Jesus Christ is - The Wonderful One
To Him be the glory both now and forever.  Amen.

Errors in the KJV

One of the most irrational and annoying cults of our time, because it is so un-scholarly and so easy to disprove, is that of King James Onlyism. I address this on another page (click here) as far as what the original translators to the King James Version think of using only one version of the Bible. They state that it is unwise, and they defend this rationally and objectively. However, that original preface is no longer published, and so unless you read it on-line, you would have no idea that they actually said this.

Having been pestered by members of this unwise cult for years, even to the point of being verbally attacked, I decided to start making a list of the actual translation errors which are found in the KJV. It's too bad I didn't start this during my Genesis sermons, because they are to be found in Genesis as well, but about the middle of Exodus, during my sermon prep, I started cataloguing them. I also catalogue them from the New Testament based on my daily Bible studies. These started in Galatians and we continue verse by verse each day. As a KJV error pops up, I will highlight it. Why? Because KJV-onlyism is a damnable twisting of reason, and it has led so many sound Christians down a path of bondage and bad doctrine.

If one person reads this page (and the other that I have linked) and realizes the error of this cult, it will be worth all the effort that I have put into it. Study! Show yourself approved! And stop listening to lies of people who are there to profit off you by selling you "their version" of the King James Version which they can print without any royalties at all. It is Public Domain, and so it is all profit to them. Don't fund their nuttiness any longer.

If you are a KJV-only person, I do not wish to hear from you. If you email me, I will simply delete your email. I have had my fill of your crazy theology. What you can try to do, is disprove EVERY SINGLE ONE of my submissions here. If there is ONE ERROR in translation, then it is not what you claim. There are countless errors and it is certainly not what you claim.

For anyone else who is honestly seeking the truth, just check out these errors and then be pleased to join the ranks of normal, rational thinking Christians who are willing to put this stupidity behind them, once and for all. And as a question you should ask yourself as you contemplate this cult, "Where in Scripture does God reveal that the KJV is the only acceptable translation?" If it were so, He would have clued us into this. Rather, it is a translation by man, fallible man, and it contains his fallible errors.

Blessings to all in Christ the Lord.

Charlie

 

-------------------------------------------------------

These errors below are based on a reading of the original Hebrew and Greek in comparison to the KJV.

 

 

Numerous times, the KJV fails to note the article in front of "God" - ha'elohim. When the article is placed there, it is for a reason each time and each time I highlight that reason in my sermons. There is no need to highlight each instance, but it is well over 100 times that the article is used, but is not included by the KJV.

Genesis 20:13 –

The word translated as “God” is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say “gods.” There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. One demerit.

 

Genesis 35:7 –

The word translated as “God” is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say “gods.” There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. One demerit.

Genesis 49:6 –

The word “wall” is incorrect. It is an ox. The translators mistakenly used the root shor, “wall” instead of shur, “carrier” to explain what is being said. 1 demerit.

 

Ex 16:16 (Tent is singular in the Hebrew, not plural)

 

Exodus 16:23 - Unfortunately, the King James Version completely mistranslated this verse and added in two definite articles which don't exist in the Hebrew. They say, "To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD." By adding these in, they have inserted inappropriate theology to the text which has actually been harmful to the church.

 

Exodus 17:14 - In the Hebrew it is "the book" not "a book." There is a definite article which is omitted in the KJV.

 

Exodus 18:10 - Moses says "who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians. The word "you" is plural, so he is either speaking to several people who aren't yet mentioned, or he is speaking of the collective group of Israel. The KJV incorrectly translates this as singular (you) instead of plural (ye).

 

Exodus 19:13 - The King James Version completely botched this verse by saying, "There shall not a hand touch it." This is speaking not of the mountain, but of the person who has touched the mountain.

Exo 19:13. The repetition of the word “touch” (נָגַע) naturally suggests the thought that the object is the same as in the preceding verse, viz., “mount.” But this cannot be the case. For (1) if this were so, it is not probable that the word “hand” would be used, especially after the more general prohibition. The second prohibition would be weaker than the first, for one would most naturally touch the mountain with the foot, not the hand. But (2) more decisive still is the consideration that the conjunction כִּי does not admit of this construction. It can here only have the meaning “but” in the sense of the German “sondern,” i.e, “but on the contrary.” As the verse stands in A. V., a reader would most naturally understand “but” to be equivalent to “but that,” and the meaning to be, “No hand shall touch it wilhout his being stoned,” etc., which, however, cannot have been the meaning of the translators, and certainly not of the Hebrew author. On the other hand, it makes no sense to say, “No hand shall touch the mountain, but on the contrary he shell be stoned.” The meaning must be: “No hand shall touch him,” i.e., the offender; “but he shall be killed without such contact by being stoned or shot.”—TR.] KD

 

Exodus 20:7 -

...And they said, “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient.”

 

These words qol asher dibber Yehovah na'aseh v'nishma, are almost exclusively translated in this way. "We will do and be obedient." However, only one of the twenty Bibles I read, the Jubilee Bible, says, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and we will hear." This is correct. The word shema means to hear, but hearing is often associated with obedience, such as "I want you to hear me," which means "I want you do as I say." However, one cannot be obedient unless they first hear.

 

Exodus 20:13 -

The word for "murder" here is correctly translated as such. It is ratsakh and this is its first use in the Bible. Barnes notes that "This properly denotes taking the life of another with malice, or with an intention to murder him. The Jews understood it as meaning no more." 

Thus translating this as "kill" as the KJV does, can only confuse the meaning. For example, the Bible mandates that capital offenders such as murderers are to be executed. However, the use of the word "kill" instead of "murder" in this verse has led to both a misunderstanding of the intent of the commandment and a misuse of it against what the law actually prescribes in the execution of offenders.

Because of the faulty translation, it has even been used by some in the nonsensical manner of claiming that the killing of animals is wrong. However, this is a complete misuse of the command. In Exodus 12:21, the people were told to "kill the Passover." But that verse uses an entirely different word than the one used here.

Using the word "kill" in this commandment also sets up other contradictions in the Bible as well because Israel is often instructed to destroy certain people groups in battle. These instances are not to be considered as "murder." The Pulpit Commentary, among others, adds in this note concerning this precept -

"The Israelites are told that to take life is a crime. God forbids it. As usual, no exceptions are made. Exceptions appear later on; but the first thing is to establish the principle." Pulpit

This is incorrect. Exceptions, which precede the giving of the law, already exist. In chapter 17, the Lord told Moses, "Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek." At the end of that account, it said, "So Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword."

As the incident predates the law, then a distinction is being made between "killing" and "murder." The word "kill" is too broadly rendered and thus it is a most unfortunate translation. It ignores both previous precedent and later instruction and refinement.

 

Exodus 22:1 -

Two different Hebrew words are translated as "ox" and two different words are translated as "sheep." The verse says, “If a man steals an ox (shor) or a sheep (seh), and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen (bakar) for an ox (shor) and four sheep (tson) for a sheep (seh). It's obvious that a distinction is being made between what is stolen and what is to be returned. Otherwise, it would have just used the same words.

 

Exodus 22:28 -

elohim lo t'qallel - These words are translated in several ways. "You shall not revile God." "You shall not revile the gods." Or, "You shall not revile the judges." The word elohim can mean any, but "the gods" makes no sense. There is one God and all other gods are false and are to be reviled.


If it is "judges" then there should be an article before elohim. There isn't and so that is incorrect. Rather, this is speaking of God, "the fountain of justice and power" (Clarke). This then leads naturally to the second half of the verse...

 

28 (con't) nor curse a ruler of your people.

 

The ruler of the people of Israel derived his authority from God and therefore to curse him was to lay a curse upon the Lord who established the ruler of the people. This part of verse 28 is actually cited by Paul in Acts 23:5 during a trial with the ruling council where he notes the high priest as a ruler of the people.

 

The entire verse in substance is repeated several times in Scripture and in both testaments where honoring the Lord and honoring a ruler of the people are tied hand in hand.

