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

Errors in the KJV

This is a list of translation errors which are found in the King James Version (KJV), a mediocre translation of Scripture. I started compiling them after having completed my studies of Genesis, so the many errors in their translation of Genesis are lacking for the most part. As for this list, these errors are based on the same source texts used by the KJV translators, so we are dealing apples with apples in this list.

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

Note: The KJV fails to use quotation marks, making the text obscure and even difficult at times. It is good that modern translations have corrected this translation problem.

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

Note: The KJV fails to note the article in front of "God" – ha'elohim, or “the God” hundreds of times, beginning with Genesis 5:22. Each time the article is placed there in the Hebrew, it is done so for a theological purpose. Not placing it there leaves a void in our understanding of what THE GOD is telling us. I won’t not include every instance of this, but it should be made known. Each time it is lacking is 1 demerit in their translation.

Genesis 1:1 –

The KJV translates ha’shemayim (the heavens) in the singular. That is fine, but they then translate the exact same phrase in the plural in Genesis 2:1, 2:4, etc. There is an annoying lack of consistency in this. 1 demerit for each inconsistency in the rest of the Bible.

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. 1 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. 1 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, not plural. 1 demerit.

Exodus 16:23 –

Unfortunately, the KJV 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. 2 demerits.

Exodus 17:14 –

It is "the book" not "a book." There is a definite article which is omitted translated in the KJV. 1 demerit.

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). 1 demerit.

Exodus 19:13

The KJV 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.

Exodus 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 without 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, 1 demerit.

Exodus 20:7 –

7 (con't) 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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 2 demerits.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

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." 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

Exodus 25:18 –

"cherubims" is incorrect. Either two cherubs, or 2 cherubim. 1 demerit.

Exodus 25:29 –

These are not covers, but jars. It should read “jars which to pour.” 2 demerits.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit for every time that “brass” is used in the OT. Approximately 75 demerits.

Exodus 26:32 –

There is no article in front of "four sockets." The word "the" is not correct. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

Exodus 27:16 –

The KJV confuses the wording here and for the screen in Exodus 26 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. 1 demerit.

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 the congregation." The word ohel means "tent." the word moed means “meeting.” There is also no “the” in the Hebrew. 3 demerits.

Exodus 28:7 –

Two errors! There is no possessive pronoun and no "the" in the original. "Two shoulder pieces." 2 demerits.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

Exodus 28:18 –

It is recognized that none of these stones, the emerald, sapphire, and diamond, could be engraved at this time in history. 3 demerits.

Exodus 28:43 –

It is not the "tabernacle of the congregation" 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." Further, it is not “congregation,” but “meeting.” Although not yet described, this is speaking of the altar of incense which will stand in the Holy Place. Fail. 3 demerits.

Exodus 29:4 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 29:9 –

Incorrect. There is no article in front of "bonnets." It is not "the bonnets," but "bonnets." 1 demerit.

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." 2 demerits.

Exodus 29:16 –

The KJV 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. 1 demerit.

Exodus 29:30 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

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 5 demerits for their translation, and another demerit (making 6) for simply copying the Geneva Bible without correcting it.

Exodus 30:16 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 31:18 –

KJV reads “two tables of testimony.” The Hebrew reads “two tables of THE testimony.” 1 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. 1 demerit.

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.” 2 demerits.

Exodus 33:7 -

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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 “the” rock. Pretty much everyone but the KJV gets this right. The symbolism of Christ is completely missed in this translation. 1 demerit.

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. 2 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. 1 dermerit.

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. 1 demerit.

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. 1 demerit.

Exodus 39:41 –

There is no “and” before “the holy garments for Aaron the priest” in the Hebrew. 1 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. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:7 –

The KJV correctly (finally!) sticks with “tent” but says “of the congregation.” It is incorrect. It is the ohel moed, or “tent of meeting.” 2 demerits.

Exodus 40:12 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:22 –

The KJV again says “tent of the congregation.” This is incorrect. It is ohel moed – “the tent of meeting.” 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. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:24 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:26 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:29 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:30 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:32 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:34 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Exodus 40:35 –

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

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.” 4 demerits.

