Alledged errors in the KJV

[TwinCrier]

Quote:
If there is an error in your bible, you should dispose of it immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------

Well, here goes the KJVERSION....It has many, many errors, whether they be printing errors or interpretative errors, wrong words, animals that never existed, Ahaziah being older than his father and the list goes on.

The majority of translators were Church of England, and there are definite areas where they used their church interpretation and the list goes on...........it is not perfect.

I agree that there are explanations, but that is not the point when it comes to "perfect" preserved word of God. The thought, yes, the actual words, no.

Bye bye KJVersion (not Bible) version.

Actually that is not true because I use the same KJ version I have used since 1945, when it was given to me. I also use Greek, Hebrew and 15 other translations.

Cheers,

Jim
The King James translation of 2 Chronicles 22:2 is the correct translation. Every Hebrew manuscript of 2 Chronicles reads clearly 42 years. EVERY SINGLE ONE! If the KJV is wrong, so are ALL the manuscripts. If your bible has 22 then it has been altered from the original text, it is not a translation but an alteration. As for the "impossibility" that a man can be older than his father let me give a real life example: My sons are 1 month apart. This is a true statement. How is this possible? They are step brothers. It seems so clear doesn't it? How can such a simple explaination be ignored by bible correctors and doubters? Even Anna Nichole Smith could figure this one out. I'm not even sure what the "interpretative errors, wrong words, animals that never existed" is all about, but as for the printing errors, no one has ever claimed that printing presses are infallible, just that God's word is.
NEXT!

[Matthan]

When we read:
" Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
we receive an assurance from God that simply has no equal.

So, let the naysayers nitpic the Bible all they want. They will receive their reward eventually, while we will receive our crowns....

Matthan

[Jim1927]

In 2 Chron 22:2 Ahaziah is 42....In 2 Kings 8:26, he is 22...His father in 2 Chron 21:20 His father was 40. A definite impossibility, and it does not speak of Ahaziah being a stepson assuming the throne upon his father's death.

The exclamation lies in the Hebrew numbers. They are very difficult to translate as any Hebrew student learns.

The fact remains, the KJV has an error, hence perfect copy is in question. Unicorn is one animal. Another is the whale in Jonah. Any marine biologist knows that a whale cannot swallow a human. The throat does not have the capacity. The obvious translation is a great fish prepared by God. I have addressed these issues for years and I have no difficulty with the veracity of the scriptures. My argument is when someone makes great claims on the KJV over any other translation available to the English community.

Cheers,

Jim

[TwinCrier]

In 2 Chron 22:2 Ahaziah is 42....In 2 Kings 8:26, he is 22...His father in 2 Chron 21:20 His father was 40. A definite impossibility, and it does not speak of Ahaziah being a stepson assuming the throne upon his father's death.
Nor does it say it isn't a step son. Why is it impossible for a 40 year old father to have a 22 year old son? :scratch: As I stated ALL the manuscripts have these exact same numbers, so it's NOT an error in translation. Either the manuscripts ALL had it wrong and for some odd reason no one over the centuries ever caught this huge mistake until 20th century, or the bible is correct. I'll go with option 2. :blush:

The fact remains, the KJV has an error, hence perfect copy is in question. Unicorn is one animal. How do you know an animal named unicorn never existed? Because they haven't found any fossils? :confused: Let's actually read the verse before we jump to conclusion that the bible is wrong. There are 9 verses that mention unicorns:
Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalm 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalm 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
All we know about this animal is that it is strong, and the name implies it has 1 horn. Now we know that a rhino has one horn and is strong. We also know that an extinct animal called a triceratops had one horn and was very strong. Is it so impossible to believe that an animal could have one horn?

Another is the whale in Jonah. Any marine biologist knows that a whale cannot swallow a human. The throat does not have the capacity. The obvious translation is a great fish prepared by God.
In biblical times, animals were not classified in the manner they are now (hence the reference to bats in the same sentence as birds, another common criticism).