 

Exodus 22:30 -

The term "oxen" is incorrect. It should be "cattle." All oxen and cows fall under the term "cattle," but not all cattle are oxen and cows.

 

Oxen are working animals, whereas cows are females kept for milk, meat, or breeding. Both however are being referred to here.

 

Exodus 23:18 -

The second half of this verse is incorrectly translated. The word for "sacrifice" is khag. It is a completely different word than the word in the first half, which is zebakh. The word means "feast," not "sacrifice." It is referring to the "feast" of Passover which is explained in Exodus 12:10

 

Exodus 23:28 -

This verse introduces the tsirah, or hornet, into the Bible. It is the first of just three times that they are mentioned. The word comes from tsara which means to be leprous. There is an article in front of "hornet." It is "the hornet."

 

Exodus 24:15 -

It says "the cloud" covered it. Thus, it is the same cloud which guided the people through their wanderings, through the Red Sea, and which has brought them to where they are. It is the cloud which both conceals the glory of the Lord and in which the glory is revealed.

 

Exodus 25:13 -

The translation is lacking. It says, "And the cubit." This is specifically speaking of the cubit of the goat's hair covering, which was thirty cubits across. It was to exceed the linen covering of verse 2, which was twenty-eight cubits.

 

This extra cubit was to be on either side of the tabernacle, and it was to be allowed to hang down, like a valance, in order to completely hide the golden boards of the tabernacle. Thus, only a picture of awareness of sin and judgment was to be seen in this.

 

Exodus 25:18 - "cherubims" is incorrect. Either two cherubs, or 2 cherubim. The word "cherubims"  is as erroneous as if one said "ten mooses."

 

Exodus 26:5 -

The KJV gives a very poor rendering of this by saying, "that the loops may take hold one of another." It is not the loops which will take hold of one another. It is that the loops will allow one another to be united by the clasping of golden clasps. Specificity is important here and their translation is lacking in this case.

 

Exodus 26:9 -

Again as is often the case, the KJV unfortunately translates the last word as "tabernacle" and not "tent." The word is ohel and it is completely different than the mishkan, or tabernacle, which it covers.

 

Exodus 26:11 -

The KJV is incorrect in this verse. It says "brass" instead of "bronze." It was either copper or bronze at this point in history. Brass was not yet used.

 

Exodus 26:32 - There is no article in front of "four sockets." The word "the" is not correct.

 

Exodus 27:1 -

This is a specific altar which is a specific piece of furniture for the tabernacle. Thus, there is an article in front of the "altar." It is ha'mizbeakh - "the altar." Unfortunately, the KJV doesn't accurately highlight this.

 

Exodus 27:16 -

The KJV confuses the wording here and for the screen in Exodus 26 which is for entry into the holy place by calling them the same term as the rest of the tabernacle, "hangings." However, it then calls this a "curtain" in numbers 3:26. It is not precise or consistent in the translation, thus making it difficult to know what is what.

 

Exodus 27:21 -

The term ohel moed, or "tent of meeting" is used for the first time in Scripture. After this, it will become a common term. The KJV gets a demerit in the translation for saying "tabernacle of meeting." The word ohel means "tent."

 

Exodus 28:7 -

Two errors! There is no possessive pronoun and no "the" in the original. "Two shoulder pieces."

 

Exodus 28:12 -

The KJV says "of memorial unto the children of Israel." This is not correct. The stones were considered a reminder to God, not a reminder to the children of Israel.

 
Exodus 28:17 -

The identity of almost all of the twelve stones named here cannot be precisely determined. There are stones which can be eliminated based on their hardness. In other words, it was not possible at this time in history to engrave on a topaz. Therefore, the KJV which says "topaz" gets a demerit for their translation.

 

Exodus 28:18 -

It is recognized that none of these stones, the emerald, sapphire, and diamond, could be engraved at this time in history. The KJV gets three full demerits in this one verse.

 

Exodus 28:43 -

The KJV receives a demerit in here. It is not the "tabernacle of meeting" but the "tent of meeting." The word is ohel and it means "tent." This is why it first says, "the tent of meeting" and then "near the altar." Although not yet described, this is speaking of the altar of incense which will stand in the Holy Place. Fail.

 

Exodus 29:4 -

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of meeting." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself.

 

Exodus 29:9 -

Incorrect. There is no article in front of "bonnets." It is not "the bonnets," but "bonnets."

 

Exodus 29:10 -

Incorrect. It is not "a bullock" but "the bullock." The term ha'par specifies that it is the same one chosen in verse 1 which was "without blemish." The KJV confuses this, and thus it could be any bullock. Further, it is "the tent," not "the tabernacle." Minus 2 points for the KJV.

 

Exodus 29:16 -

This is unneeded here because the mercy has already been granted, and the sins have already been expiated. As far as the translation which says to "sprinkle" its blood all around the altar, this is not what is happening. It should say something like "scatter" or "splash." It is a completely different word, zaraq, than that which will be used in verse 21. The NIV gives a far better rendering with, "Slaughter it and take the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar." The KJV completely confuses the action here with that of verse 21.

 

Exodus 29:30 -

Again, as has been noted elsewhere, it is not the "tabernacle of meeting" but the "tent of meeting." The word ohel signifies a tent.

 

Exodus 29:42 -

The KJV completely botched this by calling it the tabernacle of the congregation. This is entirely incorrect. It is ohel moed - the tent of meeting.  They have made the assumption that this is speaking of the door of the courtyard where the altar is placed, but this is not correct. The sacrifices are said to be "at the door of the tent of meeting before the Lord." This is speaking of the door to the tent of meeting, even though the altar isn't placed in that exact spot.  The door for the tent is the word pethakh. The gate of the courtyard is the word shaar. They are two entirely different words describing two different things. Thus they receive 2 demerits for their translation, and another demerit for simply copying the Geneva Bible without correcting it.

 

Exodus 30:16 -

Again, a botched translation by the KJV. This is entirely incorrect. It is ohel moed - the tent of meeting.  Two more demerits for simply copying the Geneva Bible without correcting it.

Exodus 31:18 – KJV reads “two tables of testimony.” The Hebrew reads, shnei lukhot ha'edut, “two tables of THE testimony.” Demerit for not being specific.

 

Exodus 32:16

The money is to be used not for its service, but for its construction. This silver is for the sockets and other items detailed in Exodus 38:25-28. Specificity is important here because the silver redemption money pictures the work of Christ. Major demerits in translation.

 

Exodus 32:19

Two errors. First, “the dancing” is incorrect. There is no article, and the word is a plural noun – “dances.” “…and saw the calf and dances.”

 

Exodus 33:7 -

7 (con’t) and called it the tabernacle of meeting.

 

As has been typical with the KJV, they incorrectly call this “the tabernacle of meeting” instead of the “tent of meeting.” It is the same word as was just used at the beginning of the verse – ohel. It means “tent.” The word for “tabernacle” is mishkan. The KJV gets two demerits.

 

Exodus 33:8 –

Again, the word is ohel, tent. Two more demerits for twice translating this as “tabernacle.”

 

Exodus 33:9 –

Again, the word is ohel, tent. Two more demerits for twice translating this as “tabernacle.”

 

Exodus 33:10 –

Again, the word is ohel, tent. One more demerit for translating this as “tabernacle.”

 

Exodus 33:11 –

Again, the word is ohel, tent. One more demerit for translating this as “tabernacle.”

 

Exodus 33:21

There is a definite article in front of “rock.” It is ha'tsur, “the” rock. Pretty much everyone but the KJV gets this right. The symbolism of Christ is completely missed in this translation. Minus 1, but a really, really big 1.

Exodus 34:1 –

 

The word rendered as “stone” in Hebrew is “stones.” It is plural and is intended to make a picture of Christ, in contrast to Adam. The specificity, and thus the intended picture, is lost in the KJV.