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

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits. It is “scatter” or “splash” the blood, not sprinkle. 1 demerit. Total for this verse – 4 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.” 4 demerits for inconsistency.

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. 2 demerits 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

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 8:33

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits. Also, 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

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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

The translation is incorrect. It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 10:7

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 10:9

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 14:24 –

There is no article in front of “land.” “The” should be italicized or not used. 1 demerit.

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." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 15:29

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 16:16

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 16:17

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 16:20

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Leviticus 16:23

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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, khuqat 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." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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 demerit.

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 "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 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. 3 demerits total.

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” and 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 Leviticus 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.

Leviticus 23 –

The term “feast” in this chapter is translated from two different words, moed & khag. One is an appointed time, the other is a feast. What is being relayed in type and picture is completely missed because of the botched translation. 6 demerits for every time moed is translated as “feast.” Additional demerits for inconsistency.

Leviticus 23:20

The verse is punctuated incorrectly and thus makes no sense. It should read, “And the priest shall wave them (the two lambs) with the bread of the firstfruits (the two loaves) for a wave offering before the Lord; with the two lambs they (the loaves) shall be holy to the Lord for the priest” (Pulpit Commentary). 1 demerit.

Leviticus 23:24

The word “sabbath” is incorrect. The word translated here is shabathon it is used only 11 times in the Bible, all in Exodus and Leviticus, and all but three are conjoined with the word shabbath, saying either shabath shabathon, or shabathon shabath. That would then indicate a sabbath of complete rest. Because this is not conjoined with the word Sabbath, it is not a Sabbath per say, but rather simply a rest. This is explained in later in this same verse. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 23:28

The same Hebrew words here and in verse 31 and not translated the same by the KJV. This should read, “And ye shall do no manner of work.” This was the one day of the year which no manner of work at all was to be done, just like a Sabbath. It is not a regular holy convocation. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 23:29

The word nephesh, or soul, is used here. It should say, “That soul shall be cut off from his people,” as the KJV translated it in four out of the six instances (see Leviticus 7:20-21; Leviticus 7:25; Leviticus 7:27) in Leviticus. This is a most important legal formula, and therefore uniformity in translation is called for. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 23:32

First, the exact same Hebrew phrase is not rendered the same here as when it was translated in Leviticus 16:31. It should read “It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you.” This is not acceptable to vary this theologically important phrase differently. Secondly, the ending phrase “celebrate your sabbath” is rendered “keep your sabbath” in Leviticus 25:2. This is inconsistent, but it is still not a good translation. The Hebrew repeats the word “rest.” It is literally, and more accurately “rest the day of rest.” Finally, “Sabbath” is a proper noun. It has not been rightly capitalized numerous times in this chapter. Count this simply as “many” demerits.

Leviticus 23:39

These are not “a Sabbath” per se, but a day of rest – the word is shabaton. It is used 11 times, but for three of them, including these two, it stands alone, indicating only a rest, and not a “complete rest.” 2 demerits.

Leviticus 23:40

Two different words are translated as “boughs” in this one verse – peri (fruit), and anaph (branch). That destroys the symbolism. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 23:41

In your generations should be “throughout your generations” as the KJV rendered it in verses 14, 21, & 31 of this very chapter. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 24:2

The word is ner, lamp (singular). 1 demerit.

Leviticus 24:3

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. Further, it should say, “a statute for ever throughout your generations” as it is rendered by the KJV in 23:14 & 23:31. 3 demerit for mistranslation; 1 for inconsistency. 4 total.

Leviticus 24:6

The translation is incorrect. They were arranged in two piles. The table is not big enough to place them in two rows. The word used signifies an arrangement, whatever that arrangement may be. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 24:7

On (or by) each pile, not on each row. Also, it should say, “that it may be for the bread as a memorial,” The symbolism is of Christ’s perfect works on behalf of His people. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 24:12

For consistency, it should say, “that he might direct them according to the command of the Lord,” as it does in Exodus 17:1, Numbers 4:37; Numbers 4:41; Numbers 4:49, etc. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 24:16

Both times the word “name” is used in this verse, there is no article in front of it. The word “the” is not italicized by the KJV. 2 demerits for incorrectly adding to the word of God.

