIV - Peter said to them, “Repent, and each - Bible Gateway

Just an example that you really need to prove everything by Him when it comes to knocking the KJV down. Do not rest in the critics just because they made a web site and displaying that list as if you cannot reprove it as frivolous charges. And so far, all of the first four has been quite frivolous.

Next... God be willing...after lunch break... :)

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

To charge #5 at this site that was provided by StanJ on KJV error regarding Luke 18:12

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

" "all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase) "

Luke 18:12 KJV;GNV - I fast twice in the week, I give tithes - Bible Gateway

In comparison to the 1599 Geneva Bible, there is no difference at the link above.

Luke 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. KJV

Luke 18:12 I fast twice in the week: I give tithe of all that ever I possess. ~ 1599 Geneva Bible

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Let's look at the NASB, the ESV, and the NIV at the link below.

Luke 18:12 NASB;ESV;NIV - I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of - Bible Gateway

Basically, the 3 modern Bibles at that link say the same thing.

Luke 18:12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ ~ NASB

What is the difference between what you have in possession and what you have in receiving? It does not say earnings or anything like that for them to charge the KJV for claiming that tithing is on increase, and never on capital. All that I get is all that I possess. To make that charge to the KJV, then they have to cite the same charge to every other modern Bible for not being clear that tithing is on wages received; not on everything you get.

So do not let that site blow that out of proportion, because it is a frivolous charge to make towards all Bibles if they wanted to, but in fact, because it is a reference to tithes, the reader should understand what is meant in any of those Bibles that all that he has in possession, he has tithed from since he has tithed his earnings and from that tithed earnings ae his possession, and thus clarifying that he had tithed from all of his possession and all that he had gotten.

I could say pot calling kettle black, but there is nothing wrong with the KJV nor the 1599 Geneva Bible for having it that way nor is it wrong for the modern Bibles to have it the other way. The message is the same and the charge is false on all accounts.

Next... God be willing....

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

Next is the charge #6 at this site regarding the use of schoolmaster in Galatians 3:24 in the KJV whereas as quoted below of this charge;

" "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) "

We can see evidence of this charge being stretched unreasonably when we see the verses in the NASB, the ESV, and the NIV.

Galatians 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. ~ NASB

So what is the difference between schoolmaster and tutor? One thinks of tutor as a person but the Law is not a person. The Law is a schoolsystem where there is no compromises and so therefore the schoolmaster that teaches us. No big deal between the NASB & the KJV with the 599 Geneva Bible, but I prefer the KJV & the 1599 Geneva Bible rendition of schoolmaster better than using tutor in the NASB.

However...

Galatians 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. ~ ESV

Galatians 3:24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ~ NIV

I doubt guardian is anything that pertains to the Law in leading us to Christ. I have a problem with that word since it is so out of place with the message.

In any event, the charge of attendant being a better word than schoolmaster is erroneous. It is not a KJV made up word when the 1599 Geneva Bible has it too. The Law is hardly an attendant, but a ruler; a master; and in relation to the topic of leading us to Christ; schoolmaster.

It is far more reasonable to stretch using schoolmaster over attendant than the other way around. I know schoolmaster is a better word in getting the message across rather than using any other term in that message, but only Jesus can confirm that for you to know as well.

Next.. God be willing...

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

The next charge is #7 as stated below at the site above.

""May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) "

This was used against the KJV's use of " "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 "

At this link; the 1599 Geneva Bible has the same thing as the King James bible does of "God save the king". So it is not a KJV only inserted reference.

1 Samuel 10:24;2 Samuel 16:16;1 Kings 1:25 KJV;GNV - And Samuel said to all the people, See - Bible Gateway

The NASB, ESV, and NIV has the other rendition of "long live the king" as can be seen at this link.

1 Samuel 10:24;2 Samuel 16:16;1 Kings 1:25 NASB;ESV;NIV - Samuel said to all the people, “Do - Bible Gateway

So why God save the king?

We go to this site of Strong's Concordance to see the word where "save" was translated from chaya in Hebrew.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
" a primitive root (compare 'chavah' (2331), 'chayah' (2421)); to live, whether literally or figuratively; causatively, to revive:--keep (leave, make) alive, X certainly, give (promise) life, (let, suffer to) live, nourish up, preserve (alive), quicken, recover, repair, restore (to life), revive, (X God) save (alive, life, lives), X surely, be whole. :

So the word is testifying to an action towards the king, rather than what the king is doing. To keep in testimony:

1 Samuel 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king.

It is understood from what Samuel had stated, that the people were referring to God Whom had chosen him from Whom "save" was applied from to the king for.