 

Exodus 34:1 –

The word rendered twice as “stone” in Hebrew is “stones.” It is plural and is intended to make a picture of Christ, in contrast to Adam. The specificity, and thus the intended picture, is lost in the KJV. Two demerits


Exodus 34:29

The translation here says, “that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.” This is not the sense of what is written. Rather, it says, “the skin of his face shone through his talking with Him.” It was in the conversation with the Lord that his face was made to shine, and it continued to shine even afterwards.

 

Exodus 34:33

The KJV incorrectly inserts the word “till.” It is “after.” Moses, authenticating the word of the Lord, spoke with his face unveiled. After speaking with them, he placed the veil over his face. This veiling of the face is explained in 2 Corinthians 3. The Lord gave the law, but after it was given, that which the law revealed was veiled. What was revealed is that the law had an end. It was passing away. This is what was veiled from the people according to Paul. Major theological breakdown if the KJV is used here.

 

Exodus 38:24 –

The gold mentioned here was not for the “holy place” but for the sanctuary. The gold was used in the holy place, the most holy, place, and on the pillars which supported screen entrance into the tabernacle.

 

Exodus 39:41 –

There is no “and” before “the holy garments for Aaron the priest” in the Hebrew. One demerit.

Exodus 40:2 –

It is the “tent of meeting,” (ohel moed), not the “tent of the congregation” (the word would be edah) which is used by the KJV. The tent of meeting is where the Lord would meet with His designated representative, not the congregation.

 

Exodus 40:7 –

The KJV correctly sticks with “tent” but says “of the congregation.” It is incorrect. It is the ohel moed, or “tent of meeting.”

 

Exodus 40:12 –

In what is the most inconsistent of translations, the KJV now translated ohel moed as tabernacle of the congregation. Both are wrong. It is the tent of meeting. 2 demerits.

 

Exodus 40:22 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit. What is astonishing, is that they had just called this the “tabernacle of the congregation” just a few verses earlier even though the same words were used in the Hebrew. The lack of clarity in the KJV is truly remarkable.

 

Exodus 40:24 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.

 

Exodus 40:26 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.

 

Exodus 40:29 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.

 

Exodus 40:30 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.

 

Exodus 40:32 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.

 

Exodus 40:34 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.

 

Exodus 40:35 –

The KJV says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” One demerit.


Leviticus 1:1 –

The Hebrew literally reads. Rather, it says, va’yiqra el moshe vaydaber Yehovah elav – “And called unto Moses and spoke Yehovah unto him.” To understand why this change is so important, we have to go back to the end of Exodus. In the last paragraph, it said –

“Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” Exodus 40:34, 35

The beginning of Leviticus is being tied directly to this thought. Understanding that, there is a time when the glory of the Lord retreated into the Most Holy place, and Moses was then able to enter there in order to speak with the Lord who dwelt between the cherubim. Also, as is the case with Exodus, the words should read “tent of meeting,” not “tabernacle of congregation.” It is ohel moed; the “tent of meeting.” 3 demerits.

Due to the enormous number of incorrect renderings of “tent” and “meeting,” this one mention of the incorrect translation will satisfy all others in the book. Were all the demerits to be counted, it would be many.

Leviticus 1:3 –

The words are not well translated. It should not say, “of his own voluntary will.” Rather, it should say, “that it may be accepted.” The word is ratson, and it can be translated either way, but many other passages in Exodus and Leviticus explain the meaning which is to be used. See Exodus 28:38; Leviticus 19:5; Leviticus 22:19-20; Leviticus 22:29; Leviticus 23:11. It is also explicitly explained in Leviticus 22:19-21. 1 demerit

Leviticus 1:5

The translation does not give the correct sense of what is done with the blood. It is not sprinkled, but splashed or scattered. The word is zaraq. The word for “sprinkle” is nazah, and it will not be seen in Leviticus until verse 4:6. Secondly, it is “the sons of Aaron, the priests,” not “the priests, Aaron’s sons.” It is an exclusive term, limiting the priesthood to the sons of Aaron.” Otherwise, it could be inferred that other priests from other lines existed, but were not selected from Aaron’s sons. The same term is used seven times, five in Leviticus, once in Numbers, and once in Joshua 21:19. It is always consistent in the Hebrew in order to show that the sons of Aaron alone are designated as priests suitable to perform functions under the Law of Moses and before the Lord. Finally, the term is ohel moed – tent of meeting, not tabernacle of the congregation. 4 demerits.

Leviticus 1:8

It is “the sons of Aaron, the priests,” not “the priests, Aaron’s sons.” It is an exclusive term, limiting the priesthood to the sons of Aaron.” Otherwise, it could be inferred that other priests from other lines existed, but were not selected from Aaron’s sons. The same term is used seven times, five in Leviticus, once in Numbers, and once in Joshua 21:19. It is always consistent in the Hebrew in order to show that the sons of Aaron alone are designated as priests suitable to perform functions under the Law of Moses and before the Lord. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 1:11

It is “the sons of Aaron, the priests,” not “the priests, Aaron’s sons.” It is an exclusive term, limiting the priesthood to the sons of Aaron.” Otherwise, it could be inferred that other priests from other lines existed, but were not selected from Aaron’s sons. The translation does not give the correct sense of what is done with the blood. It is not sprinkled, but splashed or scattered. The word is zaraq. The word for “sprinkle” is nazah, and it will not be seen in Leviticus until verse 4:6. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 3:2

It is ohel moed, tent of meeting. Two demerits. It is “scatter” or “splash” the blood, not sprinkle. 1 demerit. Total for this verse – 3 demerits.

Leviticus 3:17

Although not specifically an error, the KJV is inconsistent in their translation of these words. Charles Ellicott explains why this is important. He say, “Better, a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings; so the Authorised Version in the only three other passages in which it occurs. (Comp. Leviticus 23:14; Leviticus 23:21, where it is inverted; and 31.) That is, the law not to eat fat of beeves, sheep, or goats, is to be binding upon the Israelites throughout all their future generations, and is applicable to any place wherever they may dwell. As the full legislative formula only occurs four times in the Pentateuch, and is restricted to this book, it is important to render it uniformly in all the four passages.” 

Leviticus 4:13-15 -

Two different words are used here for “congregation” and “assembly” in the Hebrew. The words are edah and qahal. The KJV says congregation, assembly, congregation, congregation. However, the Hebrew reds, congregation, assembly, assembly, congregation. The KJV is not consistent in its translation. No need to point such errors out again. They get demerits here and anywhere else that these are incorrectly confused.

Leviticus 6:10 -

KJV says, “which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar.” The burnt-offering is not taken out with the ashes. Rather, it is ashes of the burnt offering which was consumed on the altar. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 6:16 -

The word “with” was incorrectly inserted by the translators. The grain offering was to be eaten as unleavened bread, not with unleavened bread. See Leviticus 6:17 and 10:12. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 6:18/27 -

The same phrase kol asher yigga is used in both. However, the KJV translates one correctly and one incorrectly, it being explained in this very chapter. They both pertain to the people who would touch the article. 1 demerit for lack of consistent translation.

Leviticus 6:30 -

The term l'kapper is used here as it is in Leviticus 1:4. It signifies to make atonement (a covering). KJV was not consistent in the two translations. 1 demerit.


Leviticus 7:19 -

The verse reads “... and as for the flesh, everyone that is clean may eat of the flesh.” The repetition of the word “flesh” in the second clause of this verse is specific to ensure that no error is made in the allowances and prohibitions. The KJV does not accurately reflect the Hebrew.

Leviticus 7:38 -

It is “at” or “by” Mount Sinia, not “in” Mount Sinai. This was explained in Leviticus 1:1. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 8:2 -

There is a definite article in front of “rams.” It is “the two rams” previously described in Exodus 29. This is significant. It is also “the unleavened bread,” properly following the definite article there as well. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 8:3/4 -

The same word, edah, is translated here as “congregation” and in verse 4 as “assembly.” This is inconsistent and fails to show the distinction of other words used by the Lord which are similar in meaning. Verse 8:3 should say “assembly.” Further, it is ohel moed, or tent of meeting. It is not “tabernacle.” 2 demerits.