Leviticus 24:23

It does not say “and stone him with stones.” The word “stone” is singular. It is making a theological point, missed by the KJV. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 25:2

The same phrase, “When ye come into the land,” is translated differently here and in verse 14:34. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 25:8

1) The same word is translated differently here (And you shall number) and in verse 23:15. 2) “Seven sabbaths of years” is translated as “seven weeks of...” in 23:15. 2 demerits for inconsistency.

Leviticus 25:16 –

A completely different word is used here than that in verse 15, but the KJV translates both as “according to.” It should say, “in proportion to” twice in this verse. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 25:17 –

A completely different word is used here than that in verse 14, but the KJV translates both as “oppress.” It should say, “ye shall not mistreat” in this verse. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 25:33 –

The first clause is not speaking of purchase, but of redemption. For a better possibility of the meaning of this verse, refer to the HCSB. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 25:35 –

The words, “though he be a stranger, or a sojourner,” are incorrect. He is already identified as a “brother,” meaning an Israelite. He is to be cared for, even as if he were a stranger or a foreigner (see Leviticus 19:33, 34). 1 demerit for failure to translate intent.

Leviticus 25:53 –

The insertion of “And” at the beginning is completely unnecessary. It is not implied in the text, and is is thus wholly superfluous. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 26:6 –

The same term here is used in Ezekiel 35:25, but there it is translated differently. 1 demerit for lack of consistency in translation.

Leviticus 26:9 –

The same phrase here, For I will have respect to you,” is used in Ezekiel 36:9, but there it is translated differently. 1 demerit for lack of consistency in translation.

Leviticus 26:16 –

The two diseases, consumption and the burning ague, are used together again in Deuteronomy 28:22, but the term “fever” is used instead of “burning ague.” 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 26:17 –

The phrase “slain before your enemies” is translated as “smitten before your enemies in Numbers 14:42, Deuteronomy 1:42 & 28:25. The phrase “shall reign over you” is translated as “shall rule over you” in Isaiah 14:2, Ezekiel 29:15 & 34:4. 2 demerits for inconsistency.

Leviticus 26:19 –

The phrase geon uzekem, or “pride of your power” is found restated in Ezekiel 24:21 where the KJV translates it as “the excellency of your strength.” The meaning of what is being said is completely obliterated by this lack of consistency. 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Leviticus 26:20 –

The same expression used in this verse, “yield her increase” is translated as “yield her fruit” in Deuteronomy 11:17. This is remarkably poor because the word “fruit” is used in this verse when translating a different word. Thus 2 demerits for inconsistency.

Leviticus 26:22 –

The verse begins with “and” in the Hebrew. There is no “also” to be found there. “And I will send among you beasts wild. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 26:35 –

This is not a well translated verse. The Hebrew reads, “all the days of its desolation.” 1 demerit for not being literal when it is supposed to be a literal translation.

Leviticus 26:36 –

The phrase here is repeated in verse 39 of the chapter, but is translated differently there. Here the word “alive” is inserted. There is a strong inconsistency in translation. 1 demerit.

Leviticus 26:40 –

There is no “if” in the Hebrew here. The Hebrew reads, “And they shall confess their iniquity.” There is nothing conditional about this. The entire point of all of the horrifying curses which came upon Israel was to correct them. Further, the warning is announced here, and it is repeated by the prophet Daniel in Daniel 9:7. However, the KJV inconsistently translates the same thought in these two verses. 2 demerits.

Leviticus 27:26 –

The verse should begin with “Notwithstanding” as this particle is translated by the KJV in verse 28. The words “which should be the Lord’s firstling” poorly render what is intended. It should read, “which are born as firstlings to the Lord.” There is no “should.” They belong to Him (See Exodus 13:2). 2 demerits – inconsistency and poor rendering of intent.