There is an oft-quoted story concerning a certain James Bartley, when he was a harpooner on the whale-ship Star of the East, in 1891, under the command of Captain Killam, near the Falkland Islands. In the course of a whale hunt, Bartley fell into the sea and disappeared. The whale was killed and the next day, when the sailors cut it open, they were amazed to find Bartley still alive in the whale's stomach. He was revived and in time recovered from his experience. The report says, 'During his sojourn in the whale's stomach Bartley's skin, where exposed to the action of the gastric juice, underwent a striking change. His face, neck, and hands were bleached to a deadly whiteness, and took on the appearance of parchment. Bartley affirms that he would probably have lived inside his house of flesh until he starved, for he lost his senses through fright and not from lack of air.'2
This story is said to have first appeared in October 1892, in the English newspaper Great Yarmouth Mercury. It was then reprinted in other papers, and was included by Sir Francis Fox in his book, Sixty-three Years of Engineering, Scientific and Social Work, published in 1924.
It has been counter-claimed by sceptics that in 1906 an Anglican clergyman named Canon Williams wrote to Captain Killam to verify the story, but received a letter from the captain's wife, dated November 24, 1906, saying: 'There is not one word of truth in the whole story. I was with my husband all the years he was in the "Star of the East". There was never a man lost overboard while my husband was in her. The sailor has told a great sea yarn.'3
From the above contradictory reports it would appear that someone has been economical with the truth in regard to this matter. What is not nearly so clear is just who! Dr Harry Rimmer, D.D., Sc.D., tells of personally meeting a sailor who fell overboard from a trawler in the English Channel and was swallowed by a gigantic Rhincodon whale shark. The entire trawler fleet set out to hunt the shark down and, 48 hours after the accident, the shark was sighted and slain with a one-pound deck gun. The carcass was too heavy for the ship's winches to handle, so the crew towed it to shore, intending to give their friend a Christian burial. When the shark was opened, the man was found unconscious but alive. He was rushed to hospital, where he was found to be suffering from shock alone, and was later discharged. He was on exhibit in a London museum at a shilling admission, and was advertised as 'The Jonah of the Twentieth Century'.4 From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/jonah.asp

So not only do we have other accounts of such events, we don't even have to promise that this creature was a mammal. Even today large fish are sometimes referred to as whales. It wasn't until science decided only mammals should get this title that we have problems.

[PETE_]

Here is another possible explaination

2 Chron 22:2
Forty and two years old - (cf. 2 Kings 8:26.) According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the 22 nd year of his age; and according to this, in the 42 nd year of the kingdom of his mothers family. 'If Ahaziah ascended the throne in the 22 nd year of his life, he must have been born in his father's nineteenth year. Hence, it may seem strange that he had older brothers; but in the East they marry early, and royal princes had, besides the wife of the first rank, usually concubines, as Jehoram had (2 Chron 21:17); he might, therefore, in the 19 th year of his age, very well have several sons' (Keil) (cf. 2 Chron 21:20; 2 Kings 8:17)
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Let's look at 2 Editions of the KJV.

Jer. 34:16

Cambridge Edition

But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Oxford Edition

But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Which edition is in error?

Which edition do you have?

Peace to u,

Bill

[TwinCrier]

It's ye. Oxford had added the ye instead of he in 1625. Every other KJV has ye. At least it's just one letter. One publishing company called His Majesty in 1631 omitted an entire word making the commandment in Exodus 20:14 read "Thou shall commit adultery". Again, printing errors are the fault of typesetter not the authority of the Holy Bible.

[PaladinGirl]

Allelujah! We have a perfect Bible! Allelujah! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Jim1927]

Quote:
printing errors are the fault of typesetter not the authority of the Holy Bible.
------------------------------------------------------------

BUTm you are talking God preserving His word in the versions..........I expect that, preservation.

When I preserve pears, I want pears when I open the jar. Not applesauce.

Cheers,

Jim

[PETE_]

Lots of people preserve pears. They all start with pears and end with preseved pears, yet they are not exactly the same when finished.

Some might say that the Bible is wrong because God did not preserve the originals as He promised. Most would say that such a position is invalid, as would I, but I believe that to be more consistant than a KJO approach.

[TwinCrier]

Quote:
printing errors are the fault of typesetter not the authority of the Holy Bible.
------------------------------------------------------------

BUTm you are talking God preserving His word in the versions..........I expect that, preservation.

When I preserve pears, I want pears when I open the jar. Not applesauce.

Cheers,

JimThen get a KJV and stop reading that apple sauce!!!
If you never hear the phrase "Turn in your bible to..." it's because everyone has a different version if any bible at all. You don't need to even bring a bible to most church services. We should change out lives to fit the book, not change the book to fit our lives. :doh:

[ConservativeChristian97]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYKPUS) But I like applesauce!

Seriously, TwinCrier, that is an excellent point! :clap: I just started using the KJV exclusively (personal conviction, please don't flame me :pray: ) and I was a little concerned from the title of this here thread that I had been mistaken. Now I know I wasn't and will gladly go read my pears...

