The KJV is not "without error".

In Matthew 24:3 they translate Aion or "age", for "world" which the
greek word is Cosmos. This is in error, or I don't know if error is the right word, but a better
translation and what the word meant was AGE. This cult like belief system sets His word to a
standard that can be picked apart by very basic arguments. The translation isn't bad of course, it's
God's' word, but you trying to impose some kind of magical properties to it that are never even stated
in scripture is dangerous and completely unnecessary. His word is amazing enough without us lifting
a translation up as a false idol.

I don’t know if you got this right when you said [ Aion or "age", for "world" which the greek word is
Cosmos.] though you are not sure if it fits to be an “error”. Saying “a better translation” however,
gives a doubt that KJB may be in error. However, your conclusive accusation of a cult-like mind and
false idol is not to justify the error you think it seems to be. The fact is you have not given
justification/s as to why it is an error on the part of the KJB.

One thing, the Greek word “Aion” cannot only mean “AGE” where the KJB translators are fully
aware of this word Aion and its usage. The KJB translators did translation to the word 128x and
occurred in the KJB for the word “AGE” 3x as in Eph. 2:7, 3:21; Col. 1:26. Obviously not all modern
scholars would agree on the meaning of aion. Even the NIV and other modern translations did at
times translate this same Greek word as WORLD.

The NIV does this four times - Luke 16:8 "the children of this world"; Romans 12:2 "Be not
conformed to this world"; 1 Timothy 6:17 "Charge them that are rich in this world..."; and 2 Timothy
4:10 "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."

Now why “World” and not “Age” in the particular passage. The context would just determine us the
proper word to be used. The Olivet discourse is about the destruction of the Temple buildings which
correspond to the place. Jesus sits on the Mount of Olivet (place) and when the Apostles asked him
“When” will this happen then we have an element of time. The word “what” carries both the time
and the place. His second coming concerns the time but the signs of the times concern a worldwide
event. It will take place at different places. The word “age” which is an element of time cannot carry
both the intended meaning but the English word “World” carries both place and time.

Now may I know your justification/s why it is ‘Age” rather than “World”? Thanks

What doctrines will I miss from studying the NASB?

1 Corinthians 1:18, If a new believer in Christ uses the NASB, he might be confused over the
Doctrine of Eternal Security. The NASB says to us who are “being saved” requires fulfillment for
completeness. Yes, I am not saying we cannot be saved using modern Versions but a new believer in
Christ might be confuse on the said doctrine. God bless.
King James Bible
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the
power of God.
New American Standard Bible
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the
power of God.

Strong's Concordance
logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Original Word: λόγος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: logos
Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os)
Definition: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Usage: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
HELPS Word-studies

3056 lógos (from 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of
a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing
the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.

[3056 (lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a
message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning
"reasoning expressed by words."]

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
from legó
Definition
a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
NASB Translation
account (7), account* (1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint
(1), exhortation* (1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length* (1), matter (4), matters (1), message
(10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said
(1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1),
teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what* (1), word (179), words
(61).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3056: λόγος

λόγος, λόγου, ὁ (λέγω) (from Homer down), the Sept. especially for ‫ָּד ָב ר‬, also
for ‫ ֹא ֶמ ר‬and ‫ ;ִמ ָּל ה‬properly, a collecting, collection (see λέγω) — and that, as well of those
things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought i. e. gathered
together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be
distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.

I. As respects speech:

1. a word, yet not in the grammatical sense (equivalent to vocabulum, the mere name of an
object), but language, vox, i. e. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception
or idea; (hence, it differs from ῤῆμα and ἔπος (which see; cf. also λαλέω, at the
beginning)): Hebrews 12:19; ἀποκριθῆναι λόγον, Matthew 22:46; εἰπεῖν λόγῳ, Matthew
8:8 (Rec. λόγον (cf. εἶπον, 3 a. at the end)); Luke
7:7; λαλῆσαι πέντε, μυρίους, λόγους, 1 Corinthians 14:19; διδόναι λόγον εὔσημον, to
utter a distinct word, intelligible speech, 1 Corinthians 14:9; εἰπεῖν λόγον κατά τίνος, to
speak a word against, to the injury of, one, Matthew 12:32; also εἰς τινα, Luke 12:10; to drive
out demons λόγῳ, Matthew 8:16; ἐπερωτᾶν τινα ἐν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς, Luke 23:9; of the
words of a conversation, ἀντιβάλλειν λόγους, Luke 24:17.