Numbers 1:1 –

Like Genesis 1:1, the KJV immediately begins this book with an error. As was seen previously, the term ohel moed is used. It is appropriately the tent of meeting, not the tabernacle of the congregation. 3 demerits to start off the book.

Numbers 1:2 & Numbers 1:18 –

The same phrase b’mispar shemot, is translated differently in these two verses. 2 demerits for inconsistency in translation.

Numbers 1:20 –

The word “by” before “their generations” should have been in italics as it is not in the original. 1 demerit for either inserting a word inappropriately, or failing to italicize it.

Numbers 1:48 –

The past tense is incorrect. This has never been relayed to Moses before. It is a new thought. This agrees with the LXX. 1 demerit.

Numbers 2:2 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. Also, the word “emblem” is plural. It should say “emblems.” 1 demerit. Total for this verse: 4 demerits.

Numbers 2:17 –

The word says ohel moed, tent of meeting. 3 demerits. If the KJV were correct here, there would be a contradiction in the Bible based on Numbers 10:17. However, an entirely different word is used (mishkan), and no contradiction exists. 1 more demerit for causing a contradiction in the Bible that is not a contradiction. 4 demerits total.

Numbers 3:7 –

The importance of proper translation of ohel moed, or “tent of meeting” which the KJV so constantly botches is brought to the forefront in this verse. First, it is “tent of meeting,” not “tabernacle of the congregation.” Secondly, the second use of “tabernacle” in this verse is a completely different word, mishkan. Thirdly, two different words are translated by the KJV as “congregation in this verse, edah and moed. This is not acceptable. Rightly, the words read “before the tent of meeting, to do the service of the tabernacle.” 4 demerits for a very poorly rendered translation. 1 extra demeri for good measure. 6 total.

Numbers 3:8 –

The same errors which plague verse 3:7 are found here again. It is “tent of meeting,” not “tabernacle of the congregation.” Secondly, the second use of “tabernacle” is again mishkan, tabernacle. 4 demerits.

Numbers 3:25 –

Another very poor job. The terms b’ohel moed, ha’miskan, and v’ha’ohel are all used in this one verse. It should read “in the tent of meeting” and then “the tabernacle” and then “and the tent” and then “tent of meeting” again. 5 demerits for incorrect translation. 1 demerit for utter confusion of translation. 5 total.

Numbers 3:31 –

Regardless what “candlestick” may have once meant, it is an outdated term. Its use in modern English is no longer valid. It is a “lampstand.” 1 demerit for outdated terminology.

Numbers 3:25 –

Another botched job. The terms ha’miskan, and ohel moed are used in this verse. It should read “the tabernacle” and then “the tent of meeting.” 3 demerits for incorrect translation. 1 demerit for utter confusion of translation. 4 total.

Numbers 3:40

Two different words are used with are both translated as “number.” This confuses what is being said. The NIV does a far better job with, “Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names.” 2 demerits.

Numbers 4:3 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:4 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. The word “about” although italicized is irrelevant and should not have been inserted. 4 demerits.

Numbers 4:5 –

It is aron ha’edut, “ark the testimony.” There are testimony’s and there is “the testimony.” Poor translation; 1 demerit.

Numbers 4:7 –

These are not covers, but jars. It should read “jars which to pour.” 2 demerits.

Numbers 4:11 –

The exact same words v’shamu eth badav, that are seen in verses 4:6, 4:8, and 4:14 are now inconsistently translated. It should say, “and shall put in the staves thereof.” This equals 4 demerits for inconsistent translation of like thought.

Numbers 4:14 –

The same thing translated as “firepans” in Exodus 27:3 (in the same context), makhtah, is translated here as “censers.” 1 demerit for inconsistency.

Numbers 4:15 –

The word “sanctuary” here should be translated as “the holy things.” The sanctuary includes everything in the compound, including all those things yet to be listed in the rest of this chapter (see exodus 25:8). Therefore, “sanctuary” is contextually inaccurate. Also, there is no “it” in regards to bearing the articles. Although italicized, it is incorrect. The words speak of all those things, not a single “it.” Further, it is ohel moed, “tent of meeting;” not “tabernacle of the congregation. 5 demerits.