J/K! ;)

Side note: Your sig is awesome!!!





http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZSYYYYYYKPUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb098_ZSYYYYYYKPUS&utm_id=7926)

[HypoTypoSis]

Quote:
printing errors are the fault of typesetter not the authority of the Holy Bible.

The only ones to ever have used the term "inerrant" are the typesetters/printers in their forward when they stated that they inerrantly printed the text exactly as they received it (the "Received Text" !) from the translators.


Ergo, all faults lie not with the printers but rather with the translators' efforts based upon their

predisposed biases combined

with their ignorance of the full concord of God's purpose and

intent.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

simple

[Jenn4God]

I am concerned with the claim that the KJV is filled with errors. I have researched many bibles and find that all have errors except for the "Authorized" KJV. What bibles are all of you currently using? I sure hope it isn't the NIV because that is the worst of all!

[PETE_]

I am concerned with the claim that the KJV is filled with errors. I have researched many bibles and find that all have errors except for the "Authorized" KJV. What bibles are all of you currently using? I sure hope it isn't the NIV because that is the worst of all!
Did you do the translating yourself to check each version or just take another person's opinion? How can you be positive that their opinion is correct? Since none of the original autographs are available, how can you be positive the copies are perfect?

The Bible has been preserved with incredible accuracy, but asserting that any translation is perfect is a stretch.

[Jenn4God]

Did you do the translating yourself to check each version or just take another person's opinion? How can you be positive that their opinion is correct? Since none of the original autographs are available, how can you be positive the copies are perfect?

The Bible has been preserved with incredible accuracy, but asserting that any translation is perfect is a stretch.
I have done as much personal research as I can. Is there a specific bible I am supposed to be comparing to? Is there actually some "perfect" bible version out there that I am missing? And if so many bibles have errors then how do you know which one is right unless you have the original scripture tablets? If there aren't any that you can prove to me is perfect then I'm sticking with my "Authorized" KJV. I am not being single minded, if you can show me the "perfect" unaltered Word of God then I will throw out mine.

[PETE_]

I have done as much personal research as I can. Is there a specific bible I am supposed to be comparing to? Is there actually some "perfect" bible version out there that I am missing? And if so many bibles have errors then how do you know which one is right unless you have the original scripture tablets? If there aren't any that you can prove to me is perfect then I'm sticking with my "Authorized" KJV. I am not being single minded, if you can show me the "perfect" unaltered Word of God then I will throw out mine.
Using it because you prefer it or think it is the most acurate is great, but you stated that all had errors except the AKJ. That would seem to say that it has no errors, which cannot be known. Most serious scholars use multiple versions to gain insight from a broad group of experts.

[TwinCrier]

Using it because you prefer it or think it is the most acurate is great, but you stated that all had errors except the AKJ. That would seem to say that it has no errors, which cannot be known. Most serious scholars use multiple versions to gain insight from a broad group of experts.Most KJO's don't want "insight from a broad group of experts" but we want to follow Christ in truth, not follow men. We found this truth in the KJV. Christ lead me to the KJV, who is going to persuade me to turn from it?

[Jenn4God]

Most KJO's don't want "insight from a broad group of experts" but we want to follow Christ in truth, not follow men. We found this truth in the KJV. Christ lead me to the KJV, who is going to persuade me to turn from it?
I agree. That's why I asked the question. I believe completely in the AKJV. I am curious however as to what version the people here consider to be "perfect".

[PETE_]

Most KJO's don't want "insight from a broad group of experts" but we want to follow Christ in truth, not follow men. We found this truth in the KJV. Christ lead me to the KJV, who is going to persuade me to turn from it?
the KJV was translated by a group of experts. All were human, none were perfect. I do not think I have ever seen anyone that thinks the KJV should not be used, but have seen many who mistakenly claim it is perfect.

[TwinCrier]

I agree. That's why I asked the question. I believe completely in the AKJV. I am curious however as to what version the people here consider to be "perfect".

the KJV was translated by a group of experts. All were human, none were perfect. I do not think I have ever seen anyone that thinks the KJV should not be used, but have seen many who mistakenly claim it is perfect.Than please, by all means answer Jenn's request and tell us which bible is perfect so we can change our erroneous ways.

