Nit-picking the KJV or other translations

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?

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.

How is it translated in other modern versions?

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."

. I use the KJV primarily because almost all my language help tools are keyed to the KJV and the Strong's numbering system.

. 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.

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.

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.)

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!

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 -

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?

No proof whatsoever of this mysterious LXX.

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?

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.