KJV departs from the Hebrew manuscripts

[KUWN]

KJV Ezek. 39.2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel...

NIV Ezek. 39.2 I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel...

The red text in the KJV is not found in any Hebrew manuscript. This was simply added by the KJV translators. Can someone tell me why this was added? I always thought it was dangerous to add to the Word of God.

 

[Keraz]

The King James Bible has errors in just about every verse. Mostly because of its archaic English. but also because the translators and King James himself had doctrinal input into it.

 

[Rockerduck]

KJV Ezek. 39.2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel...

NIV Ezek. 39.2 I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel...

The red text in the KJV is not found in any Hebrew manuscript. This was simply added by the KJV translators. Can someone tell me why this was added? I always thought it was dangerous to add to the Word of God.

"and leave but the sixth part of thee" is found in the Geneva Bible and translated by Tyndale. Who is still beyond reproach for his translation, and the KJV added it too. Hebrew translation to English is more complicated, since the same word can have multiple meanings. If I were to gamble for the correct meaning, I'd say the KJV is correct and all others are wrong.

 

[KUWN]

"and leave but the sixth part of thee" is found in the Geneva Bible and translated by Tyndale. Who is still beyond reproach for his translation, and the KJV added it too. Hebrew translation to English is more complicated, since the same word can have multiple meanings. If I were to gamble for the correct meaning, I'd say the KJV is correct and all others are wrong.

"and leave but the sixth part of thee" is found in the Geneva Bible

So, the Geneva Bible is first to be in error since it does not appear in any Hebrew manuscript. And then the KJV translated their Bible from another translation, not from the manuscripts. I would consider that an irrational gamble you made. What most KJV advocates presuppose is that God inspired the KJV, regardless of the evidence found in the Hebrew manuscripts.

To translate a passage into the KJV from a prior TRANSLATION is the quintessence of arrogance. I don't buy it. The KJV committee owes us a rational explanation, rather than dogmatically asserting a translation. Nobody is example from the evidence.

 

[ChristinaL]

The King James Bible has errors in just about every verse. Mostly because of its archaic English. but also because the translators and King James himself had doctrinal input into it.

Archaic English doesnt change doctrine. And KJ had no input whatever regarding doctrine. "Just about every verse"? Give me a break....there are no errors in the KJV that cannot be explained. Its modern translations like the NIV that use corrupt as hell texts

 

[Keraz]

Archaic English doesnt change doctrine

No, but it makes it incomprehensible to most. Also there are huge cultural and mind set differences since 1611.

And KJ had no input whatever regarding doctrine

If you did any research on this subject, you would know the King James made very sure his authority was sacrosanct. The KJV Bibe is dedicated to him.

..there are no errors in the KJV that cannot be explained.

Yes; because the translators were constrained by Church doctrines and lack of resources. Today we have many more ancient documents to use and the benefit of modern technology and scholarship.

Its modern translations like the NIV that use corrupt as hell texts

This is totally wrong and unsupportable.
Most serious Christians use several translations and have the discernment to sort out the truths of scripture.

 

[Wrangler]

there are no errors in the KJV that cannot be explained.

This is very funny rationalization.

I prefer translations without error as opposed to an unreadable translation that has more errors than any other English language option - but feel OK about it since they can be rationalized away.

The KJV is the worst translation available in English today. No one speaks Middle English anymore. After half a Millenia, vast improvements in the FROM and TO part of the translation have been made.

The KJV is the most important book ever writtten in the English language. After half a Millenia, it’s day in the sun is over.

 

[ChristinaL]

This is very funny rationalization.

I prefer translations without error as opposed to an unreadable translation that has more errors than any other English language option - but feel OK about it since they can be rationalized away.

The KJV is the worst translation available in English today. No one speaks Middle English anymore. After half a Millenia, vast improvements in the FROM and TO part of the translation have been made.

The KJV is the most important book ever writtten in the English language. After half a Millenia, it’s day in the sun is over.

KJV is not unreadable and its not Middle English for heaven's sake man. If there is any word that shows up at all that you dont understand it shouldnt stretch your intellect to just look it up. And I stand by what I say about the so called errors. I wouldnt state such things if I hadnt been reading and studying the KJV for 25 years.