Numbers 4:16 –

Again, the word “sanctuary” here should be translated as “holy place.” The sanctuary is more than just the area being discussed. 1 demerit.

Numbers 4:20 –

The literal translation is “for a gulp.” It is explained in Job 7:19 as “for an instant.” The Kohathites were not to look at the holy things for even a split second. 1 demerit.

Numbers 4:23 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:23 –

The Hebrew word for “burdens” is singular, not plural. Read: “burden.” 1 demerit.

Numbers 4:25 –

This is not a well translated verse. First, unlike the most holy objects, these items now mentioned will not be carried. They will asah “lifted up” and then be placed on carts for transport (see Numbers 7). Secondly, two separate words and ideas are both sadly translated as “tabernacle” here. It should read, “And they shall lift up the curtains of the tabernacle and the tent of meeting.” Then the end of the verse repeats “tent of meeting.” Also, it is not “badger skins” but the skins of sea animals. 7 demerits.

Numbers 4:26 –

The verse should say “which are,” not “which is.” These things combined form the surrounding of the sanctuary and access into it. 1 demerit.

Numbers 4:27 –

In both instances, the Hebrew word for “burdens” is singular, not plural. Read: “burden.” Also, “ye” should read “you.” This section is directed to Moses alone (see verse 4:21 & refer to the Septuagint). 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:28 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. Also, b’yad, should be translated as “by the hand” as in 4:37, 45 & 49. 4 demerits.

Numbers 4:29 –

The words “As for” are not in the original and should be italicized. 1 demerit.

Numbers 4:30 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:31 –

It is ohel moed, “tent of meeting;” not “tabernacle of the congregation.” Further, ha’mishkan, or “the tabernacle” is then stated in the same verse. Thus there is an inconsistency in translation. 3 demerits

Numbers 4:33 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. Also, b’yad, should be translated as “by the hand” as in 4:37, 45 & 49. 4 demerits.

Numbers 4:35 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:37 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:41 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:47 –

It is "the tent of meeting," not the "tabernacle of the congregation." The word is ohel, signifying a tent, not mishkan, which would be the tabernacle itself. Further it is moed, “meeting” not “congregation. There is also no “the” in the words. 3 demerits.

Numbers 4:49 –

The term al pi Yehovah is used 3 times in this chapter. It is used in the last verse. Each time it is translated as, “the commandment of the Lord.” However, in verse 49, it then says asher tsivah Yehovah, “according to the command of Yehovah.” Translating two different words – pi and tsivah – as “command” confuses the text. Pi, meaning “mouth,” should be translated “at the mouth of the Lord, or “at the word of the Lord” to avoid this confusion. 4 demerits.

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.

1 Chronicles 9:2 –

Nethinims” is a redundancy. The word Nethanim is plural. To add the “s” in English is inappropriate. 1 demerit.

Esther 1:5 –

The word translated as “green,” karpas, is of Persian origin, and it signifies a type of linen, not a color. The royal colors of the Persians were white and blue (actually more violet). 1 demerit.

Esther 1:11 –

People is plural here” it should read “peoples.” 1 demerit.

Esther 1:22 –

The final clause is incorrect. It reads ammow “his people,” and therefore should say, “speaking according to the language of his own people.” 1 demerit.

Esther 2:2 –

The translation is insufficient. Four words are used to describe these beauties. YLT does a far better job than the KJV – “young women, virgins, of good appearance” 1 demerit.

Esther 2:9 –

Although nor really an error, the words “with such things as belonged to her” make no sense. The word is manah, and it means a portion. It is a special diet for the lady to look her best when she goes into the king. 1 demerit for a very dubious, meaningless translation.

Esther 2:14 –

The term is not “on the morrow” but “in the morning.” Biblical days go from evening to morning. This is a technical error as much as a failure to properly translate the words. 2 demerits.