2. what someone has said; a saying;

a. universally: Matthew 19:22 (T omits); Mark 5:36 (cf, Buttmann, 302 (259) note); ; Luke
1:29; Luke 20:20, 22 (Tr marginal reading WH ῤήματος); John 2:22; John 4:39, 50; John
6:60; John 7:36; John 15:20; John 18:9; John 19:8; Acts 7:29; ὁ λόγος οὗτος, this (twofold)
saying (of the people), Luke 7:17, cf. ; τόν αὐτόν λόγον εἰπών, Matthew 26:44; (Mark
14:39); παγιδεύειν τινα ἐν λόγῳ, in a word or saying which they might elicit from him and
turn into an accusation, Matthew 22:15; ἀγρεύειν τινα λόγῳ, i. e. by propounding a
question, Mark 12:13; plural, Luke 1:20; Acts 5:5, 24; with the genitive of the
contents: ὁ λόγος ἐπαγγελίας, Romans 9:9; ὁ λόγος τῆς ὁρκομωσιας, Hebrews
7:28; λόγος παρακλήσεως, Acts 13:15; ὁ λόγος τῆς μαρτυρίας, Revelation
12:11; οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας, Revelation 1:3 (Tdf. τόν λόγον); Revelation 22:6f, 10,
18; ὁ προφητικός λόγος, the prophetic promise, collectively of the sum of the O. T.
prophecies, particularly the Messianic, 2 Peter 1:19; of the sayings and statements of
teachers: οἱ λόγοι οὗτοι, the sayings previously related, Matthew
7:24 (here L Tr WH brackets τούτους); Matthew 7:26; Luke 9:28; οἱ λόγοι τίνος, the
words, commands, counsels, promises, etc., of any teacher, Matthew 10:14; Matthew
24:35; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:44; John 14:24; Acts 20:35; λόγοι ἀληθινοί, Revelation
19:9; Revelation 21:5; πιστοί, Revelation 22:6; κενοί, Ephesians 5:6: πλαστοι, 2 Peter
2:3 (cf. Winers Grammar, 217 (204));

b. of the sayings of God; α. equivalent to decree, mandate, order: Romans 9:28;

with τοῦ Θεοῦ added, 2 Peter 3:5,
7 (Rst G Tr text); ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο πρός τινα (a phrase frequent in the O.
T.), John 10:35. β. of the moral precepts given by God in the O. T.: Mark 7:13; (Matthew
15:6 L Tr WH text); Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14 (cf. οἱ δέκα λόγοι (Exodus
34:28; Deuteronomy 10:4 (cf. ῤήματα, ); Philo, quis rer. div. her. § 35; de decalog. §
9); Josephus, Antiquities 3, 6, 5 (cf. 5, 5)). γ. equivalent
to promise: ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς (equivalent to ὁ ἀκουσθεις), Hebrews
4:2; ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Romans 9:6; plural Romans 3:4; universally, a divine declaration
recorded in the O. T., John 12:38; John 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:54. δ. διά λόγου Θεοῦ etc.
through prayer in which the language of the O. T. is employed: 1 Timothy 4:5; cf. DeWette
and Huther at the passage ε. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, as ‫ ְי הָוה ֲּד ַב ר‬often in the O. T. prophets,
"an oracle or utterance by which God discloses, to the prophets or through the prophets, future
events": used collectively of the sum of such utterances, Revelation 1:2, 9; cf. Düsterdieck and
Bleek ad the passages cited c. what is declared, a thought, declaration,
aphorism (Latinsententia): τόν λόγον τοῦτον (reference is made to what follows, so
that γάρ in Revelation 1:12 is explicative), Matthew 19:11; a dictum, maxim or weighty
saying: 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:1; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8; equivalent to proverb, John
4:37 (as sometimes in classical Greek, e. g. (Aeschylus the Sept. adverb Theb.
218); ὁ παλαιός λόγος, Plato, Phaedr., p. 240c.; conviv., p. 195 b.; legg. 6, p. 757 a.; Gorgias,
p. 499 c.; verum est verbum quod memoratur, ubi amici, ibi apes, Plautus Truc. 4, 4, 32;
add, Terence, Andr. 2, 5, 15; others).

