Errors In my KJV Bible - What?!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Faith to Walk Ministries encourages the truth that there are no errors in the word of God. Sometimes as people are putting it together some mistakes can happen in printing and formatting. Also some erroneous notes or wrong cross references could be added to a Bible. Always remember that the word of God is inspired - notes are not. Also when a publisher notices these errors in the text they work on getting it reworked and reprinted as fast as they can. Grace can be shown as they are in this process. So don’t throw away your Bibles!
Bibles featured:
Cambridge Concord, Cambridge Turquoise, Kirkbride Thompson Chain Reference, Schuyler Canterbury, Thomas Nelson KJV Premier Collection Giant Print Reference.
Great point bro and so happy we have a few pro KJV people left!
Joseph Dunn Oh yeah! Thanks for watching!
I purchased a new Nelson KJV but will return it because it has a huge misspelling in 2 Cor 24 they put "domination" instead of "Dominion." To me God's words need to be perfect. I went out and purchased a Holman KJV. Hopefully I won't find any issues.
Yeah, I can’t understand one here and there, but I prefer none as well. When you know there is a mistake it sticks out like a sore thumb! Hopefully your new one is just what you’re looking for!
@@faithtowalkministries132 The word "somewhat" in Rev2:4 kjv. Was it in the original texts or was it added. It seems it was added because it's in italics.
you happened to notice the spacing between the words whole multitude was.. but I think "by" was pretty close to those words as well ....the best thing for them to do was to take the word "by"... and make it part of the last line of text in that verse.. then they would have had the space they needed.
but Nelson has a much more severe issue regarding their red lettered text.. either the color of red fades in and out from page to page.. or they run the red letter lines spaced unevenly between the black lettered lines... this to me is a much greater issue than what you are describing here.. but of course the Nelson's are 60.00 bibles as opposed to 500.00 bi les.. so yes the Schuylers and Allans should be perfect...for those prices.... but I got mine for under 300.00 off E-bay....
Read 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2. Was King Ahaziah 22 years old or 42 years old when he began to reign over Israel as King for one year?
I laughed about this because many a woman will lie about their age. Maybe King Ahaziah was sensitive about his age.
It looks like the translators translated the numbers 22 & 42 correctly. From a bible believer, Patty
How do you justify Easter being the translation in this text yet the KJV translates the same word Passover everywhere else?
“And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
Acts 12:3-4 KJV
The rule for all doctrine is that it comes from Scripture only, taken in context, compared to other passages of Scripture. So let’s look at this closely in the line of Scripture. (V. 4 has to be taken in context with (v. 3) which most ignore.
“And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
Acts 12:3-4
Therefore Easter would be absolutely correct since Biblically it could not be Passover. Here is why - Passover happens the night before the “days of unleavened bread.” This passage agrees with that timing which can be found in Leviticus 23:5-6
“In 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.” Leviticus 23:5-6
Passover (the Jews Passover) was not after the “days of unleavened bread,” but the night before it started.
Here is more on the subject.
Now here is more on the subject taken from
a thorough research.
www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
Dear@@faithtowalkministries132,
In all the discussion to try to justify the use of the word "easter", the text still says "πάσχα", which literally is referring to the "passover".
The KJV correctly translates the word "πάσχα" with the English word "passover" in all other instances. Yet, in this instance the KJV uses the English word "Easter", instead of what God's Word literally says.
To change the text of Scripture from "Passover" to "Easter" is to change the meaning God expressly used in the text (did God use the wrong word ?). If God meant "Easter" or something other than "passover", I'm sure God had an extensive enough understanding of Greek vocabulary that He could have used some other word to express something other than Passover. After the elaborate attempts to justify why the KJV changes The Text of God's Word, His Word still says "πάσχα", which means nothing else other than "passover".
This cannot be considered a usage of the Formal Equivalence Method of Translation, because the translators have not literally translated the Greek word "πάσχα". Instead this is an example where the translators of the KJV use a far left version of the Dynamic Equivalence Method of Translation.
This is not exactly like the Dynamic Equivalence the NIV frequently uses because the NIV is more conservative in that it conveys the meaning intrinsic in the grammar and idioms of the text.
If the explanation of the KJV Only Supporters is accepted, then this rendering goes beyond mere translation, into definite interpretation of the text.
Just how far should translators ignore the literal meaning of the text and change the literal meaning, in favor of an interpretation ? Imagine just how dangerous that procedure could be.
