Nit-picking the KJV or other translations

  • 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.

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#1
A critic of the KJV points to Deut. 8:9 as an error for its translation of "brass" since it is an alloy that is not dug out of the ground, and it is a difficult point to answer. I'm using the KJV here, but any translation can be criticized in like manner in various verses.

Brass, from the Encyclopedia Britannica
"Brass, as an alloy of copper and zinc without tin, did not appear in Egypt until about 30 BCE, but after this it was rapidly adopted throughout the Roman world, for example, for currency."

The KJV translators translated the Hebrew nchosheth 103 times as brass, 28 times brazen, fetters 5, chain(s) 3, copper 1, filthiness 1 and steel 1.

The KJV translators certainly knew about the alloy "brass" and knew it was not dug directly out of the ground, so why would they use the term "brass" 103 times instead of "copper" when they used "copper" the one time?

The first line in the ISBE states: "The use of the word brass has always been more or less indefinite in its application."

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language Second Edition, Unabridged:
brass "13. having the color brass"

From the KJV "Translators to the Readers" -
"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader: that we have not tied
ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure
would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere
have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense
of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places
(for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere [polushma]), we
were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we
should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we
translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where
journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never
ache; if one where joy, never gladness, etc--thus, to mince the matter, we thought to
savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist
than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or
syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when
we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

My guess is, the translators considered the context and used "brass" to represent any metals derived by digging in earth that was supportive of prosperity and showing the goodness from God. Any other ideas?
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#2
The KJV translators certainly knew about the alloy "brass" and knew it was not dug directly out of the ground, so why would they use the term "brass" 103 times instead of "copper" when they used "copper" the one time?
How is it translated in other modern versions?
 

Aaron56

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
2,749
1,573
113
#3
It's important to know the biases and limitations of any version we use in our study of scripture. But let's not channel the spirit of the pharisees thinking we can find life within them. The scriptures testify of the One who has life within Himself and grants this life to all who receive Him.

John 17:3 "And this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,214
3,561
113
#4
Should I assume you're KJV only? If so, any criticism of the KJV touches on blasphemy. Am I correct?
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#5
Should I assume you're KJV only? If so, any criticism of the KJV touches on blasphemy. Am I correct?
You assume incorrectly, very much so. I use the KJV primarily because almost all my language help tools are keyed to the KJV and the Strong's numbering system. I use the RV a lot for study, modern versions I prefer the RSV/NRSV and the NEB/REB and quote them often, but I have about 20 translations on my 2 computer software study Bibles. In years past as I was studying and assembling my notes on doctrines, my supporting texts were from the KJV. In recent years I have used those same texts by using the NRSV and REB and it changes no doctrine whatsoever from what I had from the KJV. Many skeptics of the Bible treat the KJV as if it was translated by ignorant men of the past. Sure, they are men and fallible and with fewer resources as today, but they were certainly not ignorant men. There is a good web site about the KJV translators and their qualifications: https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=who-were-king-james-translators

I have great respect for the KJV and in some texts I actually believe they are more accurate than modern translations, if you use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary to check the older English meanings. My OP actually came about when I was researching online to see if I could any doctrine whatsoever where the KJV misled people on the Christian faith. So far I know of no doctrine that is affected negatively by the KJV, but if someone has one, I would be interested in which one they have in mind.
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#7
How is it translated in other modern versions?
The word "brass" is found in the NRSV only once and in the REB four times. The NRSV and REB use "bronze" in most places, but in Deut. 8:9 where it refers to the metal dug out of the earth, the NRSV and REB use "copper".

On why the KJV translators used "brass" when they knew something about metallurgy, I came up with another idea during the night. The KJV Translators to the Readers state the following about ecclesiastical words:

"Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, ..."

Brass was so much used in liturgical churches, maybe it was considered an ecclesiastical word? In the KJV "brass" was used 30 times in reference to the furnishing of the tabernacle. In Britain, brass was associated with the liturgical churches as can be seen in one website I found: https://churchantiques.com/product-category/religious-brassware-metalware/

It is true of course we don't worship the translations, they give us the word of God about Jesus Christ in various translations. The question about "brass" has no bearing I know of on doctrine. My OP was prompted by a web site pointing out the errors in the KJV and so many web sites of the skeptics exhibit such wretched ignorance of the Scriptures and they need to be exposed at times.

