-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The King James has made some major errors in translation. The following are just a few examples. Compare the KJV reading with that of the NIV:
Isaiah 45:7
KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
NIV: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
Amos 3:6
KJV: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
NIV: When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?
Luke 13:24 and 2 Timothy 2:24
Two distinct Greek words are both rendered "strive". The term in Luke has the sense "to strive to achieve" while the word in 2 Timothy has the sense of "to quarrel."
KJV: Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
KJV: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.
NIV: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
NIV: And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
Daniel 11:9
KJV: So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.
Hebrew, my translation; cf. NIV: And he [the king of the north] will come into the kingdom of the king of the south and will return to his land.
1 Thessalonians 5:22
KJV: Abstain from all appearance of evil. NIV: Avoid every kind of evil.
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htmKJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
NIV: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
Amos 3:6
KJV: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
NIV: When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?
Luke 13:24 and 2 Timothy 2:24
Two distinct Greek words are both rendered "strive". The term in Luke has the sense "to strive to achieve" while the word in 2 Timothy has the sense of "to quarrel."
KJV: Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
KJV: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.
NIV: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
NIV: And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
Daniel 11:9
KJV: So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.
Hebrew, my translation; cf. NIV: And he [the king of the north] will come into the kingdom of the king of the south and will return to his land.
1 Thessalonians 5:22
KJV: Abstain from all appearance of evil. NIV: Avoid every kind of evil.
www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf
This is by :
Dr. Combs is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at Detroit Baptist
Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI
churches” is simply an erroneous translation.21
This is by :
Dr. Combs is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at Detroit Baptist
Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI
Probably the most indisputable translation error in the
KJV is found
Hebrews 10:23,
Hebrews 10:23,
Let us hold fast the profession of
our faith without wavering; (for he is
faithful that promised
The phrase “profession of
our faith” should be “profession of our hope.”
Everyone concedes that the actual Greek word is hope (ejlpiv"), not faith
Everyone concedes that the actual Greek word is hope (ejlpiv"), not faith
(
pivsti"); hope is found in all manuscripts and all editions of the TR.
Hope
and faith are two entirely different words, so one cannot sincerely
argue that the translators simply decided on “faith” as the correct translation
at this point. Besides, the Greek word for hope (ejlpiv") is used 52
others times in the NT and in every case the translators of the KJV rendered
it “hope,” not “faith.” How this error slipped past the translators is
unclear; nevertheless, it is an indisputable error in the KJV.
Another problem is found in Acts 19:37, where the KJV says:
argue that the translators simply decided on “faith” as the correct translation
at this point. Besides, the Greek word for hope (ejlpiv") is used 52
others times in the NT and in every case the translators of the KJV rendered
it “hope,” not “faith.” How this error slipped past the translators is
unclear; nevertheless, it is an indisputable error in the KJV.
Another problem is found in Acts 19:37, where the KJV says:
For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of
churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
The word translated “robbers of churches” should be “robbers of temples.”
The Greek word, which is found in all manuscripts and all editions
of the TR, describes someone who robs temples
The Greek word, which is found in all manuscripts and all editions
of the TR, describes someone who robs temples
(iJerovsulo"), not
churches. In the context of Acts 19, Paul and his companions at Ephesus
find themselves in the midst of a riot instigated by Demetrius (v. 24)
and his fellow silvermiths, who are upset that Paul’s preaching against
idolatry will diminish their profits from the “silver shrines for Diana” (v.
24) they sell for a living. In trying to quiet the riot, the “townclerk” (v.
35) argues that Demetrius and his friends have no basis for the commotion
they are causing since the two Christians they have detained, Gaius
and Aristarchus (v. 29), are “neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers
of your goddess.” The townclerk’s point is that these men must
be released since they have obviously not robbed the temple of Diana;
besides, there were no church buildings to rob in Ephesus. “Robbers of
churches. In the context of Acts 19, Paul and his companions at Ephesus
find themselves in the midst of a riot instigated by Demetrius (v. 24)
and his fellow silvermiths, who are upset that Paul’s preaching against
idolatry will diminish their profits from the “silver shrines for Diana” (v.
24) they sell for a living. In trying to quiet the riot, the “townclerk” (v.
35) argues that Demetrius and his friends have no basis for the commotion
they are causing since the two Christians they have detained, Gaius
and Aristarchus (v. 29), are “neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers
of your goddess.” The townclerk’s point is that these men must
be released since they have obviously not robbed the temple of Diana;
besides, there were no church buildings to rob in Ephesus. “Robbers of
churches” is simply an erroneous translation.21
G
EASILY
BIGGEST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRANSLATIONS ARE IN THE UNDERLYING GREEK TEXT
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SHED ZERO LIGHT ON THE GREEK
THEY WERE ALL HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT AND EXTRA BIBLICAL SCROLLS
The modern perversions are largely based on 2 manuscripts one of which was found in a trash can; the other was found collecting dust in the Vatican and was NEVER used when translating the Vulgate
G
of course they largely agree with the textus receptus because what we are discussing is the differences
look up 1 Timothy 3 16 on bible CC
some say God was manifest in the flesh; some say He was manifest in the flesh
which manuscripts say which?
while you are on bible CC(in parrallel mode) check out 1 John 5 7 and 1 John 5 8
look up 1 Timothy 3 16 on bible CC
some say God was manifest in the flesh; some say He was manifest in the flesh
which manuscripts say which?
