Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Can you name a section where the King James version is false?

Update:

Yes, Tim, I prefer the Greek and Hebrew to the English fiction.

19 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    John 1:1.

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    in Greek this verse ends: 'And God was the Word.'

    εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

    Luther got it right in 1545

    Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort

    which makes it even more amazing that by 1611 this had been forgotten.

    (Also: there are no unicorns in the real Bible - or Satyrs).

    [Edit]

    Until recently the King James Version of the Bible was a serious contender for the worst translation ever made. Not the worst translation of the Bible; the worst translation of anything.

    These days it has probably been overtaken by the NIV - but the King James Version is still bad enough to make the kuk that comes out of Babelfish look readable.

    Fortunately people who use the KJV are never the kind who are bright enough to learn Koine.

  • 1 decade ago

    According to prolific author Bart Ehrman (writing about textual "corruption" by orthodox scribes in the early centuries of the church), some later appended New Testament sentence phrases that stand in the King James translation but not so much in the current standard ones is I John 5:7-8. The parts that were put in as a Trinitarian extension go along these lines: ". . .testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:" The epistles of John have been changed in a way that doesn't reflect the tone of theology of that time. It's no so much error or falsehood as inaccuracy to the knowable message of the apostolic writers (Paul, John of the Epistles, Gospel writers).

    For an early 17th Century translation committee the KJV workers in his court were using source texts from the ancient but not earliest Greek versions that steered them wrong. . .

  • 1 decade ago

    King James was a paranoid schizophrenic. He interjected much of his beliefs into the tranlation if the Bible into English. Very little study was done as to interpretations of Hebrew prior to translation. There are too many falsehoods within the King James version to pick out just one. But read between the lines and get the real word of God, not some nut case.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles comes to mind. Either the person writing it didn't know how to count, or someone translated the scripture incorrectly.

    Isn't it a shame the Bible was so full of errors until King James came along and authorized the "real" Bible?

    *please!*

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Tim
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    on the whole the KJV is probably one of the most accurate translations of the Bible available today.

    Any subject of significance is mentioned more than once throughout the Bible, so the diligent bible student will be able to discern the correct interpretation.

    Unless you are in to reading Greek and Hebrew the most accurate translation is probably the New KJV.

    I would trust the KJV more than any other version.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Third Commandment is one of the places where the King James version falls flat on its face. The word 'Lord' is not there. The word is Yahweh.

    The most important word of the verse is 'vain.' It should be understood to mean 'useless' or 'powerless.'

    When you curse and wish for God to damn something, you are not using his name in vain. In fact, you are doing the exact opposite.

    When you say the Third Commandment falsely, as in Deuteronomy 5:11 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain" you are doing exactly that. You (King James, I mean) are twisting the original Hebrew text to mean something other than what is written, a damnable sin, by God.

  • 1 decade ago

    All translations are, by definition, false, or at least unfaithful (traduttore, traditore...). But King James Bible is a beautiful text, in seventeenth century English. Of course, it is often inaccurate. To me, it is not the letter that matters, but the spirit of the text.

    Source(s): "My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi".
  • 1 decade ago

    Old King James

    Old King James...are you to

    Blame for lack of rays

    Into cold rooms where

    Monks, scribes, carved

    Their names

    For lack of shame,

    Want for warmth...

    How many phrases...

    The scribble of shivers,

    Not corrected for

    Future Dead Sea

    Scholars who toss a

    Coin in meaning for

    A word, a letter...

    Fodder for present

    Central-air halls.

    Old King James, you

    Are to blame for torching

    The future with

    Freezing monks and

    Sneezing scribes.

  • 4 years ago

    The descriptions are obviously slanted from the Jehovah Witness dogmatic outlook. I think there is a very wide outlook on why people read the Bible and your list just scratches the surface in its very slanted way.

  • 1 decade ago

    Try to find debate videos between Ahmed Deedat and especialy with Reverand Jimmy Swaggart.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ahmed+...

    There is a lot of material about this subject with Ahmed Deedat.

    With my respect to "people of the books": jew and Chritians.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.