Leviticus 8:15/19/23 -

The KJV confuses the rite by saying “slew” in verse 15 & 23, and “killed” in verse 19. It is the same word. Consistency here is necessary, but not provided in this translation. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 8:19 -

The word is not “sprinkle” but “cast” or “scatter.” The word for “sprinkle” is entirely different. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 8:31 -

As noted many times before, it is the tent of meeting, not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 8:33 -

It is the tent of meeting, not tabernacle of the congregation. It does not indicate “you shall not go out of the door” as if they are inside. Rather they are at the door (as verse 8:35 clearly states). They are not to leave the court. If they were inside the door, how could they place their hands on the animal offerings each day, there by the altar? lots of demerits.

Leviticus 8:35 -

It is the tent of meeting, not tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 9:4

The verb is in the past tense, “…for today the Lord has appeared unto you.” It is an accomplished fact, though it has not yet occurred. The sense is lost in the KJV. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 9:5

It is the tent of meeting. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 9:12

“Splash” not “sprinkle.” 1 demerit

Leviticus 9:13

It should say “its pieces” not “the pieces.” The KJV gives the impression of two separate things. It is one animal which has been divided. Further in both 9:12 and 9:13, a different Hebrew verb is used than in 8:18 for “presented.” The KJV fails to show this distinction. It should say “handed.” 1 demerit for lack of clarity. 2 demerits on the verbs.

Leviticus 9:18

It says “And he slew,” not “He slew also.” Also “splashed” not “sprinkled.” 2 demerits.

Leviticus 9:23 –

Tent of meeting, not tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 10:7 -

Tent of meeting, not tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 10:9 -

Tent of meeting, not tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 10:10 -

There are four definite articles which are left out by the translators; the holy, the unholy, the clean, and the pure. 4 demerits for not being precise.

Leviticus 10:13 -

There is no definite article in this verse before “holy.” It is not “the holy place,” but “a holy place.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 10:17 -

There is no definite article in this verse before “holy.” It is not “the holy place,” but “a holy place.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 10:18 -

Really botched up. It should say “…it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in a holy place,” Two different things are being indicated here. The first is speaking of the holy place in the tent of meeting. The second is speaking of a place which is holy where the meat could be eaten. For this reason, and to avoid misunderstandings, a new word was introduced into the Bible, penimah. It means “inside.” In this case, it is specifying “inside the holy place.” Even with this helpful addition, the KJV still did not get it right. Translating both as “the holy” completely messes up what is being relayed. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 11:2

Two different words are used in this verse khayah and behemah. The KJV muddies the distinction by calling them “beasts.” It should say “living things” and “beasts.” The verse covers all of what is said in the chapter concerning living things. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 11:20 -

The KJV obscures the meaning of the words in their translation. It is not at all sufficient to convey the meaning of what is being said. It should read “...all creeping things which have wings.” 1 demerits

Leviticus 11:24 -

It should say, “And by these.” It is speaking of what will be described in verses 26 & 27, not that which was just described. 1 demerit for a lack of clarity, thus causing confusion.

Leviticus 11:25 -

Ought” is represented in the Hebrew, and it should not be italicized. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 11:47 -

Better, “to put a difference” as they translate it in Leviticus 10:10. There is a difference, and they people were to acknowledge it as such. Even better, a more modern word like “to distinguish” would work. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 12:2/7 -

The same word, zakar, is translated once as “male child,” and once as “male.” This is unacceptable, especially considering the short nature of the chapter. Precision of translation is especially important in this. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 12:5/7 -

The same word, neqevah, is translated once as “maid child,” and once as “female.” This is unacceptable, especially considering the short nature of the chapter. Precision of translation is especially important in this. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 12:6 -

Tent of meeting,” ohel moed, not “tabernacle of the congregation.” 2 demerits.

Leviticus 13:14

This was a sloppy translation. It says, “And on the day when raw flesh appears...” 1 demerit

Leviticus 13:46

The word alone is technically not correct. The person could live with other lepers (as is seen elsewhere in Scripture, e.g., 2 Kings 7:3), but they were to be isolated or separated from the community. 1 demerit

Leviticus 14:11

It is “the tent of meeting” not “the tabernacle of the congregation.” 2 demerits

Leviticus 14:18

A different word is used concerning what to do with the oil. It should say “put,” not “pour.” 1 demerit

Leviticus 14:23

It is “the tent of meeting” not “the tabernacle of the congregation.” 2 demerits

Leviticus 14:29

A different word is used concerning what to do with the oil. It should say “put,” not “pour.” 1 demerit

Leviticus 15:14

It is “the tent of meeting” not “the tabernacle of the congregation.” 2 demerits

Leviticus 15:29

It is “the tent of meeting” not “the tabernacle of the congregation.” 2 demerits

Leviticus 16:4

There is no definite article before “holy linen tunic.” It is “a holy linen tunic,” but it is not his regular priestly garments. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 16:6 & 9

The same word qarav, is translated differently in these verses. Once it says “offer,” and then it says “bring.” This is incorrect. The word means “bring near.” 2 demerits for inconsistency leading to a misunderstanding of what is presented.


Leviticus 16:7

It is the “tent of meeting,” not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 16:16

It is the “tent of meeting,” not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 16:17

It is the “tent of meeting,” not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 16:20

It is the “tent of meeting,” not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 16:23

It is the “tent of meeting,” not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 16:23/32 – In this verse, it translates bidge ha’bad as “linen garments”. In verse 32 it says, “linen clothes.” This is “equivalent to depriving it of its identity. Now the priest has been deemed worthy to succeed to this high office to put on the holy white garments on the Day of Atonement” (Ellicott). 2 demerits.

Leviticus 16:29/31/34

The same term, huqat olam, is translated two ways in these three verses. It gives the sense that there is a difference in them, when there is not. It is poorly translated. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 17:4

It is the “tent of meeting,” not the tabernacle of the congregation. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 17:6

The word zaraq means “spalsh” or “scatter” not “sprinkle.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 17:8

The exact same legislative phrase is used four times in this chapter (3, 8, 10, 13) and yet it is translated differently in one use or another, thus diminishing the authority of the phrase itself. 4 demerits for inconsistency.

Leviticus 17:11

The wording in the first clause is “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” In the final clause it says, “the blood itself makes atonement through the soul that is in it.” A theological point is missed in the KJV. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 17:14

The wording in the first clause is “the soul of the flesh is in its blood.” In the third clause it says, “for the soul of all flesh.” A theological point is missed in the KJV. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 18:5

The word khuqqah is translated as ordinances in verses 18:3 & 4. They then translate it as “statutes” in this verse. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 18:5

There is a definite article in front of “man” in the Hebrew. It should read “the man.” It is pointing to Christ. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 18:7

The translation is faulty. The second clause explains the first. This is speaking of the mother only, which then indirectly uncovers the father because the two are one flesh. The ESV gets this right – “The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.” 1 demerits

Leviticus 18:28

The term qo or “vomit” is used three times in this chapter. The KJV makes a most unfortunate translation of it here by changing “vomiteth” of verse 25 to “spue” and “spued” here. The entire force of the passage is severely diminished. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 18:30

The word mishmereth is translated here as “ordinance,” when they have already translated khuqqah as “ordinance” and “statute” in both previous verses. This is very confusing and unacceptable. The people of Israel are being told to stay awake, be alert, and not allow themselves to fall into error by failing to be attentive to the Lord’s charge. Translate as “charge” and receive 1 demerit.

Leviticus 18:30

Charles Elllicott notes: “‘Do not any one of these abominable statutes which were done,’ as the Authorised Version translates the word in Deuteronomy 6:24; Deuteronomy 16:12; Deuteronomy 26:16. These abominations were not practised simply as customs, but were legally enacted as statutes of the land, and formed part of their religious institutions (see Leviticus 18:3). A similar state of degeneracy is described by Isaiah, who tells us that the Divine statutes, which is the same word used in the passage before us, were changed. By deviating here from the usual rendering of this phrase the Authorised Version mars the import of the passage.” Demerits for inconsistency and therefore marring the importance of what is said.