while you are on bible CC(in parrallel mode) check out 1 John 5 7 and 1 John 5 8
i can not believe that a person with the title doctor would say that the dead sea scrolls were true, there where large pieces of paper missing all through the scrolls and they had to use another manuscript to fill in the gaps and one that they used were the minority text which was consider corrupt amongst many of the people that knows far more about this then any one in this forum. saying the dead sea scrolls in the text you used would be like reading these scriptures
Joh 3:15That whosoever should not perish, but have eternal life.Joh 3:16For God that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should not perish, but have everlasting life.Joh 3:17For God sent not his to condemn the world; but that through him might be saved.Joh 3:18He that believeth on him is but he that already, because he hath not believed of the only begotten Son of God.Joh 3:19And this is , that light is come into the world, and men loved , because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.Joh 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Joh 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.Joh 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Joh 3:19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:15That whosoever should not perish, but have eternal life.Joh 3:16For God that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should not perish, but have everlasting life.Joh 3:17For God sent not his to condemn the world; but that through him might be saved.Joh 3:18He that believeth on him is but he that already, because he hath not believed of the only begotten Son of God.Joh 3:19And this is , that light is come into the world, and men loved , because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.Joh 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Joh 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.Joh 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Joh 3:19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Last edited:
Many Bible translators misinterpreted the ancient Hebrew text - even Rabbis and Jerome
Moses with horns, by Michaelangelo
Due to a statement towards the end of the book of Exodus (at 34:29-35), in which Moses is depicted as having been disfigured due to his direct encounter with God, various traditions grew up as to what the disfigurement was. Jonathan Kirsch, in his book Moses: A Life, thought that, since Moses subsequently had to wear a veil to hide it, the disfigurement was a sort of "divine radiation burn".
There is one longstanding early tradition that Moses grew horns, derived from a mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase "karnu panav" ???? ????. The root ??? may be read as either "horn" or "ray", as in "ray of light". "Panav" ???? translates as "his face". If interpreted correctly those two words form an expression which means that he was enlightened, and many rabbinical studies explain that the knowledge that was revealed to him made his face metaphorically shine with enlightenment, and not that it suddenly sported a pair of horns. The Septuagint properly translates the Hebrew word ??? as ??????????, 'was glorified', but Jerome translated it as cornuta, 'horned', and it was the latter image that became the more popular. This tradition survived from the first centuries AD well into the Renaissance. Many artists, including Michelangelo in a famed sculpture, depicted Moses with horns.
Moses with horns, by Michaelangelo
Due to a statement towards the end of the book of Exodus (at 34:29-35), in which Moses is depicted as having been disfigured due to his direct encounter with God, various traditions grew up as to what the disfigurement was. Jonathan Kirsch, in his book Moses: A Life, thought that, since Moses subsequently had to wear a veil to hide it, the disfigurement was a sort of "divine radiation burn".
There is one longstanding early tradition that Moses grew horns, derived from a mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase "karnu panav" ???? ????. The root ??? may be read as either "horn" or "ray", as in "ray of light". "Panav" ???? translates as "his face". If interpreted correctly those two words form an expression which means that he was enlightened, and many rabbinical studies explain that the knowledge that was revealed to him made his face metaphorically shine with enlightenment, and not that it suddenly sported a pair of horns. The Septuagint properly translates the Hebrew word ??? as ??????????, 'was glorified', but Jerome translated it as cornuta, 'horned', and it was the latter image that became the more popular. This tradition survived from the first centuries AD well into the Renaissance. Many artists, including Michelangelo in a famed sculpture, depicted Moses with horns.
well I wonder how the disciples worked out their issues between circumcision , and uncircumcision. in acts when they all got together to work it out then came away all in one accordance, actuall you do bring up a good point though. if we only had one authorized translation like we did for about 350 years then there would be no need for ten pages of debate, this would be another reason all the new preversions is wrong
G
English is not your first language?
I said the major differerences are in the new Testament Greek
Therefore: any differences in the Old Testament are MINOR differences
Remember the people who translated the KJV in 1611
were 400 years closer to the original than we are
why do people in the 21st century say "We NOW KNOW..........."
and while they are doing it they are deliberately ignoring the documented records of eye witnesses
(this phenomenon applies to many areas)
You wanna know the BEST experts in what the original Hebrew means?
The translators of the Septuagent around 300BC
they were only a few centuries removed from the original autographs; not millennia
I said the major differerences are in the new Testament Greek
Therefore: any differences in the Old Testament are MINOR differences
Remember the people who translated the KJV in 1611
were 400 years closer to the original than we are
why do people in the 21st century say "We NOW KNOW..........."
and while they are doing it they are deliberately ignoring the documented records of eye witnesses
(this phenomenon applies to many areas)
You wanna know the BEST experts in what the original Hebrew means?
The translators of the Septuagent around 300BC
they were only a few centuries removed from the original autographs; not millennia
G
i actually agree with that but it starts with choosing the best text
KJV
'and the earth was without form and void'
can be better rendered
'but the earth had become shapeless and empty'
I have said many times;
give me a new translation
BUT
use the majority manuscripts
BTW the Septuagint is a very useful reference
it shows that the RSV had zero justification for translating almah as 'young woman'
KJV
'and the earth was without form and void'
can be better rendered
'but the earth had become shapeless and empty'
I have said many times;
give me a new translation
BUT
use the majority manuscripts
BTW the Septuagint is a very useful reference
it shows that the RSV had zero justification for translating almah as 'young woman'