Biblical Errors - Why Haven't They Been Fixed?

[P1LGR1M]

Try 1 Samuel 13.1 where the true text reads, 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel.'

This indicates that he began to reign in the first stage of life (below 20), and reigned on into middle age (the second stage of life).

There were no recorders in Saul's day

Consider the usage of malak in 1 Samuel...


https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4427&t=KJV&bn=9#lexResults


I view the KJV to be a better translation than some of the newer translations.


God bless.

 

[notuptome]

It is not the "perceived errors" in Gods word that men have difficulty with but the revealed truth.

Everyman has sinned against God.

Sin condemns men to eternal condemnation.

Only Christ is righteous and He died that He might provide forgiveness to whosoever will come and be saved.

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Willie-T]

Tintin,
I think I know exactly most of the "errors" you are talking about.

However, I feel they lend authenticity to the Bible. Any LEO (or psychologist) will tell you that one of the surest ways to detect a fabricated story where there has been collusion between two or more people is that the stories will match exactly.

You can sometimes see this in everyday life, especially when several children are trying to sell you a lie.

Whereas, when truthful stories are being related, there will, invariably, be a number of differences in each separate rendition, as they relate to the others.

 

[oldhermit]

Do you have an example... I'm serious, I've never seen a proven error in the KJV and if errors do exists I would like to know so I wont defend it as inerrant.

It needs to be understood that there is a great deal of difference between translational errors and textual variances. These are not at all the same thing. All translations without exception have issues with translational errors.
Translational errors are the misrepresentation of a word, whether deliberate or accidental, from the original language into another language. I think one would be very hard pressed to find any translation in any language in the world where such misrepresentations do not occur. The KJV is certainly no exception. These sometimes reflect the bias of the translators, whether it is a translational comity or an individual as in the case of the Phillips translation or the Moffit translation or the Berkley translation or the McCord translation, etc.
Translational variances are due to a number of reasons. Sometimes this are due to the fact that there are some words in the Hebrew or the Greek languages that simply do not have an English equivalent. In such cases, the only thing that the translators can do is try to convey the meaning the original word expresses. This can sometimes be subject to personal bias.
Textual variences are the result of differences between the ancient manuscripts themselves. These differences are the result of a number of possibilities that have nothing to do with deliberate or nefarious intent. These contributing factors include such things as fatigue, misspelling, poor lighting, line confusion, poor eye sight or just simple carelessness on the part of the scribe who was copying the document. There are lots of reasons why variants appear in the Greek manuscripts.

Wallace points out that “...some of the typos and blatant errors of the 1611 KJV have continued to remain in the text after multiple corrections and spelling updates (weighing in at more than 100,000 changes) through the 1769 edition.”

Here are but a few of the mistranslations that I find still appear in our modern KJV. These are not the result of textual variances but obvious errors.

'in' rather than 'on' for ἐπὶ

Revelation 13:16
Revelation 14:9
Revelation 20:4
'straining 'at' rather than 'straining out' for διϋλίζοντες
Matthew 23.24

Now, these examples are not particularly that big of a deal because they do not really change how one would understand the overall meaning of these verses. They are merely examples that demonstrate the fallibility of men as translators.

Having said all of this, I want it to be understood that I believe the KJV to be a good translation but certainly not an inspired translation any more than any other human translation. None of which are exempt from translational error.

 

[oldhermit]

Allow me to offer this example for your consideration. If I were to take on the task of simply copying by hand the entire Bible from any English translation you may wish to name and I copy the entire Bible from Gen1 to Rev 22, there is no way I could do this free of error. This problem was the same for those who recopied the ancient Greek Manuscripts. Now, what if we factor in another element. If I were to have to translate this from another language rather than simply recopying from my own language; then the possibility of error multiplies exponentially. Now, I not only have to contend with the issue of a copying error on my part, but I also have to deal with the issue of correctly representing the word from the original language. This is why we face these issues today.