Leviticus 19:8

The KJV renders the phrase “shall be cut off from his people” in four out of the six instances (Leviticus 7:20-21; Leviticus 7:25; Leviticus 7:27) in which this phrase occurs in Leviticus. As Ellicott says, “When so important a legal formula, threatening death by excision, is used in a limited number of cases, it is most important that it should be rendered uniformly in a translation.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 19:17

The words “suffer sin upon him” are ambiguous. It should say, “bear sin on his account.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 19:20

And whosoever lieth” is translated in the KJV in Leviticus 22:14; Leviticus 24:19; Leviticus 25:29; Leviticus 27:14 as “If a man lie.” 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 19:21

It is ohel moed, the tent of meeting. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 19:23

Citing Charles Ellicott – “And when ye shall come.—Rather, And when ye be come, as the Authorised Version renders the same phrase in Leviticus 14:34. This is one of the four instances in Leviticus of a law being given prospectively having no immediate bearing on the condition of the people of Israel (viz., Leviticus 14:34; Leviticus 19:23; Leviticus 23:10; Leviticus 25:2), and though all the four enactments are introduced by the same phrase, they are translated in three different ways in the Authorised Version:—“When ye be come into the land,” in Leviticus 14:34; Leviticus 23:10; “When ye shall come into the land,” in Leviticus 19:23; and “When ye come into the land,” in Leviticus 25:2; thus giving the impression as if the phrases in the original were different in the different passages. In legislative formulae it is of importance to exhibit uniformly the same phraseology in a translation.” demerits for inconsistency.

Leviticus 20:1

There is no “again” in the Hebrew. It says, “And unto the children of Israel you shall say.” Also, the phrase “whosoever he be” should be translated consistently with Leviticus 17:3, where the same phrase is “What man soever there be.” 2 demerits. One for addition without cause, 1 for inconsistency.

Leviticus 20:2

The Hebrew says, “...shall stone him with the stone.” It is singular, not plural. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 20:5

The Hebrew says, ha’molech. The KJV leaves off this important article, “the Molech.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 20:7

The exact same phrase in the Hebrew is translated differently here, showing a lack of consistency. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 20:22

The same phrase is translated as vomit in 18:25 and spue here. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 20:25

The word just translated as “separated,” badal, is now inconsistently translated as “put difference.” This diminishes the very intent of what is being said. The Lord has separated, therefore Israel is to separate. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 20:27

The verse begins with “And” which is left off by the KJV. Thus it fails to show the conjoining nature of what is being relayed. The actual meaning is obscured. Further, the Hebrew says, “...shall stone him with the stone.” It is singular, not plural. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 21:1

The same word, amar, is used in both clauses, but is translated by KJV as “said” and then “speak.” It should be “said” an then “say.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 21:4

The Hebrew reads, lo yitama baal b’amav l’he-khalow. No shall defile husband in his people to profane himself. This is making a picture of Christ and the church. That is missed because of the poor translation of the KJV. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 21:17

The word “whosoever” here is inappropriate. The word is “man” and it means, “any man.” As some have already been shown in the preceding verses to be disqualified through illegal alliances, it cannot mean “whosoever.” 1 demerit.

Leviticus 22:3

The KJV is inconsistent in translating the Hebrew here, and the same term in Lev 23:14 & 23:21. “throughout your generations” is to be maintained in all three. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 22:14

The KJV is inconsistent in translating the Hebrew here. Five other times this is used, it is translated as “ignorance.” Here it is “unwittingly.” Although not incorrect, there is still levied 1 demerit for a lack of consistency.

Leviticus 22:18

The KJV is inconsistent in translating the Hebrew here. The exact same phrase is translated “what man soever there be” in 17:3. Secondly, the same phrase now translated as “offer his oblation” was “offer his offering” in Lev 3, 7, and 17. 2 demerits for a lack of consistency.

Leviticus 22:19

Rather than “at your own will” this should say, “that it may be accepted.” See verse 22:21. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 22:27

Bulls, sheep, and goats are not brought forth. Calfs, lambs, and kids are brought forth. 3 demerits for placing adults in the mother’s womb!

Leviticus 22:29

The word ratson in this verse means it should be translated as, “offer it for your acceptance.” This is not speaking of a free will offering, but of what follows next which will make the offering acceptable. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 23:2

It should say, “ye shall do no manner of work,” just as it does where the same phase is seen in this same chapter, verse 23:31. Further, it should say “sabbath to the Lord.” Otherwise, it seems like the Lord is even now working six days and taking the seventh off. Further more, there is no definite article in front of either “Sabbath” in this verse. And finally, “Sabbath” is a proper noun, to be capitalized. 1 demerit for inconsistency, 1 demerit for inappropriate theology, 2 demerits for illegal insertion of article, and 1 demerit for bad grammar. 5 demerits total.


Judges 6:20 –

The verse says “the God” not just “God.” It is making a theological point. 1 demerit.










2 Samuel 7:23 –


The word translated as “God” is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say “gods.” There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. One demerit.

2 Samuel 22:5, 6

Two different words for “compassed” are used in the Hebrew, savav and aphaph. Translating them the same, though not incorrect, fails to reveal the intent of David, and the position he felt he was in. Thus 1 demerit is necessary.


Job 39:9

This is not a unicorn. The Hebrew of Deuteronomy 33:17 clearly shows it had two horns, not one. 1 demerit.



Psalm 18:4, 5

Two different words for “compassed” are used in the Hebrew, savav and aphaph. Translating them the same, though not incorrect, fails to reveal the intent of David, and the position he felt he was in. Thus 1 demerit is necessary.


Psalm 58:11

The word translated as “God” is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say “gods.” There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. One demerit.

Psalm 65:1 –

The KJV says “Sion” instead of “Zion.” It is an inconsistent translation. Sion is a different mountain, also known as “Hermon.” This is found in Deuteronomy 4:48, and is spelled shin, yod, aleph, nun. Zion is spelled tsaddi, yod, vav, nun. This is a confused mistranslation. KJV plus one demerit. Note: the fact that the term “Sion” is used when speaking of “Zion” in the New Testament based on the rendering of the Greek letters does not justify this mistranslation of the Hebrew in the Old Testament. The translators simply, and blindly, followed along from the mistranslation of the Geneva Bible.

Psalm 102:16

The verbs are past tense, “has built up,” “has appeared.” 2 demerits.







Amos 4:10

The word “camps” in the Hebrew is singular, not plural. 1 demerit.



Jonah 1:17 –


Although not technically an error, the words are misleading. The word translated as “had prepared” is manah. It means “to count.” Thus the fish has been “appointed,” not “prepared.” Using “prepared” gives the sense of an act of creation. Rather, God has created, and he has appointed his creation to act at certain counts, or times, in order to meet His needs. He employs His created agents to do His bidding at His will.

 

Jonah 1:17 –

Secondly, the “great fish” here is incorrectly translated in the New Testament by some versions as “whale.” This is wholly unjustifiable and it is incorrect. The word in Hebrew is dag. It indicates a prolific beast; one that greatly multiplies, as is seen in fish, not in mammals. Great studies have been done on this, which, if you want to learn more just go browse the internet. This was probably a sea-dog or a type of shark which are found in the Mediterranean Sea.

Jonah 2:3/2:5 –

Two different words for “compassed” are used in the Hebrew, savav and aphaph. Translating them the same, though not incorrect, fails to reveal the intent of the author as Jonah’s cataclysmic demise is at hand. Thus 1 demerit is necessary.

Habakkuk 3:4 -

This is a mis-translation of the word qeren which should be translated as "rays" instead of "horns." The word means "horns," but the intent is that of flashing rays of light. The word here denotes the form rather than the substance.