3. discourse (Latinoratio);

a. the act of speaking, speech: Acts 14:12; 2 Corinthians 10:10; James 3:2; διά λόγου, by
word of month, Acts 15:27; opposed to δἰ ἐπιστολῶν, 2 Thessalonians
2:15; διά λόγου πολλοῦ, Acts 15:32; λόγῳ πολλῷ, Acts
20:2; περί οὗ πολύς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, of whom we have many things to say, Hebrews
5:11; ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν, Matthew 5:37; Colossians 4:6; λόγος κολακείας, 1 Thessalonians
2:5. λόγος is distinguished from σοφία in 1 Corinthians 2:1; from ἀναστροφή, 1 Timothy
4:12; from δύναμις, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; from ἔργον, Romans 15:18; 2
Corinthians 10:11; Colossians 3:17; from ἔργον καί ἀλήθεια, 1 John 3:18 (see ἔργον, 3, p.
248a bottom); οὐδενός λόγου τίμιον, not worth mentioning (λόγου ἄξιον, Herodotus 4,
28; cf. German der Rede werth), i. e. a thing of no value, Acts 20:24 T Tr WH (see II. 2 below).

b. equivalent to the faculty of speech: Ephesians 6:19; skill and practice in

speaking: ἰδιώτης τῷ λγόω ἀλλ' οὐ τῇ γνώσει, 2 Corinthians
11:6; δυνατός ἐν ἔργῳ καί λόγῳ, Luke 24:19 (ἄνδρας λόγῳ δυνατούς, Diodorus 13,
101); λόγος σοφίας or γνώσεως, the art of speaking to the purpose about things pertaining
to wisdom or knowledge, 1 Corinthians 12:8.

c. a kind (or style) of speaking: ἐν παντί λόγῳ, 1 Corinthians 1:5 (A. V. utterance).

d. continuous speaking, discourse, such as in the N. T. is characteristic of teachers: Luke 4:32,

36; John 4:41; Acts 4:4 (cf. Acts 3:12-26); Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 2:1;
plural, Matthew 7:28; Matthew 19:1; Matthew 26:1; Luke 9:26; Acts
2:40; δυνατός ἐν λόγοις καί ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, Acts 7:22. Hence, the thought of the subject
being uppermost,

e. instruction: Colossians 4:3; Titus 2:8; 1 Peter 3:1; joined with διδασκαλία, 1 Timothy 5:17;
with a genitive of the teacher, John 5:24; John 8:52; John 15:20; John 17:20; Acts 2:41; 1
Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 1:18 (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:19); ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμός, John 8:31, 37,
43, 51; John 14:23; τινα λόγῳ, with what instruction, 1 Corinthians 15:2 (where
construe, εἰ κατέχετε, τίνι λόγῳ etc.; cf. Buttmann, §§ 139,58; 151,20); equivalent
to κήρυγμα, preaching, with the genitive of the object: λόγος ἀληθείας, 2 Corinthians
6:7; James 1:18; ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας, Colossians 1:5; Ephesians 1:13; 2 Timothy
2:15; τῆς καταλλαγῆς, 2 Corinthians 5:19; ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης, concerning
this salvation (i. e. the salvation obtained through Christ) (cf. Winers Grammar, 237
(223); Buttmann, 162 (141)), Acts 13:26; ὁ λόγος τῆς βασιλείας (τοῦ Θεοῦ), Matthew
13:19; τοῦ σταυροῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:18; ὁ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγος, the first
instruction concerning Christ (cf. Buttmann, 155 (136); Winer's Grammar, 188 (177)), Hebrews
6:1. Hence,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=YRMBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR7&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.google.com.ph/books/edition/Ancient_Greek_I/ec9JEAAAQBAJ?
hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=nouns+in+genitive+case+in+Greek+grammar&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com.ph/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Biblical_Greek_Gramma/0LC-
DwAAQBAJ?
hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=nouns+in+genitive+case+in+Greek+grammar&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover

Jamaisson, Faucet and Brown

preaching, etc. — literally, “the word,”

=================================================================================
I wouldn't say the KJV is 'incorrect' in that verse, but that translations that use 'logos' are better on
this one point, from a formal equivalence standpoint, because they are not interpreting the meaning
of the word for the reader. Keeping 'word' there preserves some aspect of the meaning that the KJV
does not convey.