 

[KJV1611]

It needs to be understood that there is a great deal of difference between translational errors and textual variances. These are not at all the same thing. All translations without exception have issues with translational errors.
Translational errors are the misrepresentation of a word, whether deliberate or accidental, from the original language into another language. I think one would be very hard pressed to find any translation in any language in the world where such misrepresentations do not occur. The KJV is certainly no exception. These sometimes reflect the bias of the translators, whether it is a translational comity or an individual as in the case of the Phillips translation or the Moffit translation or the Berkley translation or the McCord translation, etc.
Translational variances are due to a number of reasons. Sometimes this are due to the fact that there are some words in the Hebrew or the Greek languages that simply do not have an English equivalent. In such cases, the only thing that the translators can do is try to convey the meaning the original word expresses. This can sometimes be subject to personal bias.
Textual variences are the result of differences between the ancient manuscripts themselves. These differences are the result of a number of possibilities that have nothing to do with deliberate or nefarious intent. These contributing factors include such things as fatigue, misspelling, poor lighting, line confusion, poor eye sight or just simple carelessness on the part of the scribe who was copying the document. There are lots of reasons why variants appear in the Greek manuscripts.

Wallace points out that “...some of the typos and blatant errors of the 1611 KJV have continued to remain in the text after multiple corrections and spelling updates (weighing in at more than 100,000 changes) through the 1769 edition.”

Here are but a few of the mistranslations that I find still appear in our modern KJV. These are not the result of textual variances but obvious errors.

'in' rather than 'on' for ἐπὶ

Revelation 13:16
Revelation 14:9
Revelation 20:4
'straining 'at' rather than 'straining out' for διϋλίζοντες
Matthew 23.24

Now, these examples are not particularly that big of a deal because they do not really change how one would understand the overall meaning of these verses. They are merely examples that demonstrate the fallibility of men as translators.

Having said all of this, I want it to be understood that I believe the KJV to be a good translation but certainly not an inspired translation any more than any other human translation. None of which are exempt from translational error.

Wow oldhermit I really appreciate the time and effort you took to find that for me and I see exactly what you're talking about. As you know I don't know Greek... when I was looking at ἐπὶ in the concordance I saw genitive case, dative case and accusative case. Which one applies to Revelation 13:16?

 

[blue_ladybug]

Wow oldhermit I really appreciate the time and effort you took to find that for me and I see exactly what you're talking about. As you know I don't know Greek... when I was looking at ἐπὶ in the concordance I saw genitive case, dative case and accusative case. Which one applies to Revelation 13:16?

Oldhermit is awesome..

 

[oldhermit]

Wow oldhermit I really appreciate the time and effort you took to find that for me and I see exactly what you're talking about. As you know I don't know Greek... when I was looking at ἐπὶ in the concordance I saw genitive case, dative case and accusative case. Which one applies to Revelation 13:16?

In Rev. 13:16 it would seem to be accusative because it is followed by τὸ μέτωπον, both of which are in the accusative case which indicates the place on which the mark is placed. You might double check this with Angela. She understands case rules better than I do.

 

[KJV1611]

In Rev. 13:16 it would seem to be accusative because it is followed by τὸ μέτωπον, both of which are in the accusative case stating the place on which the mark is placed. You might double check this with Angela. Se understands case rules better than I do.

ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.;


of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).


Forgive my ignorance, but have I separated the above correctly? In other words with the accusative case does epi mean towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

 

[oldhermit]

ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.;


of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).


Forgive my ignorance, but have I separated the above correctly? In other words with the accusative case does epi mean towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

Yes, this is very good. If you will check Strong's he gives quite a number of examples from scripture where ἐπὶ is used and explains why it is translated in different ways in each case, but to my knowledge, it is never translated as 'in' or 'within.'

 

[oldhermit]

Wow oldhermit I really appreciate the time and effort you took to find that for me and I see exactly what you're talking about. As you know I don't know Greek... when I was looking at ἐπὶ in the concordance I saw genitive case, dative case and accusative case. Which one applies to Revelation 13:16?

If you will notice, ἐπὶ is also used preceding three genitives in that same verse - τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν "on the hands of them."

 

[oldhermit]

Here is his how ἐπὶ is used in each respective case

From Watchmen Bible Study Group
1. With the Genitive it denotes upon, as proceeding or springing from, and answers to the question "Where?" (e.g. Matthew 9:2; 10:27. Mark 8:4. Luke 22:30. John 6:21).

Matthew 9:2
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on [epi] a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. KJV
Mark 8:4
4 And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in [epi] the wilderness? KJV
Luke 22:30
30 That ye may eat and drink at [epi] my table in my kingdom, and sit on [epi] thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. KJV

John 6:21
21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at [epi] the land whither they went. KJV

​

With the idea of locality it conveys the sense, in the presence of (e.g. Matthew 28:14. Mark 13:9. Acts 24:19. 1Corinthians 6:1).