 

 p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); }p.western { font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; }p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; }p.ctl { font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; }a:link { color: rgb(0, 0, 255); }



Zechariah 15:15

The word “tents” is incorrect. It is makhaneh, a camp, not ohel, a tent. 1 demerit.

 

 

Acts 24:11 -

The word for "sect" here is the same as was used in 24:5 - hairesis. It is connected to the word heresy that we use today and so some versions incorrectly say "sect" in verse 5 and "heresy" here. However, this makes no sense. Paul explains, that what they call a "sect" is what he calls the Way. They should both be translated as sect because the word specifically means "a strong, distinctive opinion." To say verse 5 should be "sect" and verse 14 should be "heresy" causes a logical contradiction in thought because he uses the term "they call." If "they called" it something in verse 5, then all he is doing is repeating what "they called" it, not stating something new.

 

Acts 27:33 -

The wording of the KJV is confused in this verse. There is no article in front of angel, but there is an article in front of God. It should read "an angel of the God." Instead the KJV says "the angel of God." As usual, they blindly followed the Geneva Bible and err in the intent of the passage.

 

Acts 27:40 -

The KJV botches this verse by saying that "they had taken up the anchors." This is not at all what occurred. Instead, they cut away the anchors which held them. Their intent was to run up on shore in as light a manner as possible. There was no benefit to be derived from pulling in the immense anchors for this purpose. Further, the KJV uses in the next clause the word "themselves," as if it is speaking of those on the ship committing themselves to whatever the sea would do to them. This is incorrect. The action of committing is referring to the anchors, not to those on the ship. They committed the anchors to the deep, where they would not further encumber the ship.

 

Acts 28:9 -

There is an article here which is unfortunately lacking in the KJV. They say, "others also." However, it rightly should say, "the rest" or "the others." It gives the sense that there was a rush upon Paul once the word had gotten out. It is therefore a tie to Luke 5:13-15 where the word went out about Jesus miracles to the point that everyone came to Him to be healed.  

 

2 Corinthians 6:12 -

The word used here (σπλάγχνα splangchna) commonly means in the Bible the tender affections. The Greek word properly denotes the upper viscera; the heart, the lungs, the liver. It is applied by Greek writers to denote those parts of victims which were eaten during or after the sacrifice - Robinson (Lexicon). Hence, it is applied to the heart, as the seat of the emotions and passions; and especially the gentler emotions, the tender affections, compassion, pity, love, etc. Our word "bowels" is applied usually to the lower viscera, and by no means expresses the idea of the word which is used in Greek.

 

2 Corinthians 7:8 -

Paul now refers to the previous letter that he sent them by saying, "For even if I made you sorry with my letter..." The KJV incorrectly states "with a letter." There is an article in front of "letter" and therefore either "the letter" or "my letter" is appropriate here. He isn't referring to any letter, but to the specific letter which brought about their sadness.

 

2 Corinthians 7:8, 9 -

Paul now introduces repentance of the Corinthians into his thoughts. Unfortunately, the KJV makes the entire thought convoluted by using the term "repent" in both the previous verse and this one -

 

"For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing."

 

2 Corinthians 8:16 -

KJV says "put" as if it was something instilled in Titus in the past. This is not correct. The verb is in the present tense; it is an on-going action. God put and continued to put earnest care for those in Corinth into Titus' heart. This is important because it indicates that he still had that care for them and he continued to be burdened for them as Paul wrote the letter which would then be carried by Titus back to them.

 

2 Corinthians 12:18 -

Concerning that visit, Paul asks them to reflect on his conduct while there. He had come with "our brother," meaning someone well known to them who could then substantiate to the character and demeanor of Titus. The KJV incorrectly says "a brother," not acknowledging the article which precedes "brother." But the definite nature of the person is highlighted to show that this person could be checked with for a confirmation of the conduct of Titus at any time.

 

Galatians 1:6 -

The KJV says "that ye are so soon removed." Thus it misses the sense of the verb which indicates the on-going nature of what is occurring. They are in the process of being deluded.

 

Galatians 1:6, 7 -

The NKJV wisely departs from the older KJV in their translation of verses 6 and 7. Notice the difference between the two -

 

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. NKJV

 

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. KJV

 

Two entirely different words are translated as "another" by the KJV. The first is héterosanother (of a different kind). This stands in contrast to állos ("another of the same kind"). The KJV confuses this. Should verse 6 be cited alone, which is not an uncommon thing for people to do, there could be a misunderstanding of what Paul is saying. Thankfully, there are other versions one can refer to in order to get a fuller meaning of the intent of what is being said.

 

Galatians 4:14 -

This verse is incorrectly translated. It is not Paul's trial that he is referring to, but that of the Galatians. The Greek reads "and the test of you which was in the flesh of me."

 

Galatians 5:12 -

The rendering entirely misses what Paul is saying. They use the "cut off" in the sense of the false teachers being "cut off from the Galatians." This verse is speaking of the right of circumcision. Paul is thus referring to continuing their cutting, even unto emasculation.

 

Ephesians 1:11 - This seems evident by the opening words, because Paul says that “In Him we have obtained an in heritance.” The KJV and the NKJV make the verb active, but it is not. Rather, it is passive. The correct reading is that “we were made a heritage.” Thus it literally is worded to suggest that we were designed as an inheritance.

 

Ephesians 2:7

 

The Greek word en or “in” is given to show that only those who are “in Christ Jesus” are the recipients of this. The KJV unfortunately translates this as “through.” It does not convey the sense of “being within” which is intended by Paul. Without proper context, “through” could include anyone. But such is not the case. It is only those who are “in Christ” that will receive this marvelous grace. As usual, the KJV simply follows on with what the Geneva Bible first submitted.

 

Ephesians 2:12 –

He next notes that they were “aliens form the commonwealth of Israel.” The word in Greek is a verb, not a noun. It reads “being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.” They were out, and they were kept out by the state they were in. With few recorded exceptions, this was the state of all people on the planet. They were born, lived, and died apart from the access to God which was provided through Christ to all who were of Israel’s commonwealth. The importance of “being alienated” rather than “being aliens” is understood in the promise to Abraham that “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” through him. The alienation came from the fall; the commonwealth of Israel is a restoration of that. Until Christ came, this was the default position for all people outside of Israel. It should be noted that this is a spiritual, not a national commonwealth. Paul explains this in Romans 9:6 stating that “not all Israel who are of Israel.” For those who lived by faith in the hope of Christ, they were set apart within this spiritual commonwealth, enjoying the benefits that are derived from it.

 

To further highlight the plight, he moves onto “strangers from the covenants of promise.” The Greek reads “the promise.” Further, the word “covenants” is plural and the word “promise” is singular. A promise was made right after the fall that restoration would be made and that man would be brought back into a right relationship with God. After that time, a series of covenants was made in order for this to come about based on that one promise.

 

Ephesians 4:16

The KJV gives and unfortunate paraphrase of the Greek with the words, “by that which every joint supplieth.”

 

It is from Christ that “the whole body” finds its source, its growth, its strength, and its direction. The Greek says, “every joint of supply.” The sustenance is not from the joints (which every joint supplieth), but is from Christ through each joint of supply. Each person who fulfills a role within the church does so based on what Christ has given them, not based on what they have independent of Christ. (For a correct understanding, refer to Colossian 2:19).

Ephesians 5:13 –

Whatsoever doth make manifest is light (πᾶν τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστίν)

Wrong. The A.V. renders doth make manifest, as in the middle voice, but the verb is in the passive voice. It occurs nearly fifty times in the New Testament, and never as middle. Hence Rev., correctly, everything that is made manifest. (Vincent’s Word Studies)

 

Ephesians 5:26 –

Christ “gave Himself” for the church “That he might sanctify and cleanse it.” The words actually should be rendered “…might sanctify having cleansed her.”

 

We are cleansed through the work of Christ. We stand forgiven and justified before God because of the giving of His life. After that act, we are to be sanctified “with the washing of the water by the word.” This is seen in Jesus’ words of John 13:10 –

 

“Jesus said to him, ‘He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.’”