Not according to Jamaisson, Faucet and Brown that “logos” rendered here as “the word” is a literal
meaning. So, from the standpoint of formal equivalence, I believe KJB is accurate in the passage being
discuss. There is no dispute that logos literal meaning is “word” in many cases of both modern English
Bible and KJB. Not only the translation is supported by the Greek grammar rule which may be dependent
on the context. The scripture speaks of parallelism as well or line upon line (Isa. 28:10, 13) or as Paul
stated “comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13), thus for 1 Cor. 1:18 would correspond to
Paul’s in 1 Cor: 1:23. If it is used literally, the question is what is the word of the cross? Did the cross
speak literally? And so on and so forth.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the
power of God.

! Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Jamaisson, Faucet and Brown

preaching, etc. — literally, “the word,”

And there is no reason to think that the KJV authors were inspired to write scripture like Paul who
wrote the epistle. There is no reason to think that the actual Hebrew and Greek books ceased to be
inspired so that God could 'preserve His word' in the KJV, so that the KJV could be 'the one.'

You made the same error many KJV-only proponents make: you pretend that doctrines are built from
single verses.
The "doctrine" of eternal security is not undermined at all by a single difference in wording. You
have to look at the entirety of the Scriptures in order to make such a determination.

undermine

verb

un·der·mine ˌən-dər-ˈmīn
ˈən-dər-ˌmīn
undermined; undermining; undermines
Synonyms of undermine
transitive verb
1
: to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly
trying to undermine his political rivals

A change of meaning does actually weaken it. Again, a new believer in Christ might be CONFUSE
because of this change/s. It might not be a change of the whole but its part is destructive. That part
will be a hole to the whole for false interpretation.
We got another example as in Revelation 19:8. We know we are saved by faith and not by works.
Even in the old, God gave the robe of righteousness to “cover our shame” Romans 10:3. In Isah
61:10 by defining each word for “he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation” to “he hath
covered me with the robe of righteousness” indicating God actions in our behalf and God’s
righteousness means salvation. Revelation 7:14 mentions those “who washed their robe, and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb” which I don’t find in the Bible we are robe in our own
righteousness. Phli. 3:9, Paul says “not having my own righteousness” and yet, the NASB will
confuse a new believer in Christ to do righteous acts to be saved or to maintain it otherwise lose his
salvation.
King James Bible
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is
the righteousness of saints.
New American Standard Bible
It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts
of the saints.
Another thing about the changes made relative to the doctrine is also found in
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" KJB says
However, the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world".
I grew up in a Roman Catholic church until I’ve been saved by the grace of
God and here the NASB is saying that there is no idolatry in the world. Huh!

I agree with your premise. But you are talking about a translation recorded by the Holy Spirit
Himself since Luke was writing under the inspiration of the Spirit. No such claim can be proven of
those merely translating scripture. In other words, by virtue of the fact that the words of Luke are
scripture, the Holy Spirit is the one translating the text. This could be true of the translators of the
KJV, but cannot be proven.
What version previous to the KJV do you think was inspired? Do you believe God waited 1500 odd
years to give His people an inspired version?
This is actually an infallible proof that translation can be inspired the same way it was directly
written by the prophets or Apostles themselves. What really lacks is the faith on God’s promises he
would preserve his words in a way to produce the same sense as of the originals. If an all-powerful
God cannot do the same as he guides those original penmen, then surely, we can question his power
and nature. This is about the logic of faith. The translation carries the inspiration. So, when God
guided those translators of the KJb they produced pure words of God. Yes, the inspiration is carried
by perfect translation from the copies of the originals.
The translator of the KJB professes, the scripture is perfect and is pure and needed such translation in
order to understand. The translators of the KJB do not deny previous translations set forth by men of
our faith are God’s word however, they needed to be purified thus the task of a new translation. The
translators were then experts in Biblical languages but it isn’t their abilities to arm them but rather
have prayed for understanding. So humble that these translators would still seek the guidance of the
Lord so that we can say it the Holy Spirit guiding these translators to translate it to become the pure
words of God.
The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect,… Finally, the Word of God
is a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life… it is necessary to have
translations for the people to use. ..Therefore such translators were selected who were expert
the Hebrew and Greek tongues. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own
knowledge, or of their sharpeness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as an arm of flesh? At no
hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting: they
prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord: “O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not
be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them… to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by
prayer…”