Mark 13:9
9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before [epi] rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. KJV
​

With the idea of time, it looks backward and upward, e.g. "in the days of" (Matthew 1:11. Hebrews 1:2).

Matthew 1:11
11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about [epi] the time they were carried away to Babylon: KJV
​

With the idea of place, it denotes dignity and power (e.g. Matthew 23:2. Acts 12:21. Romans 9:5. Revelation 2:26).

Matthew 23:2
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in [epi] Moses' seat: KJV
​

2. With the Dative it implies actual superposition, as one thing resting upon another, as upon a foundation or basis which may be actual (e.g. Mark 6:25,28,39), or moral (e.g. Matthew 18:13. Mark 3:5). Both senses occur in 1Thessalonians 3:7.

Mark 6:25
25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in [epi] a charger the head of John the Baptist. KJV
Mark 3:5
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for [epi] the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. KJV
​

Hence it is used of the moving principle or motive suggesting the purpose or object (e.g. Ephesians 2:10), and sometimes including the result (e.g. 2Timothy 2:14).

Ephesians 2:10
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto [epi] good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. KJV
2 Timothy 2:14
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to [epi] no profit, but to [epi] the subverting of the hearers. KJV

​

3. With the Accusative it implies the downward pressure on that upon which a thing rests; active motion being suggested (e.g. 2Corinthians 3:15. 1Timothy 5:5).

2 Corinthians 3:15
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon [epi] their heart. KJV

​

Hence, it denotes any extended motion downward (Matthew 13:2; 18:12; 19:28; 27:45) from heaven to earth (Mark 4:20. Acts 11:15. 2Corinthians 12:9).

Matthew 13:2
2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on [epi] the shore. KJV
Mark 4:20
20 And these are they which are sown on [epi] good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. KJV
​

Compared with pros (Number xv, below), pros marks the motion, the direction to be taken, while epi (with Accusative) marks the point to be reached.

This downward pressure may be that of the mind, or feeling (e.g. Matthew 25:21; 27:43. Hebrews 6:1. 1Peter 1:13).

Matthew 25:21
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over [epi] a few things, I will make thee ruler over [epi] many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. KJV

​

For the difference between eis (Number vi, above) and epi (with the Accusative) see Romans 9:21, "one vessel unto (eis) honour", and verse 23, "riches of glory on (epi) the vessels of mercy".

Romans 9:21-23
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto [eis] honour, and another unto [eis] dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to [eis] destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on [epi] the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto [eis] glory, KJV
​

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, this is very good. If you will check Strong's he gives quite a number of examples from scripture where ἐπὶ is used and explains why it is translated in different ways in each case, but to my knowledge, it is never translated as 'in' or 'within.'

Both the KJV and NIV translate epi as "in".
Mat 2:22 ButG1161 when he heardG191 thatG3754 ArchelausG745 did reignG936 inG1909 JudaeaG2449 in the roomG473 of hisG846 fatherG3962 Herod,G2264 he was afraidG5399 to goG565 thither:G1563 notwithstanding,G1161 being warned of GodG5537 inG2596 a dream,G3677 he turned asideG402 intoG1519 theG3588 partsG3313 of Galilee:G1056

Same here.
Mat 4:6 AndG2532 saithG3004 unto him,G846 IfG1487 thou beG1488 the SonG5207 of God,G2316 castG906 thyselfG4572 down:G2736 forG1063 it is written,G1125 He shall give his angels chargeG1781 G848 G32 concerningG4012 thee:G4675 andG2532 inG1909 their handsG5495 they shall bear thee up,G142 G4571 lest at any timeG3379 thou dashG4350 thyG4675 footG4228 againstG4314 a stone.G3037

KJV does here.
Mat 6:10 ThyG4675 kingdomG932 come.G2064 ThyG4675 willG2307 be doneG1096 inG1909 earth,G1093 asG5613 it is inG1722 heaven.G3772

Both do here.
Mat 13:14 AndG2532 inG1909 themG846 is fulfilledG378 theG3588 prophecyG4394 of Esaias,G2268 which saith,G3004 By hearingG189 ye shall hear,G191 andG2532 shall notG3364 understand;G4920 andG2532 seeingG991 ye shall see,G991 andG2532 shall notG3364 perceive:G1492

Both do here.
Mat 18:5 AndG2532 whosoG3739 G1437 shall receiveG1209 oneG1520 suchG5108 little childG3813 inG1909 myG3450 nameG3686 receivethG1209 me.G1691

This is just in Matthew... epi is translated "in" in both versions many times. How can you be so sure Revelation 13:16 is incorrectly translated?