Given a choice between the KJV and the modern translations today which heavily water down scripture because they rely on the worst texts in existence and were translated by non believers, sorry I choose the KJV any day

 

[KUWN]

KJV is not unreadable and its not Middle English for heaven's sake man. If there is any word that shows up at all that you dont understand it shouldnt stretch your intellect to just look it up. And I stand by what I say about the so called errors. I wouldnt state such things if I hadnt been reading and studying the KJV for 25 years.

Given a choice between the KJV and the modern translations today which heavily water down scripture because they rely on the worst texts in existence and were translated by non believers, sorry I choose the KJV any day

ChristinaL,
Which version of the KJV do you use? It is not the 1611 version is it?

 

[Wrangler]

KJV is not unreadable and its not Middle English for heaven's sake man.

Thee? Thou? Thy? Not 21st century American. Odd that anyone would even consider reading such Middle English stuff today in the face of far better alternatives.

I realize some claim it is not technically Middle English. The entire translation is wrong technically, odd to hold up criticism on a technicality. (And when I say the whole translation, I’m not claiming there is not one correct verse. Rather the translators FROM where not as good, their command if ancient languages were not as good and worst of all, the TO; no one talks that way anymore. The whole translation is wrong technically).

 

[ChristinaL]

No, but it makes it incomprehensible to most. Also there are huge cultural and mind set differences since 1611.

If you did any research on this subject, you would know the King James made very sure his authority was sacrosanct. The KJV Bibe is dedicated to him.

Yes; because the translators were constrained by Church doctrines and lack of resources. Today we have many more ancient documents to use and the benefit of modern technology and scholarship.

This is totally wrong and unsupportable.
Most serious Christians use several translations and have the discernment to sort out the truths of scripture.

1- Its not incomprehensible. That nonsense wouldt only come from someone who hasnt taken any significant time studying the KJV. I have been reading it for 25 years and even as a new believer I had no problems with it. People who complain as loudly as some of you here just dont even give it a chance
2. KJ being a devout protestant believer only wanted to make sure no Catholic poison got into the work. He also had problems with Puritan study bibles which had these anti-monarchy study notes that he hated. He otherwise did not do anything to influence the work of the translators.

Yeah the KJV was dedicated to KJ. So what?

Nearly all of the negative garbage about KJ (including false accusations of being gay- I digress there though) were written 20 years after he and anybody else who knew him were all DEAD so the accusations have no basis in fact.

And if you did some real research about the origins of the KJV you would see that they had far superior resources than the garbage texts used today. You will also learn that many non believers were involved in the translation work of modern bibles and they carried their own biases into the work, such as watering down or outright removing any passages regarding the divinity of Jesus or OT prophecies about His coming. The RSV is a notorious example, where early versions had a Jewish non believer working with the translators and he translated Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" rather than virgin

I used to read the NIV as a brand new believer and if you have ever read it too you will have noticed that they (and other modern works) always have these annoying footnotes stating that "The most ancient and reliable manuscripts do not contain such and such verse". Then you do some real research on these supposedly "ancient and reliable" manuscripts and you will learn that they are neither.

Two main works used were the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Both of which have highly questionable histories

Codex Sinaiticus cannot be dated properly. Some believe it is a 4th century text but there is good reason to believe it is a 19th century fraud. A mid 19th C paleographer named Konstantin Simonides claimed he wrote it and there is good evidence he was telling the truth as he was known for making copies of ancient works and there were others who backed him up.

Codex Vaticanus doesnt date to any earlier than the 15th Century.

Both of this works have many thousands of errors within them

I can go on about other texts as well especially Westcott-Hort (Jesus deniers) and the Nestle texts but I think I have made my point here

 

[ChristinaL]

Thee? Thou? Thy? Not 21st century American. Odd that anyone would even consider reading such Middle English stuff today in the face of far better alternatives.

I realize some claim it is not technically Middle English. The entire translation is wrong technically, odd to hold up criticism on a technicality. (And when I say the whole translation, I’m not claiming there is not one correct verse. Rather the translators FROM where not as good, their command if ancient languages were not as good and worst of all, the TO; no one talks that way anymore. The whole translation is wrong technically).