Translators to the Readers

Copies are considered scripture if they are copied correctly. If the copies were of a Dr. Seuss book, it
would not be considered scripture.

So if the translation was copied correctly, it is indeed scripture because the original was scripture.
Same is true of translations. If they are translated correctly, they are scripture because they accurately
reflect the originals.
I do think copies of the originals translated correctly is scripture.
====================================================================
That sounds like a good process, but it does not sound like evidence in favor of the idea that these
men were inspired to translate the scriptures like the apostles were to write them.

the tradition about the LXX, the Septuagint, was that 70 elders working independently each
translated exactly the same and that is more of a compelling argument.
The author or the translators were not inspired at all, the inspiration is to the words. No such claim
that author, writer, the pen men were inspired to write holy writ. AS God gave his word, inspiration
was already there.

Nothing I wrote means I am uncertain about what the word of God says; only what it doesn't say.
The verse you chose to share is set in wider context. The comparison is not between scripture and
scripture, but scripture and fables. And Peter is establishing the veracity of what he says based on his
personal experience and the fact that the things written in the scripture have come to pass. And then
he gives the reason why this is so. It is so because men spoke what the words the Holy Spirit put in
their mouths. This is what makes scripture to be scripture.
Someone translating scripture, in my opinion, is not speaking forth the word of God by the Holy
Spirit unless they are actually speaking forth the word of God. NT writers, in quoting OT passages,
were giving explanations of the passages, and in doing so were speaking forth words from the Holy
Spirit. We know this is so because their writing is part of the canon. Therefore, the translation is done
by the Holy Spirit. They are His choice of words.
This is very different than someone coming to a passage of scripture in a particular language and
applying one's knowledge of language to make a translation.

Just as an aside, your understanding would have to conclude that the version you believe would have
exactly 0 errors. It has already been demonstrably shown in this thread that the KJV doesn't rise to
this standard. You would also be forced to admit that God hadn't preserved His word for the majority
of the NT era.
Not one yet presented in here is an actual error on the part of the KJB. Modern versions defenders
admit all versions had its mistakes so they don’t believe God can preserve his words. They limit God
in his capabilities due to science falsely so called for. If translation can be inspired in the New
Testament, likewise of today. The difference is about the purity of God’s words, exactly, inspiration
can be said of the newer version if and only if they were no errors in it and modern apologist says
they have no pure words of God. What is left, is that the other perspective which is to trust God he
will preserve his words in its purest form and I believe KJB is.
Where do you think KJB erred? You might be in reference to Presidente “logos”
Yes, I intentionally did not respond to Presidente’s post about “logos” as word. In the first place, the
burden of proof is not of me. Saying it is wrong without any justification makes no sense to me. Yes,
I’m no good in Greek, but as we all know one Greek word can be translated in many ways. Say for
example for the Greek word “eis”. It could be translated so far as “for”, “into” ,“unto”, “to”, “on”,
“toward”, “against” ,“among” and many others. So, insisting “logos” could only mean “word” is
incorrect. Logos is the same as preaching as per Whiner in his Greek rule especially when it is in
genitive. Thayers, Strong and many others correctly agreed to this. I think, this is basic, and saying a
Greek word means only one meaning is not true at all.

Winner! Precious friend, thanks so Much - I've had trouble conveying This Truth,
Since, if only the originals were inspired, then my Copy is Not Profitable, eh?:

Thus, 'the Originals,' copies of NON-corrupt (and widely used/re-copied )

manuscripts, and all [ no matter which language ] translations from these,
are, In Fact, Preserved As:

"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration Of God, And Is Profitable..."

