Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.


Recommended Posts

  • Members
18 hours ago, DaveW said:

Jordan, you have run this line before, but if you read the rest of that passage the issue is explained:

Eze 45:21-23
(21)  In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
(22)  And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
(23)  And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.
 

If you go looking for the original giving of the feasts you find that Passover is a single day, and it is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread.

There is the "day" (singular) of Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which is referred to as "days".

Even moreso, you find that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread is "an holy convocation" (a Sabbath), but the Passover is not.

That is not to say that it has not been observed INCORRECTLY at times.

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says.

In any case, we have been over this before and there is little point in going over it again.

So you think Tyndale was so stupid that he didnt know that Christ was not an Easter (in our modern sense) lamb?

Perhaps William Tyndale understand the word Easter differently then 21st Century English Speakers....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

So you think Tyndale was so stupid that he didnt know that Christ was not an Easter (in our modern sense) lamb?

Perhaps William Tyndale understand the word Easter differently then 21st Century English Speakers....

Why would you so horribly and viciously misrepresent my words?

What I said about Tyndale was this:

18 hours ago, DaveW said:

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says

Not actually about Tyndale at all, and not about his intelligence or his understanding. 

This an entirely unjustified personal attack - I would expect such from certain others here, but not from you.

I know you don't have much respect for me (and I possibly have earned that lack of respect), but I thought you had a decent level of basic respect generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Leviticus differentiates passover and feast of unleavened bread: Leviticus 23: 5-8.

"On the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.  In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.  But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

This instruction clearly shows us that the Easter mentioned in Acts is not the same as Passover, as Dave has pointed out.  While I do not accept any modern versions, both the NIV and the NASB are clear as to the difference as well.

Easter has always been a pagan festival, in homage to Ishtar, the fertility goddess. It has NOTHING to do with Christ, so Tyndale got it wrong. Period. Christ is our Passover Lamb, not our fertility lamb. And before you jump on me as you did Dave, Jordan, rest assured that I don't believe Tyndale was stupid in any way. Just wrong to call Christ our Easter Lamb. Just as wrong as the modern translators who were wanting to refer to Christ as the "pig of God" because the people of Papua New Guinea didn't know what sheep were and held pigs as sacred.

There is no mistake about Easter in the KJV. "Pascha" means Easter, and is the word used in Acts. "Pesach" means Passover. Two different words, two different meanings. The feast of Eostre (Ishtar, Easter) took place around the same time as Passover. Herod was referencing Easter - the festival of Ishtar - not the resurrection of Christ nor even Passover. Herod was an Edomite. His ancestors had converted to Judaism, but that doesn't mean Herod did. By his referring to the feast of homage to Ishtar, it is clear he was a pagan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ditto Jim. On my part, it has only been 21-22 years of being Kjvonly (though leaning that way for several years before I actually started doing personal research on the matter). I especially focussed on Bible difficulties - and have never found an “error” that couldn’t be reconciled in some way - whether by studying out the exact English words of the passage or by comparing related passages. And inthe same manner, have proven over and over that other versions do have errors - whether by omissions creating a contradiction or difficulty or by reading the exact wording of that verse or passage in that modern version to see there is a conflict (and not finding the same error or conflict in the Kjv).

For the record Robycop, it is one thing to prove there is an error and another thing to just say there is. Just because you disagree with how someone reconciles or explains a Bible difficulty does not prove there is actually one. You’ve already explained your issue with the word Easter in Acts 12, now list or show us the myriad other actual errors you have personally found - if in fact you have found some. I can guarantee that the believers in the authenticity of the Kjv here can defend the Kjv from all those supposed errors, and show from each passage or related passages that our King James Bible is not in error. Can you do that with your favourite modern Bible version(s)? If not, you are just creating more smokescreens and being a stumbling block to the faith of any believer following your philosophy. For someone who claims to love the Lord and His Word, that should be something that you would strive against.

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mr Roby is clearly only here to cause trouble, and he is making hollow claims about errors in the KJV. If he has as he has implied many errors in the KJV why is it that he has now been more than 24 hours since posting his next error?