[PETE_]

Than please, by all means answer Jenn's request and tell us which bible is perfect so we can change our erroneous ways.
There isn't one, only opinions. We are human and must rely on God for truth, not man's translation or his interpretation of that translation

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

There isn't one, only opinions. We are human and must rely on God for truth, not man's translation or his interpretation of that translation

What do you mean when you say rely on God for truth? I'm guessing you don't mean a Bible be it Greek or English. Do you mean voices we hear from him or something else? I just wanted you to clarify your position.

[PETE_]

What do you mean when you say rely on God for truth? I'm guessing you don't mean a Bible be it Greek or English. Do you mean voices we hear from him or something else? I just wanted you to clarify your position.
The divine Author of the Book is its ultimate Interpreter. The believer can count on the truth of 1 Cor. 2:12: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God”. Those who know Jesus Christ as Savior have the same Holy Spirit within them to illumine Scripture. Being regenerated is the first requisite to making sense of the Bible.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The divine Author of the Book is its ultimate Interpreter. The believer can count on the truth of 1 Cor. 2:12: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God”. Those who know Jesus Christ as Savior have the same Holy Spirit within them to illumine Scripture. Being regenerated is the first requisite to making sense of the Bible.

So using the Biblical text and being saved and therefore having the Holy Spirit is how we interpret God's will. If that is what your saying I totally agree.

[UBERROGO]

Are the Apocrypha considered in these alleged errors? It's in the KJV ya know.

[dia_liom]

I am concerned with the claim that the KJV is filled with errors. I have researched many bibles and find that all have errors except for the "Authorized" KJV. What bibles are all of you currently using? I sure hope it isn't the NIV because that is the worst of all!

I'm curious as to the errors you've found in other translations. Is it at all possible that the KJV has the errors in it, and through several centuries of further study that the more modern versions are more accurate?

There are things I'm not 100% 'comfortable' with in some of the newer versions (TNIV, NLT) such as the 'gender neutral' language, but that doesn't mean that I'm right (or wrong) by any means.

[Jim1927]

Quote:
Are the Apocrypha considered in these alleged errors? It's in the KJV ya know
--------------------------------------------

Just for the record, the Apocrypha were never considered a part of the KJV. They were originally included by the Church of England....for READING AND STUDY, but not accepted as holy scripture.

Just to keep the record straight. They were later removed from printed copies of the KJV.

Cheers,

Jim

[HypoTypoSis]

In the original shouldn't...

Proverbs 7:27, "Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death."

read...

Proverbs 7:27, "Her house is the way to the grave, going down to the chambers of death."

???


Wouldn't that be an error?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Are the Apocrypha considered in these alleged errors? It's in the KJV ya know.

It's a well known fact that the KJV writers didn't consider the Apocrypha the word of God. I'm not a KJV onlyist but that doesn't mean we should resort to poor arguments such as this..

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Quote:
Are the Apocrypha considered in these alleged errors? It's in the KJV ya know
--------------------------------------------

Just for the record, the Apocrypha were never considered a part of the KJV. They were originally included by the Church of England....for READING AND STUDY, but not accepted as holy scripture.

Just to keep the record straight. They were later removed from printed copies of the KJV.

Cheers,

Jim

Correct!

[Jenn4God]

I'm curious as to the errors you've found in other translations. Is it at all possible that the KJV has the errors in it, and through several centuries of further study that the more modern versions are more accurate?

There are things I'm not 100% 'comfortable' with in some of the newer versions (TNIV, NLT) such as the 'gender neutral' language, but that doesn't mean that I'm right (or wrong) by any means.

In the original shouldn't...

Proverbs 7:27, "Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death."

read...

Proverbs 7:27, "Her house is the way to the grave, going down to the chambers of death."

???


Wouldn't that be an error?

I trust mainly in the AKJV however I do not claim it is perfect. In my opinion the NIV is the worst translation.

In Proverbs 7:27 "hell" is the correct word.

This is one of many places to find out some of the errors:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/B-BIBLES.HTM

However, this is not used as a main source of information, just a starting point. My research required a lot of leg work. Searching books, different bibles, etc. Sites like these are where I get ideas from.

[PETE_]

I trust mainly in the AKJV however I do not claim it is perfect. In my opinion the NIV is the worst translation.

In Proverbs 7:27 "hell" is the correct word.

This is one of many places to find out some of the errors:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/B-BIBLES.HTM

However, this is not used as a main source of information, just a starting point. My research required a lot of leg work. Searching books, different bibles, etc. Sites like these are where I get ideas from.
hell being the correct word is only an opinion. The KJV renders the same word as death in other places.