Eh?

Amen.

Yes, precious friend, there are no longer original autographs of the Old Testament when Apostle Paul
wrote his letter to Timothy. This is nothing to do with the O.T. original autographs. It is the copies of
the originals. Considering the Letter to Timonthy is one of the “All scripture is…” and yet includes
the translations during the time of Apostle Paul. It is imperative that “is” can be applicable after the
close of the canon to preserve his word. Again, preservation means the inclusion of the preservation
of inspiration of the words.

My belief is after the fall both men and women continued doing badly which has nothing to do with
any of the modern translation and I don't read any of the modern translations. I have always used the
KJV
But, the belief that the KJV is literally and absolutely perfect... is a fantasy!

This is why we need to dig in to the original greek and hebrew because... God did not deliver the
scriptures to mankind in English.

If it was literally perfect they would not have had several updates to the KJV

Deuteronomy 8:9 –

A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land
whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

One cannot “dig brass” out of hills where it doesn’t exist. Other than an infinitesimal amount of
mineral brass found in Siberia, brass is an alloy produced by man. One digs copper out of hills. 1
demerit.

The key to understanding this, is the word “dig” which means “to obtain or extract”. This is to
excavate the elements and from them or out of them we eventually make brass, or as you say
“copper”. None of these elements are found in their pure form just by digging or mining in the earth.
So this is not a matter of translational error, it just a misunderstood English word.

The next is from Deuteronomy 33:17 –

The word “unicorns” is decidedly incorrect. First, there are no such things. But even if the old
English word speaks of a rhino or something else with one horn, the Hebrew word is singular –
“unicorn.” And so, no matter what, the translation is wrong because a unicorn has only one horn.
Therefore, this is another of the innumerable errors found in the translation. It is just a ridiculously
funny one.

Your concern is about the masculine singular Hebrew “reem”. This is simply indicated the fact that
the Hebrew reem in the KJB is plural, simply because it causes absurdity in the English translation
where we have the “horns” speaking of plural. The question is does a Hebrew word with masculine
singular form cannot be translated in English as plural? Yes! and it is dependent on the context
according to the Hebrew grammar.
https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/number_plural.html
contradiction in Scripture between Exodus and Hebrews –

Notice the difference between these three sets of verses from the KJV and the NKJV. To make it
simple on you, the error is highlighted. Which version is in error and why? See if you can identify it
and explain –

KJV:
According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the
instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. Exodus 25:9

“Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God
when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to
the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.” Hebrews 8:5

“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these;
but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Hebrews 9:23

NKJV:
“According to all that I show you, that is, the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its
furnishings, just so you shall make it.” Exodus 25:9

“who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he
was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern
shown you on the mountain.’” Hebrews 8:5

“Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these,
but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Hebrews 9:23

Now that you have thought it through, you can see that the KJV botched up its translation of
Hebrews 9:23, forming a contradiction in the text. The exact opposite of what the Bible says is what
they have said. It the earthly things are COPIES of the heavenly things, which are the pattern.

By translating this as PATTERNS, they have brought error into their translation. You can place the
blame for such a botched-up job right where it belongs, meaning with the human translators of God’s
infallible word.

Here's one:
NASB
Gen 49~~ 6May my soul not enter into their council; May my glory not be united with their
assembly; For in their anger they killed men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen.

KJV
6O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou
united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.

‫ ִע ְּק רו‬oqru ~~~~they-~~~~felled

‫ ׁש)ר‬- ‫ ־‬shur~~~~~~ bull : :

The NASB cleared it up for me. The more I look into this, the more I like the NASB. Maybe it is the
inspired one? ~~Put's on helmet~~

In 49:6 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the
last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read in the KJB "for in their
anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." Wycliffe
1395, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587,
Webster's Bible 1833, 1936 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Torah
Transliteration Scripture 2008, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Bible, the 2000 Holy
Scriptures Jubilee Bible, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, the Sagradas
Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1602 - "y en su voluntad arrancaron muro.", the
Italian Diodati 1649 - "spianato il muro.", the Modern Greek Bible - "εν τω πεισματι
αυτων κατηδαφισαν τειχος.", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible
1998 = KJB.

