1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

Issues with the KJV

Discussion in 'King James Version' started by CoreIssue, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    They were excellent for their day.

    What you are missing is language evolution. Ancient Hebrew and Greek were different than in their day and both are different in our day. Just as the KJV English of 1611 bears little resemblence to the English of today.

    And linquists now actually have a clearer understanding of the ancient forms than they did. Not assumption but fact.

    Like it or not they did mistranslate. And is not in Genesis 1:2. That is doctrinal.

    And far more batant was candlesticks. Oil lamps, not candles. Lampstands for oil, candlesticks for candles. Absolutely not the same.

    And the Hebrew word means lampstand. Not candlestick.
  2. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Amen. That is why so many of these laundry-lists of "King James Bible errors" are so funny and sad. They include verses about which the King James Bible translators were well-informed, and make excellent decisions, you can even see this in the footnotes where they will show a 'literal' Hebrew that is not the best translation (example Isaiah 53:9).

    In contrast, the accusers often know diddles about the verses at issue, like we see here, and they pretend that the 50 or so King James Bible translators didn't know some elementary Hebrew grammar or translation issue. The attackers simply fall prey to a spirit of false accusation. That is why it is best to simply take a couple of the seemingly more interesting or substantive accusations and handle them in some depth, and then move into the big picture.

    Steven Avery
  3. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Does someone have an answer why they got the lampstands translation wrong?

    Neachley, the problem here, for Steven, is that he has taken the absolutist stance there are no problems in the KJV. That it is pure and perfect word for word error free.

    Therefore he cannot even admit an error on something as simple as the candlesticks.

    Others can understand that God's message has been preserved. That does not require word for word perfection. He does not understand that.

    Candlesticks is an error in the translation sense. But nothing is lost in the message in the meaning sense.

    In my 45 years of study, which includes listening to many Christian linquists, I have never heard one say any translation is word for word preservation. Message is preserved, not no word for word preserved Bible exists.
  4. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Here is another gem.

    Easter? Easter is the Catholic holiday derived from the absorption of Ishtar worship.

    The Jews did not celebrate it. The early Christians did not celebrate it.

    Someone want to tell me this is not a blatant doctrinal add as a translation?

    The Greek word is pascha in the verse. It does not mean Easter.
    Passover. The Jewish Passover. Not Easter.

    This is absolutely a doctrinal translation error.
  5. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Core.. it is hard for me to even fathom that you are reduced to something like this as a core issue attack on the King James Bible.. incredible. Where do you get this stuff ? Is it from Maxey, or Nichols again ?

    candle - candlestick - Will Kinney
    As any good dictionary tells us, one of the meanings of a candle is an artificial light of any kind as opposed to the natural light of the sun or moon. And what, pray tell, comes to mind when you read the word "lampstand"?

    Cambridge International Dictionary - "Lampstand, a heavy, often decorative, base for an electric light which stands on a table or the floor." Is this what Moses used in the tabernacle? I think not.

    Encyclopedia.Com. The evidence of ancient writings is not conslusive as to the history of the candle; words translated as "candle" may have meant "torch" or "lamp" and the "candlestick" was a stand for one of these lights.

    Easton Bible Dictionary
    Candle - Heb. ner, Job 18:6; 29:3; Ps. 18:28; Prov. 24:20 The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch. It is used as a figure of conscience (Prov. 20:27), of a Christian example (Matt. 5:14, 15), and of prosperity (Job 21:17; Prov. 13:9).
    Webster's Dictionary

    CANDLE, n.
    1. A long, but small cylindrical body of tallow, wax or spermaceti, formed on a wick composed of linen or cotton threads, twisted loosely; used for a portable light of domestic use.
    2. A light.
    3. A light; a luminary. In scripture, the candle of the Lord is the divine favor and blessing, Job 14:3; or the conscience or understanding. Prov. 20:27.

    Not only does the King James Bible use the words candle and candlestick but so also do the Coverdale translation, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Young's, the Amplified, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the Message! and the New Living Translation! (See Isaiah 43:17).
    So Mr. Maxey's "lampstand" is better than "candlestick", huh? He is really straining at gnats with this "error" and yet he uses the NIV which has a multitide of serious problems, both textual and theological. This is a case of the blind leading the blind.

    And the Soncino translation also has candlestick,

    Judaica Press uses Menorah
    (which is often called a candlestick today, far more than "lampstand")

    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Exodus Passage on the Construction of the Menorah Candlestick for the Temple[/FONT]

    http://www.biblebelievers.com/Heaton1.html[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    Mr. Weiss failed to tell his readers that his "esteemed" Bible has invented words. In Mark 4:21, Revelation 2:5, etc., the K.J.B
    [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. uses the word "candlestick." In the N.I.V. the word has been changed to "lampstand." However, when one seeks for this word in the dictionary he finds that NO SUCH WORD EXISTS! You read the statement correctly. You will find the words "lamp" and "stand", but not as a compound word. Thus the editors and revisors of the N.I.V. have invented a word. I guess it would not be archaic or hardly obsolete!