By the way, some people have a quick wit and humor that sometimes they regret later. My BIG problem is my sharp and impatient tongue and I've struggled for years with that very verse I quoted in another thread.
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#8
It's important to know the biases and limitations of any version we use in our study of scripture. But let's not channel the spirit of the pharisees thinking we can find life within them. The scriptures testify of the One who has life within Himself and grants this life to all who receive Him.

John 17:3 "And this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
Very true! "You study the scriptures diligently, supposing that in having them you have eternal life; their testimony points to me, yet you refuse to come to me to receive that life." (John 5:39-40, REB)
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#9
. I use the KJV primarily because almost all my language help tools are keyed to the KJV and the Strong's numbering system.
Me too. Concordances would be useless to me if they were not based on the familiar KJV. It's all I know.

. So far I know of no doctrine that is affected negatively by the KJV, but if someone has one, I would be interested in which one they have in mind.
That's good to hear. I haven't found any problems doctrine-wise that are intrinsic to KJV version either. Same misinterpretation of doctrine seems to be consistent across most all modern versions (KJV seems modern enough for me.)
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#10
we should nit-pick because the Word of God is originally formed in the THREE Languages [Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek].

most of the Modern Versions are loaded with more Latin than anything else. Latin [[is not]] a Biblical Language nor ever was.


one of the best examples is found in the Book of Isaiah.
the Latin word Lucifer.

Isaiah was written in 100% Hebrew/Aramaic but we some how find this strange Latin Word from a Language that Isaiah never ever spoke or knew existed.

so, how does a Latin word find itself in the midst of a 100% Hebrew/Aramaic written Book?

because someone 1,200 years later ADDED it!


so it is indeed a good thing to nit-pick because we do have access to the true Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Versions. it makes perfect sense to just use them to remove such errors and obvious tampering to the Holy Word of God.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#11
^
i mention this because what do you think the Adversary is doing each time we call him by a [[name]] that does not nor has ever applied to him?

he probably is laughing so hard at those who think his name is Lucifer!
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#12
we should nit-pick because the Word of God is originally formed in the THREE Languages [Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek].

most of the Modern Versions are loaded with more Latin than anything else. Latin [[is not]] a Biblical Language nor ever was.


one of the best examples is found in the Book of Isaiah.
the Latin word Lucifer.

Isaiah was written in 100% Hebrew/Aramaic but we some how find this strange Latin Word from a Language that Isaiah never ever spoke or knew existed.

so, how does a Latin word find itself in the midst of a 100% Hebrew/Aramaic written Book?

because someone 1,200 years later ADDED it!


so it is indeed a good thing to nit-pick because we do have access to the true Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Versions. it makes perfect sense to just use them to remove such errors and obvious tampering to the Holy Word of God.
Where did you get that there is any Aramaic in the book of Isaiah? I find that nowhere in reference books I have.

As to using a translation that is not in the same language as the original, remember Jesus and the Apostles mainly used and quoted from the LXX, the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT Hebrew. When it comes to the Latin, it was as stated in the Brittannica -

"During the Middle Ages and until comparatively recent times, Latin was the language most widely used in the West for scholarly and literary purposes."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-language

John Trapp(1601-1669) of the KJV generation understood what was meant by "Lucifer" in the KJV -

"Ver. 12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! ] That is, not O Belzeebub, as some ancients, but, O Belshazzar rather, called Lucifer here, or the morning star, for his beauty and brightness; and as much wonder it was to see the Chaldean monarch at such an under, as to have seen Lucifer, the sun’s constant companion, fallen from heaven. He was the terror of the world, and, as he thought, superior to fortune; yet a sudden and dismal change befell him. In the chariot of the Roman triumpher, there hung up a little bell and a whip, to put him in mind he might one day be whipped as a slave, or as an offender lose his head. Nemo confidat mimium secundis. Let no one rely on the least favours."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jtc/isaiah-14.html

Here is an etymology of the word "Lucifer" -

"Old English Lucifer "Satan," also "morning star, Venus in the morning sky before sunrise," also an epithet or name of Diana, from Latin Lucifer "morning star," noun use of adjective, literally "light-bringing," from lux (genitive lucis) "light" (from PIE root *leuk- "light, brightness") + ferre "to carry, bear," from PIE root *bher- (1) "to carry," also "to bear children." Venus in the evening sky was Hesperus.