SHEOL
she'ol OT:7585, "Sheol." The 66 occurrences of this word are distributed throughout every period of biblical Hebrew.
First, the word means the state of death: "For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" Ps 6:5; cf. 18:5. It is the final resting place of all men: "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave Job 21:13. Hannah confessed that it was the omnipotent God who brings men to she'ol (death) or kills them 1 Sam 2:6. "Sheol" is parallel to Hebrew words for "pit" or "hell" Job 26:6, "corruption" or "decay" Ps 16:10, and "destruction" Prov 15:11.
Second, "Sheol" is used of a place of conscious existence after death. In the first biblical appearance of the word Jacob said that he would "go down into the grave unto my son mourning" Gen 37:35. All men go to "Sheol"-- a place and state of consciousness after death Ps 16:10. The wicked receive punishment there Num 16:30; Deut 32:22; Ps 9:17. They are put to shame and silenced in "Sheol" Ps 31:17. Jesus alluded to Isaiah's use of she'ol 14:13-15 in pronouncing judgment on Capernaum Matt 11:23, translating "Sheol" as "Hades" or "Hell," meaning the place of conscious existence and judgment. It is an undesirable place for the wicked Job 24:19 and a refuge for the righteous Job 14:13. Thus "Sheol" is also a place of reward for the righteous Hos 13:14; cf. 1 Cor 15:55. Jesus' teaching in Luke 16:19-31 seems to reflect accurately the Old Testament concept of she'ol; it is a place of conscious existence after death, one side of which is occupied by the suffering, unrighteous dead separated by a great chasm from the other side peopled by the righteous dead enjoying their reward.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

It doesn't seem to change the meaning either way

[AVBunyan]

Any so-called "errors" in a King James Bible are most likely a result of one of the following:

1. The person doesn't understand the passage.
2. The person is using a corrupt text as their basis for judging the King James
3. The person could most likely be lost and will not be able to understand the passage for he has not the Spirit of God in him.

BTW - the average saint doesn't find errors they have to be taught there are "errors" in a King James Bible by one of the "enlightened" ones.

God bless :wave:

[TwinCrier]

Are the Apocrypha considered in these alleged errors? It's in the KJV ya know.The Apocrypha is considered Apocrypha and not scripture. That's why it's called the Apocrypha. ^_^ That's kind of like saying; "Isn't blue considered orange, they are both in the rainbow?"

I'm curious as to the errors you've found in other translations. Is it at all possible that the KJV has the errors in it, and through several centuries of further study that the more modern versions are more accurate?To believe that I would have to believe that modern day translators are smarter, holier and more spiritual than translators of years past. I don't see it. I see humans in general being more sinful than ever. Rather that increased level of sin in society is the result of the watered down modern translations or the modern translations are the result of a more sin centered society couldn't tell ya.

[Jim1927]

Because we are opposed to KJV onlyism, does not make us anti-Bible. In fact, most of us have studied more than many who claim KJV onlyism.

Cheers,

Jim

[PETE_]

To believe that I would have to believe that modern day translators are smarter, holier and more spiritual than translators of years past. I don't see it. I see humans in general being more sinful than ever. Rather that increased level of sin in society is the result of the watered down modern translations or the modern translations are the result of a more sin centered society couldn't tell ya.
I cannot know which had better translators but I will say this. Knowledge and information have increased with time. Also we know there is nothing new under the sun. Sodom and Gomorrah, the world at the time of Noah, there has always been evil

[greeker57married]

I'm curious as to the errors you've found in other translations. Is it at all possible that the KJV has the errors in it, and through several centuries of further study that the more modern versions are more accurate?

There are things I'm not 100% 'comfortable' with in some of the newer versions (TNIV, NLT) such as the 'gender neutral' language, but that doesn't mean that I'm right (or wrong) by any means.

The KJV is not filled with errors, but there are variations in various manuscripts that differ from the KJV in minute changes. The KJV is a totally trustworthy translation. But it is not inerrant. Inerrancy is only in the original manuscripts. The ASV is a totally trustworthy translation and is more accurate in some places than the KJV.

God Bless
greeker

[JPPT1974]

The KJV is not filled with errors, but there are variations in various manuscripts that differ from the KJV in minute changes. The KJV is a totally trustworthy translation. But it is not inerrant. Inerrancy is only in the original manuscripts. The ASV is a totally trustworthy translation and is more accurate in some places than the KJV.

God Bless
greeker

The KJV is never wrong like the NIV or
Other Bible transcriptions as it is indeed
Very trustworthy! Amen to that!:amen:

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29159111#post29159111)
In the original shouldn't...