Esther 2:19 –

There is no article in front of “virgins.” There is no definite article in front of “second.” It should read, “And when virgins were gathered a second time.” 2 demerit.

Esther 3:14 –

There is no article before “copy.” It should read “A copy...” 1 demerit.

Esther 4:8 –

There is no article before “copy.” It should read “a copy...” 1 demerit.

Esther 4:10 –

The word “Again” is entirely without merit. “And” or “then.” 1 demerit.

Esther 4:11 –

The KJV makes the king the subject (one law of his). This is incorrect. The law pertains to the one entering the king’s presence. “one law for him.” 1 demerit.

Esther 4:13 –

The word “commanded” has no place here. It is a different word than previous verses, and it simply means “said.” Huge lack of simply checking here. Therefore, there will be 2 demerits. One is for incorrect translation; the other is for not even checking for correctness.

Esther 4:15 –

The word “to” was incorrectly left out - “unto (or to) Mordecai.” Further, they have taken the word amar which was mistranslated in 4:13 as “commanded” and translated it as “bade.” 2 demerits. 1 for not adding necessary word; 1 for inconsistency.

Esther 5:9 –

The word “moved” should say “tremble” or “showed fear.” The word zua indicated to move, but in a quaking or trembling fashion, as if awed by a greater. See Esther 3:2. 1 demerit.

Esther 6:8 –

The KJV implies that the royal crown is the one which is upon the king’s head. This is incorrect. It is speaking of placing a royal crown upon the horse’s head. The construct of the Hebrew renders this plainly obvious. 1 demerit.

Esther 7:7 –

There is an article in front of “evil.” It is “the evil.” It signifies total disaster; doom rather than just a bad day at the office. 1 demerit.

Esther 8:1 –

There is no article in front of “house.” The word “the” should be italicized. This is speaking of more than a physical house, but that which is connected to the man. 1 demerit.

Esther 9:2 –

It is kal ha’ammim, all the people; not all people. Words are place in Scripture by God for a reason. 1 demerit.

Esther 9:19 –

Dwelt” is incorrect. The verb should be in the present tense. 1 demerit.

Esther 9:25 –

The name “Esther” does not fit the context here. It is referring to the matter at hand coming before the king. No demerit; just a better solution.

Esther 9:30

There is no “the” in front of letters. This actually matters. 1 demerit.

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 mistranslation 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.

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 off 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.

1 Timothy 1:11

The KJV tranlsation is very forced in its construction. Rather than it saying, “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,” it is better translated as, “according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God.” This then speaks of “the glory” in relation to God. In other words, the gospel which tells of righteousness apart from the law is seen in “the glory of the blessed God.” It is a reference to the work of Christ Jesus who is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 4:6). The gospel may be glorious, but it is only in relation to the One who brought it forth.

1 Timothy 2:7

Although not an error per se, the word “ordained” here no longer carries the meaning that it originally did. This has nothing to do with the ordination process; it simply means “appointed.” 1 demerit for obsolescence and thus modern confusion.

1 Timothy 2:8

There is an article which precedes “men” in the Greek. In leaving this article off, the KJV misses the intent and purpose of the verse. It is “the men” who are to pray. Using “men” without the article could be inferred to be speaking of both genders. This is exactly what has happened because of this error in the KJV. The word “doubting” gives the sense of not feeling confident. That is not what is being relayed here. The word is tied to “wrath” and it signifies dissension or dispute. It is an attitude which is directed towards those whom the wrath is also directed. 2 demerits.

1 Timothy 3:1

The exact same term, pistos ho logos, is translated in 1 Timothy 1:15 as “This is a faithful saying.” There is no reason to depart from that. Further, although it has been established that only men are to be ordained as bishops, it is incorrect to insert the word “man” here without italicizing it. Finally, the word translated the second time as “desireth” is a completely different Greek words. 3 demerits; inconsistency, non-literal translation, and picking one work to translate two different words, thus obscuring the true meaning..

1 Timothy 3:8

There is no article before “deacons.” It is inserted without italics. 1 demerit.

