TotD: KJV = inaccurate translation?

[CDWolfe]

I grew up learning from the KJV, memorizing all the verses in Sunday School, etc. Now, 37.9 years later, I look back and can see where it was translated not quite so accurately. This may make some KJV advocates mad, but that is not the intent. Keep an open mind as you read through this.

The KJV was an English translation, taken from the Latin Vulgate. It was done during the Protestant Reformation, at the start of the 17th century. At that time, very few textual resources were available to scholars outside of what they already had. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until some ~450 years later.

Modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc) have gone back and revised their respective translations for accuracy, given the greater amount of material that is now available for cross-referencing. If you compare the KJV to the modern ones (BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.) you'll find where the KJV had numerous errors throughout it.

I know that the scholars and authors *claim* that they were divinely inspired and that the KJV is the word of God, and can't be refuted. If I claim the same and write something, does that make it irrefutable? :no:

Like I said, keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc) have gone back and revised their respective translations for accuracy, given the greater amount of material that is now available for cross-referencing. If you compare the KJV to the modern ones (BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.) you'll find where the KJV had numerous errors throughout it.

Walk us through that process.

Like I said, keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture.

Speaking of which, should we assume that, given your "(NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc)", the Jewish translations are to be subsumed under the category "etc". :beach:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, why not drop the soft pedantry and simply tell us what, if anything, you would like to debate and why?

 

[oldbadger]

Parenthetically, why not drop the soft pedantry and simply tell us what, if anything, you would like to debate and why?

Hello Jayhawker and CDWolfe.......

OK....... I always understood that King James was really keen on witch-hunts. I heard that he 'leaned' on his scholars somewhat (about witches).

For instance, the 'Seer of Endor' became the Witch of Endor, and more of the same, through the books.

But, anyway, surely we have gained knowledge since that translation? Jayhawker..... how do your Jewish, Hebrew, Aramaic translations compare?

 

[CDWolfe]

Parenthetically, why not drop the soft pedantry and simply tell us what, if anything, you would like to debate and why?

LOL...

I can and will debate if someone wishes. However I lean more toward getting people to be open minded and think outside of the box. That does not necessarily require a debate, merely the planting of a thought or idea for them to ponder over. That's how it started with me, years ago.

I dare say most people, taken as a whole, don't dive into biblical history and search for truth, answers, and spend time cross referencing everything they are told. Instead, they opt to "blindly" listen to their pastor/rabbi/priest/whatever, go through the motions and that's that.

My discussions generally are not for those types of people...although if interested they are certainly welcome. Keep following me around the forums; I like intelligent discussion and different views, even if some come across as condescending! :beach:

 

[arthra]

Wolfe wrote:

" I grew up learning from the KJV, memorizing all the verses in Sunday School"

That's amazing! You're a regular Hafiz!

Wolfe wrote:

"If I claim the same and write something, does that make it irrefutable?"

I guess we'll have to wait till you write something irrefutable...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOL...

I can and will debate if someone wishes. However ...

This is a debate forum.

 

[CDWolfe]

This is a debate forum.

So, debate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For instance, the 'Seer of Endor' became the Witch of Endor, ...

Would you please provide a text reference?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As a side note: I really wish I had time to read Alter's Pen of Iron. Perhaps next year.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For those unfamiliar with Alter, I believe I've referenced this elsewhere, but it's relevant here as well.

 

[oldbadger]

Would you please provide a text reference?

OK....... off I go...... see you 'God knows when'!

 

[McBell]

If you compare the KJV to the modern ones ... ... you'll find where the KJV had numerous errors throughout it.

Really?
Errors you say?

I will accept your usage of the word "errors" here if you can show which version is the "correct" version.

I mean, you have not shown the KJV to be wrong, nor have you shown any other version to be right.
You have actually done nothing more than point out differences.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He's going after the low hanging fruit and doing it poorly.

 

[oldbadger]

Jayhawker...... I'm back, at last!

OK.... the 1611 translation of the KJV, 1 Samuel ch 28, refers to King Saul seeking out a familiar to 'connect' him with the deceased prophet. This term is directly connected with witchcraft.