Proverbs 7:27, "Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death."

read...

Proverbs 7:27, "Her house is the way to the grave, going down to the chambers of death."

???


Wouldn't that be an error?




In Proverbs 7:27 "hell" is the correct word.



The Hebrew word is sheol. It means grave.

The chambers of death would, logically, be the grave.

The word hell is an English word that was perhaps still two or three thousand years into the future (the Middle Ages) before being 'invented'.

Methinks it is a translators' error, intentional at that, as is the case in every other instance of its usage.

[greeker57married]

The Hebrew word is sheol. It means grave.

The chambers of death would, logically, be the grave.

The word hell is an English word that was perhaps still two or three thousand years into the future (the Middle Ages) before being 'invented'.

Methinks it is a translators' error, intentional at that, as is the case in every other instance of its usage.

שׁאל she'ôl is the Hehrew word that is translated hell in the KJV. Gesenius in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, gives this definition: hades a subterranean place, full of thick darknessin which the shades of the dead are are gathered together. The Hebrew word roots in a word thatmeans a hollow and subterranean place.

άδης hadēs is the Greek Word translated hell in the New Testament. Thayer in his Greek English Lexicon says it means: 1. Hades or Pluto , the god of the lower regions. 2. Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead. In the Septuigent it is the word used for sheol. In biblical Greek the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place.The common receptacle of disembodies spirits, Lk.16:23.

Both sheol and hades does not refer to the earthly grave but toa place of disembodied spirts.In old Testament it had a good side and a bad side. in New Testament refers to that intermediate state of the disembodied spirits of the lost dead. Who will in the future be cast into the lakeof fire. So hell is not a bad word.

God Bless
greeker

[HypoTypoSis]

שׁאל she'ôl is the Hehrew word that is translated hell in the KJV. Gesenius in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, gives this definition: hades a subterranean place, full of thick darknessin which the shades of the dead are are gathered together. The Hebrew word roots in a word thatmeans a hollow and subterranean place.

Graves and pits ARE hollow underground places hidden in darkness where all the dead are placed.

άδης hadēs is the Greek Word translated hell in the New Testament. Thayer in his Greek English Lexicon says it means: 1. Hades or Pluto , the god of the lower regions. 2. Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead.

Why would the word of God want anything to do with pagan beliefs? How does this match with we are to have nothing to do with pagans and unbelievers?

In the Septuigent it is the word used for sheol. In biblical Greek the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place.The common receptacle of disembodies spirits, Lk.16:23.

Sheol is Hebrew for grave--the hole or pit in the ground that is covered over with dirt--and is thus hidden and, yes, we do regard it as a dismal place.

Need to separate what is biblical from what is pagan (especially the Greek) as that is essentially an amalgam of all pagan beliefs that came before. ALL pagan religious thought (which is ALL based in humanism) historically extends back to Nimrod's original religion and is the 'whore' spoken of in John's Revelation. Mixing the two (biblical and pagan) can only pollute the word of God confusing and misleading those seeking the Truth of God..

Both sheol and hades does not refer to the earthly grave but toa place of disembodied spirts.

Forget pagan hades, it is not Godly. the grave (sheol) IS the place of lifeless bodies--when God calls his breath of life back to Him there is nothing left except the body that then returns to dust.

In old Testament it had a good side and a bad side. in New Testament refers to that intermediate state of the disembodied spirits of the lost dead. Who will in the future be cast into the lakeof fire. So hell is not a bad word.

Except for the saved there is no good side to death or the grave. Fires are physical, not spiritual, and all fires go out when the fuel is spent. Hell is a pagan word that NONE of the original writers of the books of the bible ever wrote--in every instance their meaning is clear, they either spoke of the grave or the city trash dump (save the one sole instance [Tartaroo] where the angels that caused the Flood are temporarily kept).

God Bless
greeker


Gesenius and Thayer both (as with countless others) tie heavily to Strong's and, yet, as renowned as his work is, how many are aware of his numerous other works in strong support of Universalism?

We must step outside the bible to look at its historical development and that requires a look at pagan history and development and the influences it has had on the bible's translators--and WHY !!

It was for the Universalist leaning Constantine Era church and, later, the Catholics which replaced that early state organized and run church and, of course, the early Church of England-ite translators, having come out of those pre and post Catholic eras, to instill in perpetuity those false pagan derived beliefs into THEIR bible which, of course, BY DEFAULT has eventually become our bible.