You will see at that site, that God is not listed as having been translated from a word in Hebrew, but it is inferred by the message in the verse.

So God save the king is not a KJV only inserted word, and yet the Hebrew word that save was translated from is an action towards the king and not a state of the king. From the meaning of the message, it is inferred that God is the one that saves the king; keep alive the king; nourish up the king, preserve the king and keep the king as His chosen one. This was a testimony of their God towards their king.

I love that testimony of the Lord saving His chosen one continuously rather than something about wishing the king lives long. It is the truth whereas the other modern version is not really giving that whole testimony about God towards their king. In fact, there is no reference or even an inference to God by the people to their king in the modern day Bibles.

So I can see why God was inserted because that was what the people were actually inferring towards their king as a testimony of God & of their king.

Next....

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

Next is charge # 8 at the site above...as quoted below;

" "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) "

This was a charge on the KJV for using "God forbid" in these verses; Romans 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11;1 Corinthians 6:15;Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14

Romans 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11;1 Corinthians 6:15;Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 KJV;GNV - God forbid: yea, let God be true, but - Bible Gateway

Go ahead and look at that site at the link above where Biblegateway is comparing the KJV with the 1599 Geneva Bible to prove that this is not a KJV only rendering by the translators as if changing it from the scripture. The 1599 Geneva Bible has "God forbid" as well.

Go to this site below and click on the first 3 Greek words in verse 4 that is in blue mirroring that verse in English, and you will see a lot of implied terms as defined with God forbid in each of them.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

I am no Biblical scholar, but I am not sure how they got, "may it never be" out of those three words in Greek, but God forbid is listed in each of those three words.

All I know is that God forbid is in the 1599 Geneva Bible and so to accuse the KJV translators of translating it wrong is an erroneous & frivolous claim.

That site does protest way too much.

Next...

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

For the 9th charge against errors in the KJV from that site:

" "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) " for the KJV using sweet savour in Leviticus 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18

At this site below at Bible Gateway is the comparison of the KJV with the 1599 Geneva Bible as they both say the same thing, except savour in the KJV is spelled as savor in the 1599 Geneva Bible

Leviticus 6:21;8:28;17:6;23:18 KJV;GNV - In a pan it shall be made with oil; and - Bible Gateway

The charge is false because they attribute savour or savor to taste when it only refers to smell. Just because they say savor is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. Just because they say savour refers to taste, it doesn't mean it does. That is just another anti-KJV lie for propaganda sake.

Go to this site below...

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

Go to Leviticus 6th chapter and scroll down to verse 21 and click on the word in blue from which savour was translated from, and you should see this as defined from the Hebrew word of "reyach".

" from 'ruwach' (7306); odor (as if blown):--savour, scent, smell. "

The 1599 Geneva Bible has it and the KJV has it and the people at that time understood savour or savor to be referring to smell or scent or odor.

So that charge is not only frivolous, but also made up, just because they want savour to mean only taste. They can argue for using a better word for today, but they cannot say it is a wrong word.

Next....

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

The 10th charge against the KJV in error is stated below:

" "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes) " for 1 Kings 20:38

Let us look at the verse;

1 Kings 20:38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. KJV

Think about whether bandages over his eyes is the proper translation when he is disguising himself to wait for the king that is coming along the way. How would he know when the king has come? He is disguising himself to wait for the king when he comes along the way; and that is to say other people will be passing by on that road. He has to be able to see when the king comes. So ashes upon his face is far more credible in reality than bandages over his eyes.

We go to this site to see the Hebrew word "apher" to see this as defined;

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

"from the same as ''epher' (665) (in the sense of covering); a turban:--ashes."

If you click on the word "face" in that verse, you will see this definition from the Hebrew word "ayin" which is defined as :

"probably a primitive word; an eye (literally or figuratively); by analogy, a fountain (as the eye of the landscape):--affliction, outward appearance, + before, + think best, colour, conceit, + be content, countenance, + displease, eye((-brow), (-d), -sight), face, + favour, fountain, furrow (from the margin), X him, + humble, knowledge, look, (+ well), X me, open(-ly), + (not) please, presence, + regard, resemblance, sight, X thee, X them, + think, X us, well, X you(-rselves).

