Cepha-------------
Why not list the errors?If we are going to speak of mistranslation lets do the comparison.I think you will find that there are some much closer to home than you might think.
much love-------------knuckle
Hi Knucks,
First, I hope you're not taking my posts as attacks on KJV Only Christians. I see the plausability behind any Christian wanting to nail down one version in order to secure their faith.
Catholicism did this in the 4th Century with the Council of Nicea...we too had to buckle down and finalize a canon.
Allow me to say this...I enjoy the poetry of the KJV and the use of language. Technically, yes, the KJV bible and The Holy Bible are about 90% identical.
As for the errors, here they are according to a non-Catholic Christian site:
==============================================
Why Are There Errors in the King James Version?
You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.
For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.
The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!
Translation Errors
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:
Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."
Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."
Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.
Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.
Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.
Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."
Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.
Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.
Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!
John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.
John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.
John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).
Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.
I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."
I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"
II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.
I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."
I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."
Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.
Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."
Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."
I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.
Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.
Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.
Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."
Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong
No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.
In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.
We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.
In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.
Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!
Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.
I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."
Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.
I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.
II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.
I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.
Punctuation Problems
Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.
Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. . ."
www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.htmlErrors In The KJV
Many people believe that the King James Bible is infallible. They boldly claim the translation is so blessed by God that it is 100-percent free of errors. This kind of talk is just bluster because there are several minor translation errors in the KJV.
As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's Holy Word.
In Hebrews 10:23, the word "faith" is erroneously substituted for the word "hope." All of the source documents use "hope." It is very obvious that Paul meant to use faith, hope and love in verses 22, 23, and 24.
"10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works."
In Revelation 22:19, the scholars made the mistake of thinking Jesus was speaking of the "Book of Life." Researchers have found 99% of all Greek manuscripts reading "tree of life." The context of verse 14 verifies that the Lord was speaking of the "tree of life."
"22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
"22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
One of the most obvious errors in the KJV is the word "at" in Matthew 23:24. It's not grammatically proper to say, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The translators should have used the word "out." The most common English translations that pre-date the KJV bear this out:
"Blinde leders; clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel."--(Wyclif, 1380.)
"Ye blinde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammyll."--(Tyndale, 1534.)
"Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a camell."--(Cranmer, 1539.)
"Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel."--(Geneva, 1557.)
"Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel."--(Rheims, 1582.)
There Is No 1611 King James Bible
For many people, it is not enough to just have any King James Bible. They take the extra step of proclaiming the Authorized 1611 KJV translation to be the only true Word of God. Because the King James used today has been revised several times, they don't feel it can be trusted.
I have some bad news for these 1611 KJVO folks: There is no existing copy of the original manuscript produced by King James' faithful translators. The pre-print text and the original autographs confirming the validity of the translation have all been lost to history. There is no way the KJVO advocates can be certain that the 1611 translation has not been tampered with.
According to a pamphlet written in 1660, the king's printers possessed the finished product five years before it was published. Because the KJVO camp is fond of conspiracies, the time gap should cause great concern. After all, they have no way of knowing if the original KJV translation made it to the print press.
The 1611 KJV Bible has indeed seen several revisions - 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the final one in 1850. The concern over the validity of the modern KJV Bible is silly because the vast majority of the changes were simply spelling changes or single word updates.
www.raptureme.com/rr-kjvo.htmlThe very first year the “Authorized” Version (KJV) was printed, it went through several quick changes due to errors. A careful review KJV Bibles with the date 1611 on them revealed they were not all identical. One 1611 printing contained “and he went into the city” in Ruth 3:15 while another 1611 had “and she went into the city.” Another 1611 printing had “Judas” for “Jesus” in Mat. 26:36. It came to be known as the “Judas Bible.” Many other such errors occurred throughout the printing of the King James Version over the centuries. Below is a list of some of the more humorous blunders contained in KJV printings.
(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")
(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")
(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")
(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")
(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")
(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")
(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")
(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")
(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")
(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."
(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."
(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."
(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."
(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."
(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."
(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."
(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")
(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."
(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."
(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."
Many people do not realize how many times the King James Bible has been changed in some form or another. There have been changes made in the KJV in the following years: 1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, 1904.
www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htmApocrypha and the KJV - Why was the Aprocrypha, which was in the 1611 KJV, removed?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa017.htm Elizabethan English - What is the difference between thou, thee, and you in the KJV.