God is perfect, man is not. Everything God does is perfect. Nothing man does is EVER perfect.

The bible CONTAINS the perfect word of God but it is still just a product of man and, as with everything man does, is far from perfect. As such, while what we need for salvation remains inviolable and left up to the subservient reasoning and rationalizing of man requesting the submission of his will to that of God everything else is up for grabs and that includes issues such as hell, its historical origins and both it and its allied concept of eternal torment are non-essential with respect to salvation proper.

They are, after all, nothing more than unimportant issues (historically and, still, contemporaneously derived and purposed totally from the ulterior motive of fear as a means to control [and guaranteed steady source of the coffers' income] the ignorant masses by the political and religious powers that have existed throughout ALL ages); for us such are nothing more than mental exercises to kick around philosophizing and theorizing until The Day that all things shall be made known.

[PaladinGirl]

The King James Bible has no errors.

[greeker57married]

Gesenius and Thayer both (as with countless others) tie heavily to Strong's and, yet, as renowned as his work is, how many are aware of his numerous other works in strong support of Universalism?

We must step outside the bible to look at its historical development and that requires a look at pagan history and development and the influences it has had on the bible's translators--and WHY !!

It was for the Universalist leaning Constantine Era church and, later, the Catholics which replaced that early state organized and run church and, of course, the early Church of England-ite translators, having come out of those pre and post Catholic eras, to instill in perpetuity those false pagan derived beliefs into THEIR bible which, of course, BY DEFAULT has eventually become our bible.

God is perfect, man is not. Everything God does is perfect. Nothing man does is EVER perfect.

The bible CONTAINS the perfect word of God but it is still just a product of man and, as with everything man does, is far from perfect. As such, while what we need for salvation remains inviolable and left up to the subservient reasoning and rationalizing of man requesting the submission of his will to that of God everything else is up for grabs and that includes issues such as hell, its historical origins and both it and its allied concept of eternal torment are non-essential with respect to salvation proper.

They are, after all, nothing more than unimportant issues (historically and, still, contemporaneously derived and purposed totally from the ulterior motive of fear as a means to control [and guaranteed steady source of the coffers' income] the ignorant masses by the political and religious powers that have existed throughout ALL ages); for us such are nothing more than mental exercises to kick around philosophizing and theorizing until The Day that all things shall be made known.

You give no proof for sheol meaning just the grave. Many Biblical words are lifted out of the secular world to a higher spiritual level.

Thayer and Gesenius are only connect to strong by those who later used strongs coding of words to make referencing Thayer and Gesenius easier. They were scholars in their on right.

It the meaning of sheol and hades to refer to the nether world or abode of disembodied spirits clearly makes sense because soul is eternal.

[Jenn4God]

The Hebrew word is sheol. It means grave.

The chambers of death would, logically, be the grave.

The word hell is an English word that was perhaps still two or three thousand years into the future (the Middle Ages) before being 'invented'.

Methinks it is a translators' error, intentional at that, as is the case in every other instance of its usage.
I was under the impression that sheol means hell? You are the 1st to tell me that's wrong.

[Jenn4God]

Also thank you 2 all the KJV supporters. I had a feeling I was going to be out numbered here. For clarification I use the Authorized KJV.

[JacobHall86]

I still havent seen anyone argue for learning the actual languages. You know, Hebrew and Greek?

[JacobHall86]

The King James Bible has no errors.

Which one, the modern KJV or the 1611? Because they are two differant things.

[UBERROGO]

Quote:
Are the Apocrypha considered in these alleged errors? It's in the KJV ya know
--------------------------------------------

Just for the record, the Apocrypha were never considered a part of the KJV. They were originally included by the Church of England....for READING AND STUDY, but not accepted as holy scripture.

Just to keep the record straight. They were later removed from printed copies of the KJV.

Cheers,

JimCare to back this up?

[greeker57married]

I still havent seen anyone argue for learning the actual languages. You know, Hebrew and Greek?

Many KJV only putthe English KJV above the Greek and Hebrew.They deny this, but they will not give The meaning of the Greek and Hebrew to a word or words that does not agree with the KJV

They subjectthe Biblical language in which the original writings of Scripture were written in to the English KJV.

Yes by all means study the Greek and the Hebrew, but be willing to be true to the meaning of the original languages as you translate. Of Course the KJV only deny the crediblity of the earlier manuscripts.

[HypoTypoSis]

I was under the impression that sheol means hell?

Actually, after a discombobulated fashion it's the other way around.