Belief that it was the proper name of Satan began with its use in Bible to translate Greek Phosphoros, which translates Hebrew Helel ben Shahar in Isaiah xiv.12 — "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] Because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, the verse was interpreted spiritually by Christians as a reference to Satan, even though it is literally a reference to the King of Babylon (see Isaiah xiv.4). Sometimes rendered daystar in later translations."
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Lucifer

As to your question: "so, how does a Latin word find itself in the midst of a 100% Hebrew/Aramaic written Book?"

This is the same question about the English in the NRSV, REB etc., "how do we find English in a book written in Hebrew?"
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#13
Me too. Concordances would be useless to me if they were not based on the familiar KJV. It's all I know.



That's good to hear. I haven't found any problems doctrine-wise that are intrinsic to KJV version either. Same misinterpretation of doctrine seems to be consistent across most all modern versions (KJV seems modern enough for me.)
Not being scholars in the Hebrew and Greek, most of us have to use the language helps. They are quite effective when coming up against the self-proclaimed scholars on the Internet, who no one knows their actual qualifications. Who is the true scholar? It is those who have written the lexicons and dictionaries of the biblical langauges. Years back I coughed up big bucks to have the BDAG on my computer study Bible. Even then we do well to word study the Hebrew and Greek as an author uses a word to make sure of the meaning as the Holy Spirit guides and illuminates us. Each of us thinks the meaning we have arrived at, is THE CERTAIN meaning of a word, yet we at times come up different. :eek:
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#14
Where did you get that there is any Aramaic in the book of Isaiah? I find that nowhere in reference books I have.

As to using a translation that is not in the same language as the original, remember Jesus and the Apostles mainly used and quoted from the LXX, the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT Hebrew. When it comes to the Latin, it was as stated in the Brittannica -

"During the Middle Ages and until comparatively recent times, Latin was the language most widely used in the West for scholarly and literary purposes."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-language

John Trapp(1601-1669) of the KJV generation understood what was meant by "Lucifer" in the KJV -

"Ver. 12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! ] That is, not O Belzeebub, as some ancients, but, O Belshazzar rather, called Lucifer here, or the morning star, for his beauty and brightness; and as much wonder it was to see the Chaldean monarch at such an under, as to have seen Lucifer, the sun’s constant companion, fallen from heaven. He was the terror of the world, and, as he thought, superior to fortune; yet a sudden and dismal change befell him. In the chariot of the Roman triumpher, there hung up a little bell and a whip, to put him in mind he might one day be whipped as a slave, or as an offender lose his head. Nemo confidat mimium secundis. Let no one rely on the least favours."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jtc/isaiah-14.html

Here is an etymology of the word "Lucifer" -

"Old English Lucifer "Satan," also "morning star, Venus in the morning sky before sunrise," also an epithet or name of Diana, from Latin Lucifer "morning star," noun use of adjective, literally "light-bringing," from lux (genitive lucis) "light" (from PIE root *leuk- "light, brightness") + ferre "to carry, bear," from PIE root *bher- (1) "to carry," also "to bear children." Venus in the evening sky was Hesperus.

Belief that it was the proper name of Satan began with its use in Bible to translate Greek Phosphoros, which translates Hebrew Helel ben Shahar in Isaiah xiv.12 — "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] Because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, the verse was interpreted spiritually by Christians as a reference to Satan, even though it is literally a reference to the King of Babylon (see Isaiah xiv.4). Sometimes rendered daystar in later translations."
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Lucifer

As to your question: "so, how does a Latin word find itself in the midst of a 100% Hebrew/Aramaic written Book?"