    True, it is at best an oddball or new construction .... check www.dictionary.com

    Please, can you understand that at the very most you would try to say that the King James Bible reading for candlestick is an anacrhonism, in terms of modern English. Yet even that is untrue. Then when we get to your claim that the King James Bible reading here is "wrong" or a "glaring, simplistic error" you are simply showing the desperation and unusual scholarship of folks who are trying hard to try find an error in the word of God, perhaps to salve a seared conscience of textual apostasy (why else would folks embrace arguments like this ?).

    Please, don't take hold of stuff like this if you really want to be taken seriously .

    Steven Avery
  6. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Steven, it was a lampstand. Lampstands held oil lamps. Candlestick have candles stuck on their holders, thus why they are called candlesticks.

    There are 7 oil lamps in the OT Temple fed by the oil reserve at the top. Post all the definitions of candles you want and that does not make oil lamps candles.

    How convenient you avoided the Temple lamps in your examples. Deliberate, I would say.

    Look at your first verse, Job 18:6 and the definition of candle there.
    NIV and NASB says lamp. More accurate. To assume either candle or oil is simply that, an assumption.

    Now, for the temple.
    Look at that. A different word with a different meaning.

    Is there any justification for saying candlestick over lamp stand? None at all.

    Is there justification for rejecting candlestick? Most assuredly.
    And lamp is ryn. Hmmm.

    Make 7 candles? Nope. 7 lamps.
    And what kind of lamps? Oil. The lamps were fed by the oil reserve at the top of the lampstand.
    Candlestick is an error here. It is an oil lampstand with 7 oil lamps in it fed by a resevoir on top.

    Look even deeper at lamps of Revelation 4:5 where we see the 7 lamps again.
    No doubt in the Greek. An oil lamp.

    And again, the lampstands in Revelation are called candlesticks in the KJV while the lamps are clearly oil lamps.

    Candlesticks do not hold oil lamps. They cannot hold oil lamps. They do not have oil feeds.

    Candlestick is an erroneous translation.

    And I don't see a word about Easter? No way around that one!
  7. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Hi Folks,

    Please. This is getting silly.

    Core, you are stuck in your particular mindset of desperately wanting to find errors in the word of God.

    Folks even talk about electric candles today .. yet .. can that be ? Sure.. since the usage of candle was and is broader than you want to accept, and it refers to a method of illumination. And a candlestick was a holder, like a menorah today, which is translated in English today as a candlestick. Since you fell for embracing this nonsensical thing at the beginning of the thread, and then kept repeating it, you must beat the horse deader and deader. Please, leave the poor horse alone. Maybe on the next thread somewhere else you will use wisdom and simply drop this thing from your laundry list.

    Maybe we will go into Acts 12:4 Easter later. A fascinating question as to the difference in time of the Acts 12:4 pesach versus all the other NT uses.

    However, the real issue is the heart of those who copy over such arguments as 'became' instead of 'was' in Genesis 1:2 (without a real grammar analysis, and then falling right into the genetic fallacy when a grammar analysis is offered! .. excuses to the max) or 'lampstand' instead of 'candlestick' as here.

    Something very deep is going on .... if somebody will spend all the time and effort trying to repeat, and then justify or even rehabilitate such nonsensical attacks on the word of God.

    Let he who has ears to hear...

    Steven Avery
  8. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    They are two different conjunctions put in by translators, and each one is used by many translators. Neither one is grammatically 'right' or 'wrong'.

    'Now' is the one that would be more 'linked' to Genesis 1:1
    (incidentally, I thought that is what you do not want).

    www.dictionary.com - now conjunction - Seeing that; since.
    Since there is not a Hebrew base for insisting on such a linkage
    between verse one and two, 'and' appears to be the more
    natural conjunction.

    If someone has another compelling Hebrew/English grammar argument that favors
    one over the other, I am all ears. Your arguments however seem to be based on
    whatever your doctrinal, not grammatical or textual, horse is here ... combined
    with your desire to reject the final authority represented by the tangible
    hold-in-your-hands word of God.

    Steven Avery
  9. InTheWind

    InTheWind Pro Poster

    Hi Steven, are you missing the point that if you use the wrong meaning of a word it could change the meaning of what the verse is saying.
    Take for example the virgins at the wedding, they had lanterns, some missed the wedding because they had no oil in their lamps. Would the verse mean the same if the word was lamp, with a candle in it.
    Seems that would make it difficult to understand what the writer was saying.
  10. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member


    Getting silly because you fail to acknowledge ANY errors in the KJV.