So eye may be one of the definition, but it is not the only one. And since we define the word by how it is used in the verse, then the prophet has to see the king he is waiting for on the wayside and can only disguise himself from the sight of the king by ashes.

How do we know that it is not a covering like a hoodie attached to the robe like Jesus wore in His day? Well, the prophet spoke to the king and face to face, would be the only way one could speak to the king. Reading on, we see he removes the ashes from his face.

1 Kings 20:41 And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets.

I would say that the prophet could not totally clean all the ashes off of his face which was why the king had to "discern" that it was indeed a prophet in recognizing him as one.

The word discern was translated from the Hebrew word "nakar" as it is defined below:

"a primitive root; properly, to scrutinize, i.e. look intently at; hence (with recognition implied), to acknowledge, be acquainted with, care for, respect, revere, or (with suspicion implied), to disregard, ignore, be strange toward, reject, resign, dissimulate (as if ignorant or disowning):--acknowledge, X could, deliver, discern, dissemble, estrange, feign self to be another, know, take knowledge (notice), perceive, regard, (have) respect, behave (make) self strange(-ly)."

So it could not just be a hoodie on a robe when all he would have to do is slid the hood off and be seen clearly which he was not. The king still had to scrutinized his face to make out that he was a prophet of what ashes the prophet had managed to take off.

Surely it could not be bandages over the eyes for the king to have a hard time seeing who it was. That would be like taking off dark sunglasses. One should be able to recognize the person right away if it was bandages over the eyes or a hoodie. So it has to be ashes on the face to be realistic since he was waiting for the king along the way to spot him.

Next and last charge at the site that I only care to address to show why you should not take everything at any christian site at face value.

Yes.. that includes what I share here at this site for you all to do your own homework with the Lord.

Onward... God be willing....

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

The last and 11th charge at this site ( as far as that first section goes, but this is the last one I shall address to show why we should prove everything at any christian site and not just take it at face value , including anything I share at this site in defending the KJV against exaggerated claims of errors. )

" These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation. "

The KJV was cited as using flagon in 2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3; Song of Solomon 2:5; Hosea 3:1

Comparing the KJV with the 1599 Geneva Bible, we see that the 1599 Geneva Bible uses bottles in place of flagons except in the Song of Solomon reference at this link below.

2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3;Song of Solomon 2:5;Hosea 3:1 KJV;GNV - And he dealt among all the people, even - Bible Gateway

If you read those verses, you can see that this is a false claim by that site when flagons or bottles are associated with wine. Some of those verses already mentioned cakes or bread which is to be followed by a drink of wine. So to say that cake or bread is to be followed by raisins cake is far fetched. I will try to see how they got such an erroneous perception by going to Hosea 3:1 since they seem to make that their strongest case.

From this site; we can see how they got that perception from its definition, but they are ignoring all of that definition.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

"feminine of ''ashiysh' (808); something closely pressed together, i.e. a cake of raisins or other comfits:--flagon.."

But if you click on wine to see the Hebrew word "enab" that wine was translated from...

"from an unused root probably meaning to bear fruit; a grape:--(ripe) grape, wine."

Not sure how they can get raisin cakes from that.

So we need to pay attention to the whole definition as "something closely pressed together, i.e. a cake of raisins or other comfits:--flagon.

Something that contains which was wine. I doubt cakes of raisins can contain wine.

So using flagons or bottles is the correct usage when it involves a container for wine to drink from.

At this site is the NASB, the ESV, and the NIV using cakes of raisin instead of bottles of wine, thus using one of the definitions listed above of the Hebrew word " 'ashiyshah " at the expense of ignoring the other Hebrew word of "enab" for wine.

2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3;Song of Solomon 2:5;Hosea 3:1 NASB;ESV;NIV - Further, he distributed to all the - Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com/passag...of+Solomon+2:5;Hosea+3:1&version=NASB;ESV;NIV
Makes sense that drink comes with something you eat; so without ignoring enab for wine, I will go with the KJV & the 1599 Geneva Bible in having it right.

That is all I am led to do by Him from that site. If you wish to continue to proving by Him everything listed at that site in siting King James error, go right on ahead, but 10 out of ten.... they were all off the mark as their claims of KJV errors are frivolous, if not just plain false.

Sometime prejudices blinds believers from seeing the truth to see that such claims are to be disregarded. Granted, some of the extreme statements of condemnation by KJVOnlyism for any one using any other Bible than the KJV is enough to make any one prejudice and start attacking the KJV when they should be just attacking the condemnation given out by KJVOnlyism.