1 Timothy 3:10

Although not an error specifically, the word “use” here is wholly unsuited to the verse. It should say (way better than use) “let them serve as deacons.” 1 demerit for not way better-ness.

1 Timothy 4:6 –

There is an article in front of “faith” and in front of “good doctrine” which is left out of the KJV, thus leaving an incorrect idea about what Paul is saying. Lastly, the words “whereunto you have attained” or incorrect. He had not attained, but had closely followed.” If he had attained, he would have no need to be implored to continuously be nourished in the words of faith and good doctrine.” 3 demerits.

1 Timothy 5:4 –

Though not originally incorrect, the word “nephews” which once carried the intended meaning is wholly obsolete. Today we say “grandchildren.” The Greek word is not inclusive of “nephews,” but only those in a direct line. The KJV is here demerited, not for inaccuracy, but for obsolescence leading to a wholly false idea by the modern reader. 1 demerit.

1 Timothy 5:12 –

What a preposterous translation! Regardless of what the word “damnation” meant in 1611, it is entirely and wholly incorrect in modern English. Render as “judgment,” and receive 1 demerit for a wholly faulty translation.

1 Timothy 5:14 –

The word “women” is incorrectly supplied. It is speaking of “widows” who are referenced in the preceding verses, and who are connected in this verse with the conjunction οὖν, or “therefore.” 1 demerit.

1 Timothy 6:5 –

The translation is incorrect. It is a well-known violation of the KJV of the law concerning an article being placed with the subject. The article in the Greek before the word “godliness” requires it to read, “supposing that godliness is a source of gain.” 1 demerit.

1 Timothy 6:8 –

Let us be content” does not carry the appropriate meaning off the Greek. Rather it should read, “we shall be content.” The idea is that of sufficiency in those things is realized. 1 demerit.

1 Timothy 6:10 –

The Greek reads, “Root indeed of all the evils.” There is no article in front of “root,” but Charles Ellicott says that by not including it, one is watering down the intent. He says that “the article disappears before the predicate, in accordance with the well-know rule respecting subject and predicate.” Vincent’s word studies disagrees saying this is incorrect because, “It is not the only root.” Vincent’s is correct; the KJV is incorrect. The love of money is not the root of all evil. Money did not cause Satan to fall, nor did money cause man to eat the forbidden fruit. Pride was the cause of those evils. Further, the article and the adjective translated as “the evil” are plural. Is should read these evils.” 3 demerits.

1 Timothy 6:12 –

It is “the faith” not “faith.” Paul is making a metaphor as if Timothy is a participant in the Grecian games fighting for THE FAITH. The KJV completely misses the symbolism. It is “the eternal life,” not “eternal life.” Everybody will live somewhere forever, but only those who are in Christ will have the eternal life Paul speaks of. And it is “the good confession,” not “a good confession.” Timothy may have made many good confessions, but Paul is speaking of a specific one which he then describes. 3 demerits for overlooking 3 very important articles in the Greek.

2 Timothy 1:1 –

There is an article connected to “life.” Thus it should say, “the life which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 1:3 –

The Greek reads “in” a pure conscience, rather than “with.” It is referring to t he sphere which Paul served God. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 2:5 –

Also” belongs prior to “man,” not after. It is a new subject with a different man conducting his affairs. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 2:8 –

Incorrect translation. There is no “that” to be included. Vincent’s rightly states: “Μνημόνευε remember, only here in Pastorals: often in Paul. Ἑγείρειν to raise, very often in N.T., but only here in Pastorals. The perfect passive participle (ἐγηγερμένον) only here. The perfect marks the permanent condition – raised and still living.” The words, “of the seed of David” come after, not before, “was raised from the dead.” 2 demerits.