 

[oldhermit]

Both the KJV and NIV translate epi as "in".
Mat 2:22 ButG1161 when he heardG191 thatG3754 ArchelausG745 did reignG936 inG1909 JudaeaG2449 in the roomG473 of hisG846 fatherG3962 Herod,G2264 he was afraidG5399 to goG565 thither:G1563 notwithstanding,G1161 being warned of GodG5537 inG2596 a dream,G3677 he turned asideG402 intoG1519 theG3588 partsG3313 of Galilee:G1056

Same here.
Mat 4:6 AndG2532 saithG3004 unto him,G846 IfG1487 thou beG1488 the SonG5207 of God,G2316 castG906 thyselfG4572 down:G2736 forG1063 it is written,G1125 He shall give his angels chargeG1781 G848 G32 concerningG4012 thee:G4675 andG2532 inG1909 their handsG5495 they shall bear thee up,G142 G4571 lest at any timeG3379 thou dashG4350 thyG4675 footG4228 againstG4314 a stone.G3037

KJV does here.
Mat 6:10 ThyG4675 kingdomG932 come.G2064 ThyG4675 willG2307 be doneG1096 inG1909 earth,G1093 asG5613 it is inG1722 heaven.G3772

Both do here.
Mat 13:14 AndG2532 inG1909 themG846 is fulfilledG378 theG3588 prophecyG4394 of Esaias,G2268 which saith,G3004 By hearingG189 ye shall hear,G191 andG2532 shall notG3364 understand;G4920 andG2532 seeingG991 ye shall see,G991 andG2532 shall notG3364 perceive:G1492

Both do here.
Mat 18:5 AndG2532 whosoG3739 G1437 shall receiveG1209 oneG1520 suchG5108 little childG3813 inG1909 myG3450 nameG3686 receivethG1209 me.G1691

This is just in Matthew... epi is translated "in" in both versions many times. How can you be so sure Revelation 13:16 is incorrectly translated?

Every preposition has an assigned position in relationship to the object and are generally fixed. Any time you find ἐπὶ translated as 'in', no matter what the translation, it is incorrect. Here is a prepositional chart that may help. This is also from Watchmen Bible Study Group

 

[oldhermit]

All of this is based on what I understand of the use of Greek prepositions. I am certainly no authority on this and I am most certainly no Greek scholar. I would not rule out the possibility that I could be wrong...but I don't think I am.

 

[KJV1611]

Every preposition has an assigned position in relationship to the object and are generally fixed. Any time you find ἐπὶ translated as 'in', no matter what the translation, it is incorrect. Here is a prepositional chart that may help. This is also from Watchmen Bible Study Group

Ok I've studied this for a while. Those guys are saying that epi can't be within the white circle because epi is a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition. Am I correct?

 

[oldhermit]

Ok I've studied this for a while. Those guys are saying that epi can't be within the white circle because epi is a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition. Am I correct?

At least this is my understanding of how they are using the term superimposition. The word just means place on top of an object.

 

[KJV1611]

At least this is my understanding of how they are using the term superimposition. The word just means place on top of an object.

So back to the Strong's definition. Strong says it's a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition.... I understand that. He also mentions that it could also mean before, wherefore and specifically "in". If epi means superimposed then why did he use "in" as one of the possible meanings of epi?

ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

 

[oldhermit]

If you will notice on post #92, an example is given of ἐπὶ being translated by the KJV in Mark 6:25 as 'in'.
"And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist."
In the Greek it reads ἐπὶ πίνακι - literally, "on a plate" or "on a platter." The KJV mistranslated ἐπὶ here but, as far as damage to the text, I think it is of little consequence. Does it matter if John's head was on a platter of in a dish? I hardly think so. The only thing this means to me is that we need to expend every effort to insure the integrity of the original language. Sometimes even small things like this can be quite significant.

 

[oldhermit]

So back to the Strong's definition. Strong says it's a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition.... I understand that. He also mentions that it could also mean before, wherefore and specifically "in". If epi means superimposed then why did he use "in" as one of the possible meanings of epi?

ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

That is interesting. I did not catch that. He says this is a possibility in the accusative case as it relates to a time or place. This might be a good question I can pose to the guys on Bgreek.