However the NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung
OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they eradicated a
prince"! So what is going on here?

It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ,
and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew
word can have 3 or 4 different meanings, and if traced back to its root, as many as 9 or
10 different meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word.
We believe He has done this in the KJB.
 The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen" is false. We are told in Genesis 34:27-
29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew
all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and
carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the
city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for
themselves. The KJB is right, as always.

NASB
25
Now it came about on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Jacob’s sons—Simeon
and Levi, Dinah’s brothers—each took his sword and came upon the city undetected, and killed
every male. 26 They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the edge of the sword, and took
Dinah from Shechem’s house, and left. 27 Jacob’s sons came upon those killed and looted the
city, because they had defiled their sister. 28 They took their flocks, their herds, and their donkeys,
and that which was in the city and that which was in the field; 29 and they captured and looted all
their wealth and all their little ones and their wives, even everything that was in the houses.

The NASB even did not hinted of an ox being killed only they took the flocks, the herd, that was
after capturing and looting of the city. If you believed much in the NASB then this contradicts
your claim.

It is just good to know that individual Hebrew has different meanings and we called them
homonyms as Biblehighlter said on one of his post. There were many biblical examples to this
and I believe you know it.

Here's one: A real whoopsie. 8 times it was used, KJV got it right 4 times. 50% ain't bad?

KJV
Exo 15:14~~The people shall hear, [and] be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants
of Palestina.
‫~~~~ְּפ ָל ֶׁש ת‬phlshth ~~~~Philistia

Palestine~~No such thing at this time. Philistine was around though.

NASB
Exo 15:14~~14The peoples have heard, they tremble; Anguish has gripped the inhabitants
of Philistia.

Palestina, Palestine or Philistia refers the same and they are referred to as to the enemy of Israel.
Here's another. Darn, the NASB and KJV both got this one wrong......2 times in one verse. I guess the
NASB isn't inspired after all.

KJV
Exo 17:14~~14And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and
rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under
heaven.

NASB~~14Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this in a book as a memorial and
recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly wipe out the memory of Amalek from under
heaven.'
It Is," The Book." And "Under the heavens."

‫ ַּב ֵּס ֶפ ר‬b·sphr~~ in·the·scroll. Ironic the KJV missed this one, right?

‫ ַה ָׁשּ ָמ ִי ם‬e·shmim~~~ the·heavens

All the BOOKS of the Bible were written on scrolls at this time, and yet they are referred to as
books. A written document or a book of the Bible does not have to be bound between two covers to
legitimately be called a BOOK.
The total number of times the words “book” and “books” appear in the NASB is 126 times per count
in the Bible Hub, that would be a great number to tell that it was no wrong for a scroll be called a
BOOK. Actually, only a few were cited as a scroll. See the list below:
NASB Translation
Book (47), book (79), books (2), certificate (3), deed (6), deeds (3), illiterate* (1), indictment (1),
letter (14), letters (15), literate* (1), literature (2), read* (1), scroll (6), scroll* (3), writ (1).
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5612.htm
Heaven is in masculine noun and is dependent of its context and “heaven” is correct.
Note: Please carefully look the most modern versions about this in the said link, it’s called heaven.

Not according to Jamaisson, Faucet and Brown that “logos” rendered here as “the word” is a literal
meaning. So, from the standpoint of formal equivalence, I believe KJB is accurate in the passage being
discuss. There is no dispute that logos literal meaning is “word” in many cases of both modern English
Bible and KJB. Not only the translation is supported by the Greek grammar rule which may be dependent
on the context. The scripture speaks of parallelism as well or line upon line (Isa. 28:10, 13) or as Paul
stated “comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13), thus for 1 Cor. 1:18 would correspond to
Paul’s in 1 Cor: 1:23. If it is used literally, the question is what is the word of the cross? Did the cross
speak literally? And so on and so forth.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the
power of God.

! Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Jamaisson, Faucet and Brown

preaching, etc. — literally, “the word,”

Timothy did not have a King James translation. Jeremiah wrote in Hebrew, not King James English.
So these are arguments against your position.