 

It is further explained in John 17:17 –

 

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”

 

We are cleansed (having bathed); we require sanctification (periodic washing). It is a two-fold and distinct process which is missed by some translations.

Ephesians 6:12 –

The word “wrestle” is a noun, not a verb – “our wrestling is…” Nitpicky, but so are KJV only people.

 

Ephesians 6:12 –

The order is “blood and flesh” in the Greek, not “flesh and blood.” Nitpicky, but so are KJV only people.

 

Ephesians 6:14 –

The verb is in the middle voice, not passive. It is correctly rendered “having girded.”

 

Philippians 1:1 –

There is no “the” before “servants” in the original. It simply says douloi, or “servants.”

 

Philippians 1:13 –

The reading of this verse is disputed, but the overall sense is still available. Several translations will help us to see this –

 

  • As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. NIV

 

  • For everyone here, including the whole palace guard, knows that I am in chains because of Christ. NLT

 

  • So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; KJV

 

  • so that my bonds have become manifest in Christ in the whole praetorium, and to the other places -- all, YLT

 

As you can see, the KJV says “bonds in Christ.” The YLT says “bonds have become manifest in Christ.” The latter is correct. The spacing in the Greek is too far apart to tie “bonds” in with “Christ.” It undermines the intent of what Paul is saying. The NIV takes those same words and paraphrases them for the sake of clarity. As far as “the whole palace guard.” The words are translated by the KJV as “palace” and “praetorium” by the YLT. “Palace” is not correct. “Praetorium” is a literal rendering of the Greek, but it doesn’t explain what is the case for us to understand. The term “palace guard” does.

 

Philippians 1:14

The translation is incorrectly translated. It would be a redundancy to say “brethren in the Lord.” If one is a brother, he is in the Lord. The words “brethren” and “in the Lord” are never connected in the Bible in this way. Instead, the words “in the Lord” should be connected to the word “confident.” This follows along with the same connection as is found in Galatians 5:10, 2 Philippians 2:24, and 2 Thessalonians 3:4. Therefore, this verse should be translated as is found in the Berean Study Bible –

 

“And most of the brothers, confident in the Lord by my chains, now dare more greatly to speak the word without fear.”

 

As you can see, the Berean Bible makes sense, and it avoids what would otherwise be a theological error.

 

Philippians 1:26 –

The Greek reads “in Christ Jesus in me” not “for me.” The parallelism of the verse is lost in the KJV. 1 demerit

Philippians 2:10 –

The Greek reads “in the name of Jesus” not “at the name of Jesus.” Though it doesn’t substantially change the meaning, the KJV is not literally correct. 1 demerit

 

 

Philippians 2:17 –

Although technically not incorrect, the metaphor is completely lost in this translation. The word translated as “offered” is spendó. It means “to pour out.” There are many types of offerings, this is a particular type, a drink offering. It is the same word that is also used in 2 Timothy 4:6. The KJV cannot be given credit for a proper translation. 1 demerit.

 

Philippians 3:2 –

“Beware of dogs.” The translation unfortunately leaves off an article before “dogs.” It is necessary and it makes the warning less forceful than it should be. “Beware of THE dogs.” Likewise, “…beware of evil workers.” Again, the KJV fails to include the article. The translation gets 2 demerits for failing to stress the urgency in Paul’s words.


Philippians 3:4

Vincent’s word studies is correct in saying that the KJV “is needlessly verbose.” It is supposed to be a literal translation of the Bible, but their translation of this verse is not. It must receive, by virtue of the translation, 1 demerit.

Philippians 3:7 –

The word “gain” in Greek is plural. For proper understanding, it should read “gains.” 1 demerit.

Philippians 3:8

“Mine own righteousness” would have required the article with “mine.” It makes the assumption that a personal righteousness exists. But Paul says otherwise. He say in this matter of justification, he has none. Secondly, it is not the “faith of Christ,” but “faith in Christ.” We believe in what He has done, and we are sealed with the spirit and declared righteous. The wording is awkward and gives a faulty sense. 2 demerits.

Philippians 3:20

There is no article in front of the word “Savior.” Vincent’s Word Studies gives the thoughts of Paul which are being relayed. He says “its emphatic position in the sentence indicates that it is to be taken predicatively with Jesus Christ, and not as the direct object of the verb. Hence render: we await as Savior the Lord…” 1 demerit

Philippians 3:21

Where to start? KJV incorrectly mixes “fashion” and “form” of Philippians 2:6 & 2:8. It is “form” here, not “fashion.” Secondly, “our vile body” is incorrect. Nothing God has created is vile. It is what we do with our body which is vile. Man’s body carries a distinct beauty (Isaiah 44:13, etc.) which bears God’s handiwork. It should read “the body of humiliation.” Thirdly, “his glorious body” is incorrect. It should read, “the body of His glory.” Three demerits.

Philippians 4:2

The name is Euodia, no Euodias. Euodias is a male name and the context is quite clear that Paul is speaking of a female. 1 demerit.

Philippians 4:3

The word “women” is not in the original even if the word “these” is feminine, and it is not italicized in the KJV. It correctly reads “help them.” The format of the Berean Literal Bible, or the NET Bible should be used. 1 demerit.

Philippians 4:17

It is not “a gift,” but “the gift.” The article is speaking of the specific gift. 1 demerit.

Philippians 4:20 -

It says, “Our God and Father.” Our is to be ascribed to both “God” and “Father.” Also, the KJV leaves off an important article before “glory.” It says “the glory.” 2 demerits.

Colossians 1:10 -

The Greek translated here as “worthy” is an adverb. I should read “worthily.” 1 demerit.

Colossians 1:12 -

There is an article in front of “light.” The original reads “in the light.” 1 demerit.

Colossians 1:14 –

In the Greek, there is an article before “redemption.” It states “the redemption” and thus it sets the thought apart as the great act of redemption to which any other act (such as the redemption of Israel from Egypt) was only a type and shadow. 1 demerit

Colossians 1:16 -

“Were created” is in the aorist tense in the first instance, but in the perfect tense in the second. The KJV fails to make this distinction, by using the words “were created” both times. It gives a faulty sense of what has occurred. The second instance should say “have been created” to indicate the change in tense. 1 demerit.

Colossians 1:19 -

There is an article before “fullness;” to pleroma - “the fulness.” 1 demerit

Colossians 1:21 -

The Greek reads “in” your wicked works.The enmity of heart is not properly caused by wicked works, but shown in them, and probably intensified by reflex action through them” (Ellicott) 1 demerit.

Colossians 1:22 -

The Greek reads “through the death.” There is a masculine article in front of death, and so it should be “through the death” or “through His death.” The stress is on the humanity of Christ. This is missing in the KJV. 1 demerit.

Colossians 1:27 -

There is an article in front of “glory.” It says “the glory.” 1 demerit.

Colossians 2:2 -

The word “acknowledgment” does not give the sense of the Greek. Acknowledgment is a mental assertion of something. Rather, it is a “full understanding” of the matter, and so “knowledge” is what it should say. They had already acknowledged the matter; they needed to grasp what the matter meant in its fullness. 1 demerit.

Colossians 2:6 -

There is an article in front of “Christ” which is left of by the KJV. It says ton Christon Iesoun ton Kurian, “the Christ Jesus the Lord.” They got one article right, but missed the other. There is a reason for this specificity, and it is completely missed in the translation. 1 demerit.

Colossians 2:8 -

There is an article in front of “philosophy.” It says, “the philosophy.” Not all philosophy is bad; Paul cites some in Acts 17. However, there is specific philosophy which is then described by Paul as “vain deceit.” These words explain “the philosophy.” The KJV blew the intent of Paul's words. 2 demerits.

Colossians 2:12 -

There is an article in front of “baptism” in the original which the KJV fails to translate. It is either “the baptism” or possibly “your baptsim,” but articles carry meaning and are not to be ignored. 1 demerit.