This is the same question about the English in the NRSV, REB etc., "how do we find English in a book written in Hebrew?"
Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar. they are basically the same Language.

but i see you have made up your excuse claiming translation.
this is why from the most Original Greek Text to the 1516 Receptus there's a difference between 251 mistranslated Verses and over 1,000+ added words.

when you translate the Greek to Latin and then to English, you have removed so many variables the truth becomes a different interpretation from the original.

but if you translate the Greek to English, you can see the errors from Greek to Latin to English.

this should be common sense to anyone who researches!
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,085
3,677
113
#15
Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar. they are basically the same Language.

but i see you have made up your excuse claiming translation.
this is why from the most Original Greek Text to the 1516 Receptus there's a difference between 251 mistranslated Verses and over 1,000+ added words.

when you translate the Greek to Latin and then to English, you have removed so many variables the truth becomes a different interpretation from the original.

but if you translate the Greek to English, you can see the errors from Greek to Latin to English.

this should be common sense to anyone who researches!
Are you removing God from the equation? Can God have his words translated into any language he wants, and those translated words be the pure words of God in that language?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,085
3,677
113
#16
As to using a translation that is not in the same language as the original, remember Jesus and the Apostles mainly used and quoted from the LXX, the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT Hebrew. When it comes to the Latin, it was as stated in the Brittannica -
No proof whatsoever of this mysterious LXX.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#17
Are you removing God from the equation? Can God have his words translated into any language he wants, and those translated words be the pure words of God in that language?
where did i say God was removed?

i will say when you translate from 1 Language to another one to another there's many places for error.
but when you translate from 1 Language to another, it's the best chance for truer outcome.

the Receptus is from Greek to Latin to English.
English has 4 words to every Latin word and Latin has 3 words to every Greek word.
you know how many errors could exist here?

but Greek to English is as best as it gets because [the Majority] of Greek is a plain Language so you are only dealing with the issues of which English word is correct.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,382
5,721
113
#19
A critic of the KJV points to Deut. 8:9 as an error for its translation of "brass" since it is an alloy that is not dug out of the ground, and it is a difficult point to answer. I'm using the KJV here, but any translation can be criticized in like manner in various verses.

Brass, from the Encyclopedia Britannica
"Brass, as an alloy of copper and zinc without tin, did not appear in Egypt until about 30 BCE, but after this it was rapidly adopted throughout the Roman world, for example, for currency."

The KJV translators translated the Hebrew nchosheth 103 times as brass, 28 times brazen, fetters 5, chain(s) 3, copper 1, filthiness 1 and steel 1.

The KJV translators certainly knew about the alloy "brass" and knew it was not dug directly out of the ground, so why would they use the term "brass" 103 times instead of "copper" when they used "copper" the one time?

The first line in the ISBE states: "The use of the word brass has always been more or less indefinite in its application."

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language Second Edition, Unabridged:
brass "13. having the color brass"

From the KJV "Translators to the Readers" -
"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader: that we have not tied
ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure
would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere
have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense
of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places
(for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere [polushma]), we
were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we
should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we
translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where
journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never
ache; if one where joy, never gladness, etc--thus, to mince the matter, we thought to
savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist
than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or
syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when
we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

My guess is, the translators considered the context and used "brass" to represent any metals derived by digging in earth that was supportive of prosperity and showing the goodness from God. Any other ideas?
I wish you had cited some specific scriptures regarding brass. I had to search Strongs to find the verses in The KJV.
I had no idea it used brass in place of bronze because I only read it occasionally.
I don't think it's important as far as theology or doctrine. It just sounds weird & wrong to me. Historically, it doesn't
fit if Moses was making 'brass' implements for the tabernacle.


Exodus 30:17 Then the Lord said to Moses,
18 “Make a bronze basin, with its bronze stand, for washing. Place it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it.

Pre & "Dark Age" history have been a special interest of mine over the years. I'm familiar with Stone, Bronze & Iron ages
but have never heard of a Brass age. IMO brass in The OT looks like a change to the text from a later time, perhaps to make
it more relative to the people of that time. It's not really nitpicking to say so.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,085
3,677
113
#20
where did i say God was removed?

i will say when you translate from 1 Language to another one to another there's many places for error.
but when you translate from 1 Language to another, it's the best chance for truer outcome.

the Receptus is from Greek to Latin to English.
English has 4 words to every Latin word and Latin has 3 words to every Greek word.
you know how many errors could exist here?

but Greek to English is as best as it gets because [the Majority] of Greek is a plain Language so you are only dealing with the issues of which English word is correct.
Are you saying a translation cannot be the inspired word of God?