The bottom line is that KJV Only Supporters value the translation of the Anglican Scholars so much, that they are willing to sacrifice the actual meaning of the specific words used in Text of God's Word, in an attempt to justify the changing of God's Word by their translation.
In essence, the translation of men is more important than God's Word.
Everything must fall on the sword to preserve the translation of men, even God's actual Word
Be Well,
DZ
The word EASTER is found in several English Bible from the 1500s.
So it is clearly a way for the churches to REPLACE Passover with "Easter".
Back up a bit dud because KJV has Acts 12:4 translated incorrectly.
What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar.
Modern-day Bibles get it right.
Acts 12:4 NLT
Then he imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring Peter out for public trial after the Passover.
Acts 12:4 TLB
and imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of sixteen soldiers. Herod's intention was to deliver Peter to the Jews for execution after the Passover.
Acts 12:4 NASB
When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.
Acts 12:4 NIV
After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.
Acts 12:4 YLT
whom also having seized, he did put in prison, having delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the passover to bring him forth to the people.
Bryant Floyd Don Haddix
“And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
Acts 12:3-4 KJV
The rule for all doctrine is that it comes from Scripture only, taken in context, compared to other passages of Scripture. So let’s look at this closely in the line of Scripture. (V. 4 has to be taken in context with (v. 3) which most ignore.
“And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
Acts 12:3-4
Therefore Easter would be absolutely correct since Biblically it could not be Passover. Here is why - Passover happens the night before the “days of unleavened bread.” This passage agrees with that timing which can be found in Leviticus 23:5-6
“In 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.” Leviticus 23:5-6
Passover (the Jews Passover) was not after the “days of unleavened bread,” but the night before it started.
Here is more on the subject.
Now here is more on the subject taken from
a thorough research.
www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
So tired of nonsense like this. Your week days are named after Gods. Oh the horror. There is no issue with that.
niv is full of error
I've noticed "their's" and "your's" in Nelson 1989 KJV... No way could that have been intended.
there is no error in kjv, i believe that God use english language to preserve and spread his word im a filipino but tagalog bible is corrupted and God lead me to read kjv bible,kjv is the pure word of God🔥👑✝️
@@johnnyvans_77 Thanks for watching!
@@johnnyvans_77 Thank you for watching!
@@faithtowalkministries132 i believe that God use english language to preserve his word because english language is the most spoken language on this world,kjv around the world🇸🇾🇪🇭🇸🇩🇿🇲🇹🇼🇹🇰🇺🇿🇹🇷🇸🇩🇻🇦🇻🇦🇵🇦🇸🇴🇵🇦🇿🇦🇪🇸🇰🇷🇵🇸🇸🇨🇷🇪🇵🇸🇷🇪🇵🇦🇵🇸🇵🇸🇲🇷🇺🇸🇵🇭PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO REVEAL TRUTH PURE WORD🔥✝️
@@faithtowalkministries132 English Language is universal languages of this world
@@faithtowalkministries132 the number seven/7 to God is special because it is a symbol of holiness
seven main languages the bible has gone through
1.hebrew
2.aramiac
3.syriac
4.greek
5.old latin
6.german
7.ENGLISH
*English is the 7th language
The KJV is, however, a "seventh translation" of the Bible in English language . The prior translations leading up to the KJV were given in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible" that the translators went by after they were commissioned to do their work.
1. Tyndale
2. Matthew
3. Coverdale
4. Great Bible
5. Geneva
6. Bishops
7. Kjv 1611
Kjv it’s so very special to God
Psalm 12:6-7 KJV
The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
* God purified his word 7 times it is not coincidence,only kjv is mathematically perfection🔥✝️
2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Matthew 24:35
King James Version
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away
ERRONEOUSLY thought to refer to Satan??? Wow. That’s surprising. Who would’ve put that there 🤔
hmmm
Lucifer is literally Latin for morning star, your interpretation may lead you to believe it is talking about Satan. It may be. But the word Lucifer does not necessarily always mean Satan. For example you are not saying Jesus is Satan in Rev. 22:16?
Actually Lucifer meaning morning star is a bad translation of modern versions that does in fact make Jesus Christ who is the morning star Revelation 22:16 - Lucifer. The better translation of the word here is the Latin Lucifer which is in Hebrew hê·lêl which means “shining one or light holder. This goes more to the decription of who Satan is since we also see this truth - “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
2 Corinthians 11:14 KJV
Faith to Walk Ministries When you believe the KJB, it’s translation reveals doctrinal truths to us.
In the modern versions he’s anonymous. He doesn’t want the world knowing his name and what he was.