Colossians 2:21 -

The words translated as “touch” and “handle” are actually just the opposite. The last “denotes a lighter and less deliberate touch than the first” (Cambridge). There is a climax of prohibition in the verse which is lost in the KJV translation. Paraphrasing, it would say “Don't handle, don't taste, AND DON'T EVEN TOUCH!” 1 demerit.

Colossians 3:1 -

The correct rendering is “where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.” “Is” is to be taken separately. “Seated” is a secondary predicate. 1 demerit.

Colossians 3:3 -

“For ye are dead” does not give the sense of what is being said. It should say, “For you died.” To say, “For ye are dead” without an explanation, is a contradiction. It is like saying, “You are a table.” The table isn’t alive and therefore the words are pointless. Paul is making a theological statement to living people about what happened to them in Christ. See Colossians 2:20.

Colossians 3:16

There is an article in front of “grace.” Thus it says “the grace.” The construction of the Greek forbids the wording “with grace in your hearts.” Rather, it should say, “in the grace, singing in your hearts to the Lord.” 2 demerits

Colossians 3:19 -

The word “bitter” is in the passive tense. It should read “be embittered” or “grow not bitter.” 1 demerit

Colossians 4:1

There is an article in front of “equal.” It is not an adjective but a noun. The sense of what is being relayed is lost in the KJV translation. 1 demerit

 

Colossians 4:2

The word translated as “continue” is much stronger. It means “continue steadfastly.” 1 demerit.

Colossians 4:9

There is a definite article in front of “faithful.” It is “the faitful and beloved brother,” not “a faithful and beloved brother.” One demerit.

1 Thessalonians 4:4 -

This major error in translation is explained by Vincent’s Word Studies – “Incorrect. Const. of or by (ὑπὸ) God with beloved. Ἑκλογὴ election...” It should rightly be translated as “...knowing brothers beloved by God, your election...” 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 1:10 -

It should say, “delivering us,” and “the wrath that is coming.” The Greek verbs are present participles. 2 demerit.

1 Thessalonians 2:3 -

Should read “is.” This is based on the verb of the next verse. 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 2:4 -

Should read “have been.” The verb is in the perfect, not the past, tense. 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 2:6 -

There is no definite article in front of “apostles” in the Greek. The KJV gives a misleading impression of what the word signifies because of this. Strike the definite article and receive 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 2:7 -

“Her” is a reflexive pronoun in the Greek. It should thus say “her own.” 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 2:12 -

“Hath called” is incorrect. It is a present participle, active. It should read “calls” or “is calling”. The KJV error is probably made by a misunderstanding of the difference between this and Galatians 1:6. 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 4:7

There is a change in the preposition here which the KJV simply ignores. It is first epi, then en. Correctly translated – “For God did not call us for uncleanness, but in holiness.” 2 demerits.

1 Thessalonians 4:14

The preposition dia means “through.” We fall asleep through Jesus, not en, or in Jesus. The KJV really blows the symbolism here. He is the Door. Also, the verb for “sleep” is passive. Thus it should be translated as “which have been laid asleep,” or “who have fallen asleep.” 2 demerits.

1 Thessalonians 4:15

There is a double negative in this verse which the KJV overlooks, and thus it diminishes the emphasis which Paul presents. The Greek reads, “remaining unto the coming of the Lord no not shall precede those who have fallen asleep.” double demerit.

1 Thessalonians 5:3

There is a double negative in this verse which the KJV overlooks, and thus it diminishes the emphasis which Paul presents. The Greek reads, “shall in no ways escape” double demerit.

1 Thessalonians 5:5

Rather than “children,” this should say “sons.” The metaphor of our upbringing from the law “children,” to “sons” with full privileges (see Galatians 3), is entirely missed by this translation. 2 demerits.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:22

Appearance” is incorrect. To demonstrate how this is so, an example might be that of a person walking down a street where prostitutes congregated. Another person might see this and say, “Ooooh, that supposed ‘Christian’ is hanging out with prostitutes.” In fact, however, he was going down the street handing out tracts about Jesus. Thus “appearance” is a faulty idea here, and it actually matches what the leaders of Israel accused Jesus of. They were judging by appearance, and not by what actually occurred. If one thinks it through, one cannot abstain from everything that “looks like evil,” and this is not the intent. The words “form of” rightly explain what is meant. Evil comes in many forms – thoughts, actions, words, etc. These are things which are morally wrong, and with which the Lord would be displeased. Whatever “type” or “form” of evil is there, we are to abstain from it. 1 demerit

1 Thessalonians 5:23

Wholly” should be tied to “preserved,” not to “spirit.” The word entirely “is predicative, not attributive…. It signifies having the entire allowment; complete in all parts.” (Vincent’s Word Studies). Paul is not hoping that God will preserve our whole spirit and body, as if they could be partially preserved! Rather, he is anticipating that God will preserve us so that we will be entirely blameless at the Lord’s coming. In other words, it is the efforts of God of the previous clause, not man’s efforts of the preceding verse, which Paul is putting his hopes on. Man’s efforts could never be so relied upon, but God’s power can be trusted.1 demerit


2 Thessalonians 1:8

The term “in flaming fire” belongs to angels; it is not the instrument of judgment. This follows from OT symbolism where angels, or seraphim, are “the burning ones.” Much of the tribulation judgment does not come in the form of fire. Thus, there would otherwise be an inconsistency in the text. Secondly, the term “taking vengeance” is inappropriate. The Greek reads, “giving” or “rendering.” “Taking” implies personal vindictiveness. There no such hint of this in the unchanging God. Thirdly, the word “them” is repeatedin the Greek twice, showing two different categories – “on them that know not God, and on them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The important distinction is missed by the KJV. 3 demerits.

2 Thessalonians 1:11

“Wrong. Paul does not mean all the goodness which God is pleased to bestow, but the delight of the Thessalonians in goodness” (Vincent’s Word Studies). 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4

The phrase “or that is worshiped” is not literally correct. It is a noun, not a verb. Thus it should read, “object of worship.” See Acts 17:23.

2 Thessalonians 2:6 -

There is a definite article in front of “withholds,” and, therefore, it should read “that which,” not “what.” The Thessalonians were not being reminded of a mere doctrine, but of a specific and familiar object. 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 2:9

Vincent’s Word Studies corrects the KJV – “...signs and wonders of a lie. Of a lie characterizes the three words, power, signs, wonders. All bear the stamp of fraud.” Each of these descriptors has been used to speak of Jesus. They are now being used to contrast the working of Antichrist. 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 2:11

There is a definite article in front of “lie.” It is not “a lie,” but “the lie.” 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 2:12

The word krino which is used here means “judged.” It does not here, or elsewhere, convey the idea of condemnation, even if that is what is implied by the context. 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 2:13

The word translated as “hath chosen” is an aorist verb. It is righly translated as “chose.” It is a set point in time in which it occurred. “Hath chosen” could mean any point in time, but “chose” is a specific point in the eternal decree of God. 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 3:2

There is an article in front of “unreasonable” which the KJV fails to include. Paul is speaking of a specific group, of whom he requests specific prayers about. The lacking article leaves a void in the prayer. Would you want prayers for you incorrectly prayed? No, neither would Paul. There is a second article missing before “faith.” It is “the faith.” Paul is conveying to us a a truth about the true faith which is in Christ. 2 demerits.

2 Thessalonians 3:3

There is an article in front of “evil” which the KJV fails to include. It says “the evil,” 1 demerits.

2 Thessalonians 3:5

Although flowery and painful to correct, the words “patient waiting for Christ” are incorrect. It says, “patience of Christ” in the Greek. 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 3:9

The word “power” is incorrect. It is “authority” which is power combined with legitimacy. 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 3:15

The verse begins with the common Greek conjunction kai (and), not yet. There is nothing adversative in this thought. The words are intended as a saving measure only. There is no hint of bitterness or unkindness in Paul’s thoughts to substantiate “yet.” 1 demerit.

2 Thessalonians 3:17

There is no article in front of “token” in the Greek. It is “a token,” not “the token.” 1 demerit.







Website Builder