At any rate, believers can use any Bible to win souls, and any Bible for SOME correction, BUT I have to say if you are going to reprove any false teachings by His words, you have to rely on the KJV all the time to correct every & all false teaching, BECAUSE all modern Bibles do err and in those solitary places in verses where they err, they can sow doubts in God's words toward that correction and discernment, and in turn supports false teachings and in the end, apostasy.

Lord be willing, I shall post another thread later on about why we need to rely only on the Lord Jesus Christ to help us use only the KJV for defending the faith which is the good fight.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I should point out that although I reference the site that shows the Strong's Concordance with the King James Bible, the only name that is sacred to me is the name of Jesus Christ Whose name is above every other name to the glory of God the Father. FYI

 

[Abiding Grace]

Again, as a reminder: I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The charges against the KJV is at this site below as provided by StanJ

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

The last and 11th charge at this site ( as far as that first section goes, but this is the last one I shall address to show why we should prove everything at any christian site and not just take it at face value , including anything I share at this site in defending the KJV against exaggerated claims of errors. )

" These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation. "

The KJV was cited as using flagon in 2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3; Song of Solomon 2:5; Hosea 3:1

Comparing the KJV with the 1599 Geneva Bible, we see that the 1599 Geneva Bible uses bottles in place of flagons except in the Song of Solomon reference at this link below.

2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3;Song of Solomon 2:5;Hosea 3:1 KJV;GNV - And he dealt among all the people, even - Bible Gateway

If you read those verses, you can see that this is a false claim by that site when flagons or bottles are associated with wine. Some of those verses already mentioned cakes or bread which is to be followed by a drink of wine. So to say that cake or bread is to be followed by raisins cake is far fetched. I will try to see how they got such an erroneous perception by going to Hosea 3:1 since they seem to make that their strongest case.

From this site; we can see how they got that perception from its definition, but they are ignoring all of that definition.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

"feminine of ''ashiysh' (808); something closely pressed together, i.e. a cake of raisins or other comfits:--flagon.."

But if you click on wine to see the Hebrew word "enab" that wine was translated from...

"from an unused root probably meaning to bear fruit; a grape:--(ripe) grape, wine."

Not sure how they can get raisin cakes from that.

So we need to pay attention to the whole definition as "something closely pressed together, i.e. a cake of raisins or other comfits:--flagon.

Something that contains which was wine. I doubt cakes of raisins can contain wine.

So using flagons or bottles is the correct usage when it involves a container for wine to drink from.

At this site is the NASB, the ESV, and the NIV using cakes of raisin instead of bottles of wine, thus using one of the definitions listed above of the Hebrew word " 'ashiyshah " at the expense of ignoring the other Hebrew word of "enab" for wine.

2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3;Song of Solomon 2:5;Hosea 3:1 NASB;ESV;NIV - Further, he distributed to all the - Bible Gateway
Makes sense that drink comes with something you eat; so without ignoring enab for wine, I will go with the KJV & the 1599 Geneva Bible in having it right.

That is all I am led to do by Him from that site. If you wish to continue to proving by Him everything listed at that site in siting King James error, go right on ahead, but 10 out of ten.... they were all off the mark as their claims of KJV errors are frivolous, if not just plain false.

Sometime prejudices blinds believers from seeing the truth to see that such claims are to be disregarded. Granted, some of the extreme statements of condemnation by KJVOnlyism for any one using any other Bible than the KJV is enough to make any one prejudice and start attacking the KJV when they should be just attacking the condemnation given out by KJVOnlyism.

At any rate, believers can use any Bible to win souls, and any Bible for SOME correction, BUT I have to say if you are going to reprove any false teachings by His words, you have to rely on the KJV all the time to correct every & all false teaching, BECAUSE all modern Bibles do err and in those solitary places in verses where they err, they can sow doubts in God's words toward that correction and discernment, and in turn supports false teachings and in the end, apostasy.

Lord be willing, I shall post another thread later on about why we need to rely only on the Lord Jesus Christ to help us use only the KJV for defending the faith which is the good fight.

Why should I use the KJV only? It's but one translation out of many. I too have the Geneva, a KJV which I use everyday, AV1611 facsimile and a good many of the great modern translations. I have never found any change of doctrine in any of them.