Nowhere in the bible said that it was satan.
The capitalizations seem to me to be a moot point, because the Greek has no capitalizations, punctuation, or even spacing. But the Job part is very unsettling, I have a Schuyler, but I really do not like it. It seems like in the Thomas Nelson's many of the notes go to discredit the King James also. Thanks for the video.
therobinfliesagain22 Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment brother!
Dear therobinfliesagain22
Good point ! Whether or not a word is capitalized or not, is irrelevant, because as you said, there are no capitalizations in the original languages.
Be Well,
DZ
regarding your comment about Lucifer.... Yes I believed that way for the longest time as well... but I came across some info... during a recent study that points to Lucifer Not necessarily being a Name for Satan... I cannot remember what I was studying exactly I believe it was something in the latter half of Job or somewhere...... that pointed to Lucifer Not really really referring to Satan.. but to the wickedness of Israel...I would have to look back into my journal notes to actually find why some do Not believe this mention of Lucifer ...(only mentioned in Isaiah ONCE in Isaiah 14:12...by the way) pertains to Satan... and it makes sense once one has all of the facts and reads this passage in light of the rest of God's word...many seem to believe this passage is regarding Satan's expulsion from Heaven... bit I am Not so sure that is what this Isaiah verse is about now...If I remember correctly my finding pointed me to Lucifer being a metaphor for the wickedness of Israel... and this passage is.. symbolic.. needing to beread metaphorically.... Not literally. .taken in regard... Satan's expulsion...
Does Canterbury use Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE)?
Yes that would be correct.
If you throw out that Schuyler Canterbury, let me get you my address. You can just ship it here and I'll take care of it for you. 😀
un regards to the wor spirit Not being capitalized in Job 33:4... I would take some white out... and capitalize it... but that is what I do... I write in my bibles...
and are you partial to the Thompson...?.. I used one for about a year.. then I switched to the Liberty Annotated... aka the Thomas Nelson KJV study bible.. but Now I use a Dake's... putting all of Dake's biases aside.. I believe it to be a way better bible than the Thompson.. and many of the charts are the same...but the concordance and Notes are in way much more detail...
MT 16:27 should read "For the Son of Man is ABOUT TO COME in the glory of the Father" etc. (3195) usually not translated in most English bibles because of futurist bias! Check it out.
you pointed out the error regarding the word Easter being stated as a mistranslation in the Notes on Acts 12:4... yet you did Not justify why you think their notes were wrong in stating this.......
many believe that the word Easter was derived from the word Estarte.. a heathen deity.... and so.. perhaps.. the Notes were not so inaccurate in stating what they did as much as the translators were inaccurate in their choice for referring to Easter in such a manner instead of calling it Passover in thebible text.....
Nelson KJVs have always been textually eccentric. The 2K editions seem to be more consistently "Cantabrigian" than the older ones.
As for the three major differences between the Oxford and Cambridge texts, the Cambridge text reflects on all 3 points what was printed in 1611, though the Oxford rendering seems to be a better translation.
I have some different explanations for some points (such as Isaiah 14.12 and Acts 12.4) than you do, but that's a different matter. I will point out that the Concord's dictionary does have a notably Anglican bias.
(Let me emphasize: I am not saying that these different explanations reflect mistakes on the part of the translators. I am saying that people are reading their preconceptions into the text. For example, any "errors" in the KJV translation of the New Testament - and I have translated it myself - are generally a matter of people not understanding what the KJV is actually saying.)
schuyler canterbury
Acts 7:14 and Exodus 1:5?
There is no perfect translation of the bible. Hebrew, aramaic, and greek to English or from latin to english can be messy. Heres my advice/solution to the world for translations of the bible...
Buy the Dewey Rheims bible, the KJV, the NABRE, the NRSV (canada), and the ESV.
Now open them all up and read them all in tandem and the word of god will speak to you. U can probably add any translation you want at this point and take them all in.
1 the KJV is poetic and beautiful but has translation errors.
2 the DRV is direct from the latin vulgate from 400AD it is gritty but solid.
3. the 3 modern are easy to read the NRSV is woke due to its gender conforming writing style (I dont like but use it to compare to be fair) the NABRE is the modern catholic standard but not so poetic as the KJV but ok. The ESV is solid translation and has corrections to the KJV but modern like the 2 above none the less.