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa080.htm Is the KJV "the" Word of God?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa037.htm KJV errors - selected verses - a partial listing of words, phrases, and verses in the KJV that were added, omitted, or changed from the original texts
www.bibletexts.com/kjvtexts.htm KJV errors - a book-by-book, an extensive listing of words, phrases, and verses in the KJV that were added, omitted, or changed from the original texts
www.bibletexts.com/bt.htm KJV errors - Mar 10:29 and Mat 19:29 - 'leaving wife' not in original texts
www.bibletexts.com/terms/divorce.htm KJV errors - Mar 9:28 and elsewhere - "and fasting" not in original texts
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/mar09v28.htm KJV errors - Mat 6:9-13 - the Lord's prayer
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/mat06v09.htm KJV errors - Mat 10:8
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/mat10v08.htm KJV errors - Luk 1:28 (errors in Latin Vulgate and in KJV)
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm KJV errors - Joh 1:1
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm KJV errors - Joh 5:3,4
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh05v03.htm KJV errors - Act 9:5,6
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa060.htm KJV errors - Rom 8:20 (correcting KJV punctuation)
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa013.htm KJV errors - 2Pe 1:1 and 1Jo 5:7,8
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa046.htm KJV errors - Rev 1:11
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/rev01v11.htm KJV renderings - Gen 1:26,27 - Should it be "man" or "human beings?"
www.bibletexts.com/terms/heb-adam.htm KJV renderings - Gen 2:7 - Should it be "dust" or "soil?"
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa039.htm KJV renderings - Exo 13:18 and elsewhere - Should it be "Red Sea" or "Sea of Reeds?"
www.bibletexts.com/terms/RedSea.htm KJV renderings - 2Sa 8:5-6 and elsewhere - Should it be "Syria" or "Aram?"
www.bibletexts.com/terms/heb-aram.htm KJV rendering - Mat 6:9-13 - The Lord's prayer: comparison of versions.
www.bibletexts.com/terms/LordsPr.htm KJV renderings - Gal 5:19- Should it be "flesh" or "or evil nature?"
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa052.htm KJV and non-KJV Bibles
www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm Douay Rheims, Vulgate, or KJV: Which is most accurate?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa161.htm History of their official use in the Christian Science Quarterly Bible Lessons and elsewhere
www.bibletexts.com/bl-ver.htm Is the KJV accurate? And what modern versions do you recommend?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa021.htm Is the KJV the only translation that should be used?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa036.htm KJV and ASV - What is the relationship?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa049.htm KJV and Chinese Bibles - Is there a Chinese language edition of the KJV?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa050.htm "KJV and non-KJV Bibles - the history of their official use in the Christian Science Quarterly Bible Lessons and elsewhere" - What were Bibletexts.com's sources of information for that webpage?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa008.htm KJV and NRSV - What is the relationship? And is there a parallel version available?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa048.htm KJV and other Bible versions
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa107.htm Will one English Bible translation some day accepted by all? (including KJV translator's dedicatory comments)
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa122.htm Worshipping God, rather than worshipping a particular Bible Version
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa163.htm Latin Vulgate and the KJV in church services - Why is adherence to archaic language in church contrary to the example of the original texts and early Christians?
www.bibletexts.com/terms/koine.htm Paul's criticism of using language in church that is not understood by unbelievers (1Co 14:1-25)
www.bibletexts.com/terms/language.htm Punctuation and spelling differences in the KJV -- and it impact on Bible Lesson markings
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa118.htm Spirituality of Bible translations - How can a translation's spirituality be judged?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa011.htm Strong's numbers and the KJV
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa038.htm www.bibletexts.com/strongs.htm Textus Receptus & the KJV - KJV and it dependence on the Textus Receptus - It's history and impact
www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm Textus Receptus & the KJV - Questions & Answsers - many questions and answers regarding the KJV, the Textus Receptus, and their accuracy and value.
www.bibletexts.com/qa/index.htm#kjvwww.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/false5.html "The Textus Receptus" by Prof. Rich Elliott - This is a well-researched webpage article by Rich Elliott of Simon Greenleaf University. It includes a lot of additional information on the Textus Receptus and its relation to the KJV.
www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html Uncorrectable perfection of the KJV?
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa098.htm 