If there are so many (as he implies) then it should be a simple matter to just list them off - shouldn't take any great amount of time to find the next one and present it - since he has spent 40 years ridiculing the KJV (note the use of "goofs and booboos" - which sounds very much like what he accused NoNics of in another thread) he should be an expert on such things.

Then again, if he really has investigated the matter, he would have thoroughly studied the matter of the Passover, which it is evident that he has not from his poor counter to the answer presented here on that point.

No, I doubt very much that he has any good intent - he is here to damage the faith of some, which is the result that comes when people are driven to the MV's by such as he - so many doctrines are softened or removed by the MV's, and the simple fact that many MV's promote doubt of God's Word ("not found in the better manuscripts") damages men's faith in the Word of God.

This is my assessment of this man - he has lied, he has misrepresented, he has ridiculed, he has stated that he will not give plain respect, and yet he DEMANDED respect from us.

Let me make this plain - I am NOT AFRAID of any so called "proofs" that he can post here, because I know that they can all be answered.

I am also confident that no matter how solid the proof against him, he will not accept it.

The matter of Easter/Passover has been answered - you refuse to accept what is presented, and we refuse to accept your mispresentation of Scripture.

Later readers can assess for themselves what has been presented on that matter and decide that Mr Roby is wrong for themselves.

It is time to move on to the second error of the implied many that there are...…..

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
19 hours ago, Jerry said:

 

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. ?

Jerry! It's SO good to "see" you again as well! I hope you're here to stay for a while? I've thought about and prayed for you often. Are you still in the same place? If so, we aren't too far from your neck of the woods now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I moved to Abbotsford, BC (near Vancouver) in October 2011.

As for sticking around, we will see. I am not fighting depression like I was when I last visited, so I am willing to give these boards a try again. I look forward to fellowshipping over the Word of God and helping others dig into the Scriptures to answer issues we face here and in our own lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  A word about the "Goliath" controversy of 2 Samuel 12:19:

    "Goliath" is a HEBREW word which means "splendor". And "Lahmi" is also a Hebrew word meaning "my bread'.

   Scripture doesn't tell us the Philistine names of those 2 giants. Goliath & Lahmi are likely Hebrew "handles" for those 2 men. As both were abnormally large, it could be that the Israelis applied Goliath to the original G's brother, not knowing his actual name.

  Just a suggestion regarding the controversy of the Hebrew wording of that verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
30 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  A word about the "Goliath" controversy of 2 Samuel 12:19:

    "Goliath" is a HEBREW word which means "splendor". And "Lahmi" is also a Hebrew word meaning "my bread'.

   Scripture doesn't tell us the Philistine names of those 2 giants. Goliath & Lahmi are likely Hebrew "handles" for those 2 men. As both were abnormally large, it could be that the Israelis applied Goliath to the original G's brother, not knowing his actual name.

  Just a suggestion regarding the controversy of the Hebrew wording of that verse.

I believe you mean 2 Samuel 21:19, right?

If so, I ask -- What is the specific phrase in the verse wherein the King James translation got it wrong?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  Yes, 2 Sam 21;19. My typo.

  And the KJV didn't actually get it wrong, by strict interp, but it ADDED the words "the brother of". However, some KJVOs say other versions that don't include that phrase got it wrong. Hard to do when it's a LITERAL transalation of the Hebrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Yes, 2 Sam 21;19. My typo.

  And the KJV didn't actually get it wrong, by strict interp, but it ADDED the words "the brother of". However, some KJVOs say other versions that don't include that phrase got it wrong. Hard to do when it's a LITERAL transalation of the Hebrew.

Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19.

First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning.  Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew.  Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near."  If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother.  As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation.  By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work.  You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to).  However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

When I was first saved over forty years ago, I was taught first the basics of reading and studying the Bible. One of the first basics I remember is being taught that the italicized words were words that were added to facilitate the readers understanding. Silly me I thought everybody knew this, but I guess I was wrong.

Now, for someone to come along at this late date and insist that this basic feature of italicized words is adding to Scripture, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And of course the translators have the HONESTY to denote EVERY instance where they included extra words for clarity.

How many other "translations" do that?

Most don't have any indication of when they have done similar.

Thanks for pointing out the honesty of the KJV translational process.

Not really having much success with these errors.... in spite of your constant implying that there are many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...