My advice is to have the DRV, the KJV , and whatever bible yer current church holds but have all 3 open and be touched by the actual word of GOD and not man's interpretation of the word of GOD. ❤❤❤ 🙏🙏🙏😜🤪😜🤪 GOD will speak to you. 1 way or another. Stay strong ppl and GOD bless you all. ❤❤❤
But "Lucifer" is from Origen who likely borrowed the proper name from pagan mythology.
Many Patristic writers concurred with Origen and construed "Lucifer" as the proper name of the subject of Isa 14:12, and they also interpreted the subject of Isa 14:12 as the arch spiritual enemy; i.e., the devil or the adversary (the Satan). Jerome held the same view before he wrote the Latin Vulgate. So, the KJV's (and Wycliffe & Coverdale in other verses) use of "Lucifer" as a proper name for the devil is based on early Church tradition; which has caused mass confusion.
Either way - but the fact that it said in Hebrew there “light holder/bearer” and not “morning star” is a big difference.
@@faithtowalkministries132 Yes, literally speaking, star is absent; but what is the difference?
Jesus Christ Is The Day/Morning Star
There is a major difference.
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:” 2 Peter 1:19
“And I will give him the morning star.”
Revelation 2:28
“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” Revelation 22:16
Critics: "Lucifer" is the invention of Latin church fathers:
Critics allege that "Lucifer" is a name for Satan that Latin Christians invented. This is not wholly true. Although "Lucifer" is Latin, i no t is the Latin equivalent of the Greek name. The Septuagint translates "Heylel" as “ἑωσφόρος (Eosphorus),” which means “Dawn or more so - light bearer.” “Lucifer,” from the Latin, “lucis” and “ferre,” means “Lightbearer.” Thus "Lucifer" is the Latin equivalent of the ancient Septuagint translation of "Heylel" as "ἑωσφόρος." If you accept the mainstream view of a Jewish-made Septuagint, then you must accept that Jews translated "Heylel" as "ἑωσφόρος," which means the same thing as "Lucifer."
Critics: "Heylel" just means "day star":
Isaiah 14:12 uses celestial imagery to illustrate the fall of Heylel. In this picture, Heylel is compared to the planet Venus which appears early in the morning. Thus “Day Star” is the symbolic referent in Isaiah 14:12 and the KJV margin indicates this. That being said, Heylel is much more than just the planet Venus. Planet Venus is an inanimate object but Isaiah 14:12-14 clearly describes a morally evil being with anti-God ambitions. Although planet Venus the "Day Star" is intended in the symbolism, the word "Heylel" itself does not consist of the Hebrew words for "day" and "star." Thus "Day Star" is not the most accurate translation. Furthermore, unnecessarily having “day star” in Isaiah 14:12 can cause confusion because there is another different “day star” in 2 Peter 1:19. The “day star” in Isaiah 14:12 is not the “day star” in 2 Peter 1:19. The “day star” in 2 Peter 1:19 is the “Sun of righteousness” (Malachi 4:2), who is Jesus Christ ("Phosphoros" translated "day star" literally means "light bringer", not Venus despite the common association in pagan Greek mythology). The “day star” in Isaiah 14:12 is Venus, which represents Satan. The Sun represents Jesus Christ (the king of Israel) whereas Venus represents Satan (the king of Babylon). Having “Lucifer (Venus)” instead of “daystar” in Isaiah 14:12 distinguishes the celestial body in Isaiah 14:12 from that in 2 Peter 1:19.
The light bearer - Lucifer - doesn’t get the same name of Jesus Christ - Morinng Star
@@faithtowalkministries132 Well, "Lucifer" seems to be first used by Origen of Alexandria as a proper name for the Satan and the subject of Isa 14:12. Do you approve of everything Origen wrote? Other Patristic writers agreed with Origen including Jerome, who also wrote about Origen's "Lucifer" before that named entered Holy Writ.
When you consider the 1611 KJV that was first presented to the world, you have to accept their "wisdom" in providing an alternative rendering, "O day star" at Isa 14:12. What does that mean to you? Is that "day star" the same as the "day star" of 2 Pet 1:19?
1611 KJV Bible:
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together
Sirach 50:6 He [Simon the high priest, son of Onias] was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, as as the moon at full
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star
Rev 22:16b I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Isa 14:12 How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning.
Isa 14:12 marginal note, "O day star"
2 Pet 1:19 as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.
Do you agree or disagree that Light bearer - Latin Lucifer is not the same as Morning or Day Star that is attributed to only Jesus Christ? That’s what it comes down to.
Corrupt, mistranslated, reduced by Man.
what kind of bible cover is that
glenn gray Which Bible?
yes the bible has been changed by the devil using cern