Do some real reading about the KJV......you are completely full of it. "thee" and "thou"..for goodness sake why are you nitpicking over something so stupid and irrelevant

 

[marks]

"and leave but the sixth part of thee" is found in the Geneva Bible

So, the Geneva Bible is first to be in error since it does not appear in any Hebrew manuscript. And then the KJV translated their Bible from another translation, not from the manuscripts. I would consider that an irrational gamble you made. What most KJV advocates presuppose is that God inspired the KJV, regardless of the evidence found in the Hebrew manuscripts.

To translate a passage into the KJV from a prior TRANSLATION is the quintessence of arrogance. I don't buy it. The KJV committee owes us a rational explanation, rather than dogmatically asserting a translation. Nobody is example from the evidence.

I had this discussion once with my friend who knows Biblical Hebrew, about why this appears in some and not in others. He told me that "the sixth part" isn't written there, but what it says should be understood as "I'll leave behind just a smear . . ."

Much love!

 

[PossibleThrowawayAccount]

Archaic English doesnt change doctrine. And KJ had no input whatever regarding doctrine. "Just about every verse"? Give me a break....there are no errors in the KJV that cannot be explained. Its modern translations like the NIV that use corrupt as hell texts

I strongly agree with this.

 

[marks]

Thee? Thou? Thy? Not 21st century American. Odd that anyone would even consider reading such Middle English stuff today in the face of far better alternatives.

The King James translation is not even close to Middle English:

Basic Middle English Words List With Meanings

Bulk up your Middle English knowledge! Explore examples of Middle English words and their meanings. Check out famous texts written in Middle English too.

www.yourdictionary.com

And neuenes hit his aune nome, as hit now hat;
Tirius to Tuskan and teldes bigynnes,
Langaberde in Lumbardie lyftes vp homes,

Thee's and thou's I suppose may be useless to you but to me they express the singular or plural pronouns the same as the Greek, but is lacking in the modern English. And yes, it makes a difference.

Much love!

 

[ChristinaL]

The King James translation is not even close to Middle English:

Basic Middle English Words List With Meanings

Bulk up your Middle English knowledge! Explore examples of Middle English words and their meanings. Check out famous texts written in Middle English too.

www.yourdictionary.com

Thee's and thou's I suppose may be useless to you but to me they express the singular or plural pronouns the same as the Greek, but is lacking in the modern English. And yes, it makes a difference.

Much love!

If the only KJV they focus one is the very original 1611 they need to try reading the more up to date editions which standardized spelling and grammar

 

[marks]

Do some real reading about the KJV......you are completely full of it. "thee" and "thou"..for goodness sake why are you nitpicking over something so stupid and irrelevant

Actually thee and thou express the singular and plural pronouns as the Greek uses, but not modern English. So if you are reading from something besides the King James, or similar translations that include singular and plural pronouns, then you are losing that information.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?"

"You" is singular, "Ye" is plural. So Paul is not asking in this verse, Don't you yourself know that you yourself is the temple of God? Many think that's what he's saying. In reality, "Don't you all know that you all are the temple of God? He's addressing the group collectively, about them being collectively the temple. This helps us to understand that God will destroy those who divide His body, not that He will destroy someone for smoking cigarettes, as is often claimed.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If the only KJV they focus one is the very original 1611 they need to try reading the more up to date editions which standardized spelling and grammar

Even the 1611 isn't like Middle English. That's just taking pot shots.

Much love!

 

[ChristinaL]

Actually thee and thou express the singular and plural pronouns as the Greek uses, but not modern English. So if you are reading from something besides the King James, or similar translations that include singular and plural pronouns, then you are losing that information.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?"

"You" is singular, "Ye" is plural. So Paul is not asking in this verse, Don't you yourself know that you yourself is the temple of God? Many think that's what he's saying. In reality, "Don't you all know that you all are the temple of God? He's addressing the group collectively, about them being collectively the temple. This helps us to understand that God will destroy those who divide His body, not that He will destroy someone for smoking cigarettes, as is often claimed.

Much love!

Yes I know that. I should have added myself that even in the 1600s most people didnt use those older terms but there was good reason why they were kept in- and you just said it. There sometimes had to be a demarcation between the singular 'you' and the plural

 

[ChristinaL]

Even the 1611 isn't like Middle English. That's just taking pot shots.

Much love!

I would agree that the original 1611 is hard to read especially since the J and V letters had only just started creeping in and werent yet used regularly but again its not incomprehensible. Not even close to Middle English . But if people really do find it hard to read rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater all these geniuses have to do is just get a later edition