2 Timothy 2:9 –

Although translator’s preference allows for various words to be used, the word “evil doer” is simply not suitable. A person can be charged with a crime when not having actually done evil. The word signifies a criminal. This incarceration is according to the Roman law, not a moral standard. Bad selection of chosen translation, and thus 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 2:11 –

The aorist verb should be translated “if we died.” The KJV misses the force of the intent. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 2:12 –

Translator’s preference allows “suffer,” but the word means “to endure.” It is one thing to suffer, and it is another thing to endure through it. The word speaks of the latter. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 2:19 –

Vincent’s explains the error here – Στερεὸς sure is attributive, not predicative. Rend. the firm foundation of God standeth. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 3:10 –

The KJV says, “you have fully known my doctrine.” The word means, “to follow.” Someone can know to do right and not do it. Timothy was being complimented for following Paul’s doctrine. Although not necessary an incorrect translation, it fails to convey Paul’s meaning sufficiently. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 3:15 –

The word translated as “child” indicates a baby; a child in arms. Using “child” provides an incorrect evaluation of Timothy’s time of learning. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 4:2 –

The word “doctrine” should be rendered as “teaching.” Doctrine is the substance or the result of teaching. The word longsuffering naturally ties in with teaching. 1 demerit.

2 Timothy 4:6 –

For I am now ready to be offered” is in the present tense and more accurately ready, “For I am already being offered.” However, even better is to translate the meaning of spendomai as, “For I am already being poured out.” The word refers to the drink offering. 2 demerits.

2 Timothy 4:7 –

There are three definite articles in this verse. The KJV simply ignores them and botches Paul’s intent completely. The Greek reads – “The good fight I have fought, the race I have finished, the faith I have kept. 3 demerits. 2 for skipping the definite articles, and 1 for blowing the intent of the verse.

2 Timothy 4:8 –

There is an article in front of “crown.” It is not “a crown” but “the crown.” 1 demerit.

Titus 1:2 –

In hope” does not meet the thoughts of Paul properly. It should say, “Resting upon the hope” or “Which is based upon the hope.” Paul has already defined the surety of the truth of the gospel. 1 demerit.

Titus 2:1 –

There is a definite article before “sound doctrine.” It is “the sound doctrine.” One can have a variety of sound doctrines, but one is being spoken of. 1 demerit.

Titus 2:4 –

The words “to be sober” are incorrectly supplied. The word is found only here in the NT, but it is common in classical Greek as “correct,” “control,” “teach.” Paul instructs the older women to “school” the younger women. 1 demerit.

Titus 3:1 –

Although not necessarily an error, translating this as “principalities and powers” confuses the subject (human rules) with that of how “principalities is translated at times elsewhere, meaning an order of spiritual beings; angels. “Rulers and authorities” is a better translation. 1 demerit for confusing the reader.

Titus 3:6 –

The term “shed” as referring to the Holy Spirit is wholly inconsistent with other uses of the concept - OT and New. It is more appropriately stated “poured.” 1 demerit.

Titus 3:15 –

The KJV closes out the book of Titus with two errors. It is “that love us in faith,” not “the faith.” There is no article in front of the word. And it is “The grace be with you,” not “Grace be with you.” There is an article in front of “grace.” 2 demerit.

Philemon 1:5 –

It is “all the saints,” not “all saints.” 1 demerit.

Philemon 1:15 –

The verb is passive, not active. It is not “departed,” but “was parted.” It is an important point Paul is making which was botched by the translation. 1 demerit.

Philemon 1:20 –

The word translated as “let me have joy” is oninémi. Though it can be translated as the KJV, it more correctly means profit. It is Paul, making a pun on the name Onesimus. The KJV completely misses the intent of what is stated. Further, there is no article before “Lord.” The word “the,” though rightly supplied, should be italicized. 2 demerits.

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

One of the most irrational and annoying cults of our time, because it is so unscholarly 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.

If you are a KJV-only person who wants to argue, please don’t email me until you have disproved 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. In fact, the KJV is a rather mediocre translation. The number of errors in it excludes it from be a great or exceptional translation.

From time to time, I update this list as I evaluate another book of the Bible. Why do I feel this is necessary? It is 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 greed any longer.

For those who are 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 nutty theology 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 man’s fallible errors.

Blessings to all in Christ the Lord.

Charlie

Website Builder