Need help on King James version of Bible

  • Thread starter pmb_phy
  • Start date
In summary, there are errors in the Bible which may have been caused by the flawed nature of the writers. The King James Version apparently does not have this error.
  • #1
pmb_phy
2,952
1
Hi folks

I'm doing a lot of reading lately in the Bible and have come across some claims that there are errors in the Bible. That could very well be true since it was written by flawed man, even though it was devinely inspired.

Here are the so called errors

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

This is one that I'm checking out right now
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
I have the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible and there is no such error in it. I.e. in my NIV 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, ..."

But I don't know what the King James version says since I can't find mine. Does anyone have one? If so then can you check this out to see if this particular error is in the King James version? Thanks.

Pete
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That error is probally in it.I know heaven really means sky. Reign and king might mean the same thing in the langue that the king james verison was translated form.I don't have a king james verison(I have the NIV one too)so I can't confim that.
 
  • #3
Cough, cough, hack, hack... That's me choking on the dust.

Yes my anicient and seldom opened Kings James verision has that "error" So What?
 
  • #4
The same mistakes are in the King James version.
 
  • #5
It's kind of hard saying that errors or not since some of the words that the king james verison was translated form that languge(not sure which one)because a lot of the words(like King and Regin) have the same word but there not exactly the same thing.
I found this site with the king james verison
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Yah, the various versions of the Bible have all been translated nad re-translated to death... or at least a lot of them have. Go learn the original language and find an original :P
 
  • #7
Go with The New World Translation, it's the most modern and accurate version there is.
 
  • #8
Entropy said:
Go with The New World Translation, it's the most modern and accurate version there is.

I heard the KJV is the most accurate... but then again who told me that?
 
  • #9
Pengwuino said:
I heard the KJV is the most accurate... but then again who told me that?

Jerry Fallwell.:smile:
 
  • #10
Entropy said:
Go with The New World Translation, it's the most modern and accurate version there is.
How do you know? How do we even know if anyone knows those ancient languages well enough to translate anything to modern English without losing meaning? Couldn't it all be susceptible to the beliefs of the translators which of two or more meanings they use for a particular word or phrase, and how they choose to write that in English?
 
  • #11
A nice resource
http://www.biblesearch.com/readtext.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Moonbear said:
How do you know? How do we even know if anyone knows those ancient languages well enough to translate anything to modern English without losing meaning? Couldn't it all be susceptible to the beliefs of the translators which of two or more meanings they use for a particular word or phrase, and how they choose to write that in English?

That's an outstanding question. I know that there are parts of the Old Testament where honest translators end up putting question marks beside some of the words because no one really knows what the old Hebrew words meant. The description of the priests robes in (IIRC) Leviticus are the main example I remember off the top of my head.

The advice to learn the original language is good. When you read a translation, no matter how good, all you get is the translators opinion of what's being said.
 
  • #13
Our knowledge of the Koine Greek of the New Testament is pretty good. There are plenty of translation disputes nonetheless, of course. The Old Testament is more difficult, though, especially since the ancient Hebrew didn't include vowels in the written language. If anything, I think you'd be better off with a Jewish translation than an actual full bible. Hebrew is the official language of Israel, after all. They probably know it better than anyone else.
 
  • #14
Man if only jesus invented a time machine...
 
  • #15
loseyourname said:
The Old Testament is more difficult, though, especially since the ancient Hebrew didn't include vowels in the written language. If anything, I think you'd be better off with a Jewish translation than an actual full bible.

It's called the Tanach; check out the JPS version.
 
  • #16
Pengwuino said:
Man if only jesus invented a time machine...
but he did. it sends a person into the future. about 5 days. I have the plans for it if you want. first you get a big t (for time) stick the bottom of the t in the ground, no wait first you have to nail your wrists to the crosspiece.
 
  • #17
Evo said:
The same mistakes are in the King James version.
Thank you Evo.

Pete
 
  • #18
I know that there are parts of the Old Testament where honest translators end up putting question marks beside some of the words because no one really knows what the old Hebrew words meant.

Um... Yes they do. It isn't like old Hebrew is a lost language.

How do you know? How do we even know if anyone knows those ancient languages well enough to translate anything to modern English without losing meaning?

Thats why I said "most" accurate, instead of completely accurate. It's pretty obvious that translations aren't completely accurate, see how they are "translations." You surely agree some versions are more biased than others? Correct? Some translations, such as The King James Versions, are very bias. It's pretty obvious that King James was translating the Bible to suit his own desires. While some translations remain more literal. The New World Translation was created for this sole purpose, to be a very literal and modern study Bible. It was translated directly from Biblia Hebraica and revised later to be in harmony with Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Also it takes into account numerous early tanslations into other languages, like the Dead Sea Scolls. For the Greek sciptures the master Greek text was prepared by Westcott and Hort, but several other master texts wre consulted as well as serveral early versions in other languages.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Entropy said:
Um... Yes they do. It isn't like old Hebrew is a lost language.

Honey, I'm not saying no one knows what any of the words mean. I'm saying no one knows what some - i.e. a few - of them mean. Four thousand years is an awfully long time. Languages do change.
 

FAQ: Need help on King James version of Bible

What is the significance of the King James version of the Bible?

The King James version of the Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was first published in 1611 and is one of the most influential and widely used translations of the Bible. It was commissioned by King James I of England and sought to provide a more accurate and standardized English translation of the Bible for the Church of England. Its beautiful language and poetic style have made it a beloved and enduring translation for many Christians.

How does the King James version differ from other translations of the Bible?

The King James version is a literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, meaning it seeks to translate the words and phrases as closely to the original language as possible. Other translations may use different methods, such as dynamic equivalence or paraphrase, which may result in different interpretations of certain passages. The KJV also includes some unique phrasing and words that have become iconic, such as "thee" and "thou."

Does the King James version contain any errors or mistranslations?

Like all translations of the Bible, the King James version is not without its flaws. While it is generally considered a reliable and accurate translation, there have been some errors and mistranslations discovered over the years. However, many biblical scholars and experts continue to use and study the KJV, and its impact on literature, language, and culture cannot be denied.

Who was involved in the translation of the King James version?

The King James version was translated by a team of 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. The project was overseen by six committees, each responsible for a different section of the Bible. Some notable members of the translation team include John Bois, Lancelot Andrewes, and Francis Bacon.

Is the King James version still relevant and important today?

Despite being over 400 years old, the King James version of the Bible remains a popular and influential translation among Christians worldwide. Its language and style have had a profound impact on English literature and culture, and many people find comfort and meaning in its words. While there are many other translations available, the King James version continues to hold a special place in the hearts of many believers.

Back
Top