I would say that KJB is a translation of the scripture and yet, Translation can still be a scripture.
Translation is to bring across or carry across from one language to another and scripture simply
means writings thus, KJB is an English scripture which obviously, Timothy don’t have access to.
However, it says ALL scripture i.e written either translated words would still make a scripture and
“…is given by inspiration of God…” . This is well demonstrated in the Bibe that translation is
scripture and is inspired.
Another, is that, the scripture speaks of inspiration in this way:
Job 32:8
King James Bible
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Inspiration gives understanding, so without translation, interpretation is not possible to learned what it
means in a language we can understand. So, translations make the scripture known and scripture is given
by inspiration. Hence, KJB is inspired. The problem of the non-KJB is that they hold no perfect,
complete, pure words of God in English. They cannot point one but I believe the difference is somewhat
of faith. We either believe we have it and that God had promised he will or we do not have it and we are
the ‘one” of authority. We’ll we just need to make a choice. You may pick one!

KJB Acts 8:9 says ”bewitched”, while newer version might go with the word “amazed”,
”astonished”, “astounded”, or “thrilling” which cannot correspond to the word “sorcery”. We can
be amazed, astonished, astounded, thrilled to some other things other than the use magic or sorcery.
The KJB outdated word “bewitched” however, I believe is still the accurate among the entry
because on its context.
King James Bible
But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched
the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bewitched
==========================================================================

I am astonished that you nit pick this particular item. I think the word bewitched is still used in
Galatians though? well yes it is....3:1

You can look that up and find all translations (or almost all) use that word

NIV uses the word sorcery for Acts 8:9 as do other translations and some use 'practicing magic'

since it about seems most do not actually study scripture and do not hear the truth and nothing but the
truth from the pulpit, it is easy for some to make the claims they do about the KJ

I grew up with the KJ, am very familiar with it and think this obsession with the KJ is very unhealthy
with ridiculous claims being made as to its merits as great or greater than original manuscripts

Thank you for the responds but of course, I just gave “a proof” that’s all you need. Yes, I know
Galatian 3:1 of which I haven’t gave that as an example and I too believe too that many modern
English Bibles out there uses unfamiliar, archaic, outdated words as well. The fact is not KJB alone
that uses archaism and that claims to devalue KJB is false. Yes, I am not questioning sorcery as used
in my example to demerit modern versions rather the key to understand bewitched is from that word
which eventually many modern versions failed in this particular passage though they got one right in
Galatians 3.
I could no longer respond to your other remarks, that’s yours but its great to know you grew up with
the KJ.
The Vulgate interprets the double Hebrew as meaning “de industria” and translates the groupings as
“manipulis”. The 1538 Dictionary of Sir Thomas Elyot defines de industria as “Of purpose” and
manipulis as “handfuls”. The English translation of the Vulgate in the edition first published in 1609
at Douay reads exactly like the KJV, “handfuls of purpose”, but that is the digital text online which
was edited after 1609. The actual 1609 reads, “and of your owne handfuls also cast forth of purpose”.
So the KJV agrees with some of the Douay reading, which in turn the editors of the Douay follow the
KJV, both of which agree with the Vulgate. Does anyone see another explanation here?
This is how Jerome put into Latin from the Hebrew text.

Vulgate(i) 16 et de vestris quoque manipulis proicite de industria

et remanere permittite ut absque rubore colligat et colligentem
nemo corripiat
KJV_Cambridge(i) 16 And let fall also some of the handfuls of
purpose for her, and leave them, that she may glean them, and
rebuke her not.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0527.tlg010.perseus-lat1:2

Thomas Elyot, The Dictionary of Sir Thomas Elyot (1538)

De industria,of purpose.
Conrad Gesner, Abecedarium Anglico-latinum (1552)
Handfull.Dragma, Manipulus, Pugillus. (?) Et Manipulatim, by handfuls.

https://www.gracegems.org/Smith%20Handfuls%20on%20Purpose/40_matthew.htm
https://www.gracegems.org/Smith%20Handfuls%20on%20Purpose/handfuls_on_purpose_index.htm