Other translations don't seem to do this, for instance, the New International version refers to her as 'a medium'. But surprisingly (to me) Ch 28 in the NIV is headed 'Saul and the Witch of Endor', which I did not expect to see.

King James was very interested in witchcraft and witch-trials. He wrote a book which he published in 1597 titled Demonology.

 

[Skwim]

Unless the believer subscribes to Biblical inerrancy and/or bases their beliefs and morals on particular passages, the accuracy of the translations shouldn't matter. From what I've seen, all versions carry the broader message of salvation through the acceptance of Jesus as lord and master. Outside of this lies the quagmire of Biblical contradictions, falsehoods, exaggerations, tall tales, and plain silliness, both among the various translations and within themselves.

That one puts a value on one translation over the others is nothing more than assuming its errors are less meaningful than the errors in the other translations. And from what I've seen this is pretty much predicated on how closely a translation comes to fitting in with one's religious needs.

Want to use Romans 13:9 to support your contention that "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? then you better use the King James version and not the New International, New American Standard, or the New World Translations. Or, if you go to Luke 4:4, wanting to know how not to live by bread alone then you'd better pick a Bible like the International Standard Version, which tells you "but on every word of God" rather than something like the American Standard Version that fails to tell you anything.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I always understood that King James was really keen on witch-hunts. I heard that he 'leaned' on his scholars somewhat (about witches). For instance, the 'Seer of Endor' became the Witch of Endor, and more of the same, through the books.

Would you please provide a text reference?

... the 1611 translation of the KJV, 1 Samuel ch 28, refers to King Saul seeking out a familiar to 'connect' him with the deceased prophet. This term is directly connected with witchcraft

And because the KJV may have employed the idiom of the day you presume that the King "leaned on the scholars somewhat." Doed that strike you as a reasonable inference?

 

[fallingblood]

I grew up learning from the KJV, memorizing all the verses in Sunday School, etc. Now, 37.9 years later, I look back and can see where it was translated not quite so accurately. This may make some KJV advocates mad, but that is not the intent. Keep an open mind as you read through this.

The KJV was an English translation, taken from the Latin Vulgate. It was done during the Protestant Reformation, at the start of the 17th century. At that time, very few textual resources were available to scholars outside of what they already had. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until some ~450 years later.

Modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc) have gone back and revised their respective translations for accuracy, given the greater amount of material that is now available for cross-referencing. If you compare the KJV to the modern ones (BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.) you'll find where the KJV had numerous errors throughout it.

I know that the scholars and authors *claim* that they were divinely inspired and that the KJV is the word of God, and can't be refuted. If I claim the same and write something, does that make it irrefutable? :no:

Like I said, keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture.

The KJV doesn't have errors per se (for it's time, it is a remarkable work), but instead was based on the best resources at that time. This included not just the Latin Vulgate, but also Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from that time (or that were known). It was also based on the best understanding of the languages of the time, but the understanding of these languages had much to progress (based on new finds).

As for modern translations, many of them contain the same errors, and some are simply fueled by theological wants instead of what the manuscripts state. There is also the problem of knowing which manuscripts are the most accurate. And even then, textual scholars will tell you that we don't have the originals, and that there are thousands of discrepancies between the manuscripts we now have. Even in some of the best translations (I'm talking about the NRSV here for at least the NT), there are still verses in which many scholars will disagree with, as translating is not a clear cut ordeal. I know when I have translated the Greek myself, I tend to come up with something that isn't exactly the same as other translations.

 

[Skwim]

The KJV doesn't have errors per se (for it's time, it is a remarkable work),

So what would be an error "per se," which is unlike a non-"per se" error in the KJV ? I would think an error is an error is an error.

 

[McBell]

So what would be an error "per se," which is unlike a non-"per se" error in the KJV ? I would think an error is an error is an error.

I do not know.
However I have noticed that people will move the goal posts quite a bit when it comes to the errors in the KJV.

Straining at a gnat...
Well it doesn't change the meaning of the verse...
​

Some even go so far as to say if the original documents differ from their favourite version that the originals are to corrected using their favourite version.