Sheol is a Hebrew word that means grave, it is some thousands of years old.
Hell is an ENGLISH word--English did not come about until AFTER England was founded and that was, basically, the Middle Ages.
Hell is Pagan in origin and comes to the Middle Ages English from the Pagan Norse word 'kel'.
The entire concept of a place of eternal torment is pagan in origin.


How could Jesus 'say' the word "hell" when it wouldn't be invented for another 1500 years?
How could the word "hell" be spoken by those of the Old Testament when England was not to exist for another three or four thousand years?
Why would the Old Testament word 'grave' (sheol) be changed by pro-Catholic translators to the PAGAN UNIVERSALIST word hell?
Aside from Judeo-Christianity ALL religions come from Nimrod's Babylonian religion (circa Tower of Babel) which is why Babylon is called "The Mother of Harlots" in John's Revelation.
The important thing to remember is that salvation is completely, totally separate and unrelated to the issue under discussion. When people, as so many often do, mix salvation with custom, history and tradition the Gospel is then in danger of becoming a polluted tool of the powers that be to control and make money off the masses. Best to stick with the bare simplicity of the Gospel.

[HypoTypoSis]

שׁאל she'ôl is the Hehrew word that is translated hell in the KJV. Gesenius in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, gives this definition: hades a subterranean place, full of thick darknessin which the shades of the dead are are gathered together. The Hebrew word roots in a word thatmeans a hollow and subterranean place.

HADES HADES HADES WHY do you insist on using PAGAN words of PAGAN RELIGIOUS derivation? Can you reason BIBLICALLY WITHOUT PAGAN REFERENCES? Think man, think! GOD and His word has absolutely NOTHING to do lwith ANYTHING Pagan!

HADES IS NOT HEBREW ITS PAGAN?

άδης hadēs is the Greek Word translated hell in the New Testament. Thayer in his Greek English Lexicon says it means: 1. Hades or Pluto , the god of the lower regions. 2. Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead. In the Septuigent it is the word used for sheol. In biblical Greek the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place.The common receptacle of disembodies spirits, Lk.16:23.

HADES IS GREEK--PAGAN GREEK. Please, drop ALL references to Pagan religious thought. You MUST step outside that Pagan box in order for the word of God to shine forth.

Both sheol and hades does not refer to the earthly grave

Sheol means GRAVE. Hades is PAGAN and God said we are to have NOTHING to do with the pagans, their ways or their beliefs. PLEASE comply.

but toa place of disembodied spirts.

There is NO such thing as a disembodied spirit--that is totally Pagan, Universalist and Catholic in nature. NOWHERE will you find ANY reference in scripture to 'disembodied spirits' other than the Nephilim that resulted in the Flood (Genesis 6:4, et al). The term "disembodied spirit' is a contradiction in terms as spirits have NO body for they "are spirit".

intermediate state of the disembodied spirits of the lost dead.
ONLY in Pagan, Universalist and Catholic thought will you find notions of "intermediate states of disembodied spirits"--it is alien to the word of God.

[christian73]

Just a gentle reminder:

[rule1.4]

People of other faiths can post here, but you can't debate unless you're Baptist.

[greeker57married]

ONLY in Pagan, Universalist and Catholic thought will you find notions of "intermediate states of disembodied spirits"--it is alien to the word of God.

The nether world of disembodied spirits is not the grave.
You have a subtle of not dealing with the issues. Are answering questions. I see your tactic. If you don't want to believe in hell that is your business.

[HypoTypoSis]

The nether world of disembodied spirits

Where in scripture are you going to find reference to "the nether world"? Answer: NOWHERE. It is pagan in origin.

is not the grave.

According to the scriptures the place of the dead IS the grave.

If you don't want to believe in hell that is your business.

A careful and strict reading of the the scriptures can lead only to the nonexistence of a place of eternal torment. Only by misapplying figures of speech can such be ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED.



First thing that needs to be done to properly understand the scriptures (within the concept of this discussion) is to discard all pagan words, references and meanings. Until that happens all that can result is a polluted understanding of God's word and that is exactly what the devil desires.

[JPPT1974]

First thing that needs to be done to properly understand the scriptures (within the concept of this discussion) is to discard all pagan words, references and meanings. Until that happens all that can result is a polluted understanding of God's word and that is exactly what the devil desires.

We need to know that what the
Scriptures say come from God and that
The Bible is God's word and not no
Pagan words at all.
All references and meanings all referred to
And by God.