I did color and bold one sentence. Raisins come from grapes.

I honor your right to read which Bible you love.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Why should I use the KJV only? It's but one translation out of many. I too have the Geneva, a KJV which I use everyday, AV1611 facsimile and a good many of the great modern translations. I have never found any change of doctrine in any of them.

I did color and bold one sentence. Raisins come from grapes.

I honor your right to read which Bible you love.

This may explain why, but I know only Jesus can help you to see why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words in discerning good and evil by it with His help as my Good shepherd in keeping the faith which is the good fight at this thread at the link below as mentioned earlier in another thread.:)

Using Only the KJV in Defending the Faith in Jesus Christ

 

[Abiding Grace]

This may explain why, but I know only Jesus can help you to see why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words in discerning good and evil by it with His help as my Good shepherd in keeping the faith which is the good fight at this thread at the link below as mentioned earlier in another thread.:)

Using Only the KJV in Defending the Faith in Jesus Christ

If you want to use the KJV, I'm good with that. What I'm not good with is the deceptive and corrupted practices of KJVO's.

BTW, your claim regarding 1 Corinthians 1:18 is faulty. Do you know the difference between present participle and present participles?

You also said this: "Most believers spouting from their education, say that the KJV is wrong"

What's wrong with getting an education? The KJV translators were the scholars of their time.

 

[charlesj]

I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

StanJ, a poster of this forum, submitted a link to this site spouting KJV errors.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

May the Lord Jesus Christ help us address them with His wisdom.

When we compare the KJV of Acts 19:37 with the 1599 Geneva Bible, we see this.

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. ~ KJV

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which have neither committed sacrilege, neither do blaspheme your goddess. ~ 1599 Geneva Bible

We would wonder what sacrilege or the appearance of it that these saints were accused of.

Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. KJV

So to avoid the appearance of committing sacrilege within the temple of Diana in His words, the sacrilege was better defined as the accusation of being robbers of temple or churches.

The charge by the web site that it should be temple instead of churches...that can hardly be an offense when they mean the same thing. Is it that hard to read, let alone understand?

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

So the charge is frivolous at best for being an error.

Next.....

Take a look at a very good writing on the KJV.
"In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture," by Alister McGrath. I have it in both paperback and Kindle format. I could not lay the book down after starting. I purchased my copies from Amazon.com.
I don't know if you know it or not, but you can download the "Kindle" app for pc's at Amazon.

 

[Stranger]

There are many verses omitted by the modern versions that are in the KJV. No version omits the exact same. And some simply put a footnote on that verse, casting doubt that it should ever have been there.

Here are several. Decide if you can live with it.

Matt.17:21, 18:11, 23:14

Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26, 15:28

Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17

John 5:3-4, 7:53-8:11

Acts 8:37, 9:5-6, 15:34, 24:6-8, 28:29,

Romans 16:24

1John 5:7-8

Understand, only those who see the Written Word of God as the Word of God and authoritative, should be concerned. Because if the Written Word of God is not authoritative, then it really doesn't matter what it says.

Stranger

 

[kiwimac]

There are many verses omitted by the modern versions that are in the KJV. No version omits the exact same. And some simply put a footnote on that verse, casting doubt that it should ever have been there.

Here are several. Decide if you can live with it.

Matt.17:21, 18:11, 23:14

Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26, 15:28

Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17

John 5:3-4, 7:53-8:11

Acts 8:37, 9:5-6, 15:34, 24:6-8, 28:29,

Romans 16:24

1John 5:7-8

Understand, only those who see the Written Word of God as the Word of God and authoritative, should be concerned. Because if the Written Word of God is not authoritative, then it really doesn't matter what it says.

Stranger

The versions removed verses which, in many cases, are not supported by the texts, that is to say, they were added by scribes into the MSS used by the KJV translators.

 

[Stranger]

The versions removed verses which, in many cases, are not supported by the texts, that is to say, they were added by scribes into the MSS used by the KJV translators.

By what texts? And is this true because you say it is true? Who determined what was supported by the texts? You, or who? And who determined that these were added by scribes? You, or who?

One thing is sure, things have been removed or doubted by the modern translations. So prepare your evidence for them being removed or doubted.

It is not so because you or others say it is so.

Stranger

 

[kiwimac]

Frankly, do your own research. I have and my point is supported by the research. God gave us minds to think and minds to use; that you have a problem with educated people doing as God intended says a great deal and really none of it good.