    The errors have been pointed out and you just say its silly? No refutation?

    No he is tryong to get you to see that the "word of God" is not the KJV, which you clearly believe it is. It has errors which you fail to acknowledge and the scholarship is by todays standards archaic.

    With your logic if any encyclopedias existed during the 1600's they would be far superior to the ones today due to the archaic English and the "scientists" that complied them. Your argument is rubbish. The KJV is not THE bible nor is it THE word of God.

    Wrong. Oil lamps and candlesticks have different functions as shown are are not the same as you imply. You just dismiss it because there would be acknowledgement of a flaw in the KJV and you can't have that now can you?

    Later? Got to research that one eh and come up with something that shows the KJV can be wrong? Be waiting to here the excuse here for this one.

    Something is going on and that is blinders being worn by those that refuse to see the errors of the KJV and that compared to todays versions it fails in trying to gather the essence of God's message.

  11. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    The form of now used in verse 2 is not a conjunction.

    The guy has a MA in Oriental languge.
  12. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    I thought you said you have gone through the KJB debate several times?Ho HuM stuff.
    And you have never seen this?
    Obviously you have not debated or you have debated ones that did not know about the history of the various dictionaries and lexicons.Pagan roots ya know.:tiphat:
  13. removed


    Source: Post #44

    :order: Good point. A simple, but irrefutable point, which remains unaddressed. Yet, this debate continues, which is the truly silly issue.

    I guess we count the hits, but ignore the misses, eh?
  14. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member

    No I never said that. CoreIssue said that not me.
  15. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    Which means;
    say anything to win at all cost,doesn't matter if I am completely WRONG.

    Boy o Boy.:ick:
    All you have to do is read the Front cover.
    It reads Strong's Exhaustive Lexicon........Right?

    with dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek words
  16. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started


    Now,Now,settle down.
    Type the verses out the way you think is perfect then.
  17. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    I don't use his concordance parts. Get over it and pay attention.

    Since when did an Imterlinear become a concordance? Or a lexicon become a concordance?

    And it seems all you have contributed is more person accusations and preaching with no substance attached.

    That makes you irrelevant to a debate, really.
  18. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    None of us are saying word for word as you insinuate.
    But what is there is God inspired and good.
    There are no errors any more.There may be the odd typo error of Publisher's changes to words,is all.
    But it is the correct translation and the only correct translation.All others are rampant with errors on every page and in some places several verses in a row.

    Just because there are various ways to say the same thing does not mean that the AV is in error no diferent than any other translation.But when the modern versions start using corrupted manuscripts,whereas the AV uses the correct manuscripts the diference is obvious to the discerning.
    45 years of first grade still gets you at first grade.
    You obviously do not believe that God preserved his word as he said he would.
    You would prefer to play the game of pick and choose.Be mine own god.An Evite.;)
    Think about it.
    A pure Holy Bible or no pure Holy Bible
    God is faithful to his word or God is not faithful nor capable
    Humbly believe the word or pridefully critique God's word
    Believe what God said or doubt what God said
    Confident in his word or self confidence
    Side with martyrs or side with the murderers

    The choice is yours;choose wisely.

    Holy Bible
    There is only one.:swoon:
  19. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    PS;I thought you were arguing that the few words in Gensis are not word perfect and now you try to make them word perfect.Hu boy here we go with the circular reasoning AGAIN.
    And then you make your defence trying to show there are no word for word translations.ouch!!
    Guess we got to the real core issue here.
  20. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Wrong. The candles and Easter issues alone prove that.
    The KJV used the RT. The RT is a compilation of 6 texts. Now you tell me how 6 manuscripts, that did not agree with each other and did not agree with other manuscripts were combined to be a 100% restoration of the original autographs accuracy?
    And just accepting doctrines without proving them is foolish and in violation of the Bible.
    God never said he would preserve word for word. And if you read my thread on the Bible Paradox you would have to acknowledge what is said is true.
    And accusations like this is why KJVO has been declared a cult. You just declare the KJV 100% without ANY evidence to back it. Forget manuscript history and all the rest. You just know that is the one.
    Teachings preserved. But no Bible is word for word 100% accurate.
    He is faithful. But not as you are claiming.
    I believe God's Bible. And it is more than the KJV Only.
    God never promised word for word preservation. But he most assuredly has preservered his teachings.
    And here you are self-confident. Without any proof you have declared the KVJ the Bible.
    So, we are murders if we do not side with you?

    Yep, that is why your thinking is called cult. Like Oneness is cult. Either one of you or going to Hell.

Share This Page