Some supposed errors in the KJV

Some supposed errors in the KJV

 

In this study we are going to look at some supposed errors in the KJV. 

It is frequently asserted that the KJV contains errors, and this claim is often employed to argue that individuals who either use the KJV as their primary Bible or affirm its inerrancy are themselves mistaken, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I frequently encounter blog posts and videos that critique the KJV by highlighting alleged errors within its text, using these claims to argue that the KJV cannot be the true Word of God and is not inerrant, since it purportedly contains demonstrable inaccuracies.

I have dealt with many of the main arguments against the KJV elsewhere but here we will tae a look at some of the lesser known examples of the errors in the KJV.

List of supposed errors in this study.

1) Ashera or Grove
2) I create or I am creating a new heavens and a new earth in Isaiah 65
3) Plain or oak
4) Barcelet or Cord
5) Beautiful / In form
6) Brass or Copper
7) Faith or hope
8) Power or authority 

 

This list will be updated as and when more errors are addressed. 

 

1) Ashera or Grove 

 

1. Introduction

It is often alleged that the King James Version (KJV) mistranslates certain Hebrew terms, leading to inaccurate renderings. One commonly cited example is the KJV’s translation of the Hebrew word אֲשֵׁרָה (Asherah) as “grove” in several Old Testament passages. Critics argue that the word should instead be translated “Asherah pole,” referring to the wooden idol associated with the Canaanite goddess Asherah who was associated with fertility, motherhood and sacred trees. These wooden idols, often trees or idols cut into trees were called Asherim. This study examines Deuteronomy 16:21 as a representative example, evaluating whether the KJV translation “grove” is erroneous.

---

2. Textual Comparison

Deuteronomy 16:21 in the KJV reads:

“Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.” (KJV)

By contrast, the NIV renders the verse as:

“Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the LORD your God.” (NIV)

Critics maintain that the prohibition concerns the making of an Asherah pole rather than the planting of trees, implying that the KJV misconstrues the verse’s meaning.

---

3. Historical Translation Evidence

The KJV does not stand alone in its rendering. A number of earlier English translations, including the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, Great Bible, Bishops’ Bible, and Geneva Bible, also use “grove” in this verse. Moreover, Brenton’s Septuagint reads:

“Thou shalt not plant for thyself a grove; thou shalt not plant for thyself any tree near the altar of thy God.”

Later versions such as Webster’s, Smith’s Literal, Lamsa, and Peshitta in Plain English similarly read “grove.” Thus, any critique of the KJV must also apply to this broad and consistent translation tradition. The Septuagint is often the go to version to demonstrate errors in the KJV.

---

4. Lexical Considerations

The Hebrew word translated “grove” is אֲשֵׁרָה (Asherah), which occurs 39 times in the Old Testament. The KJV consistently translates it as “grove” or “groves.” Importantly, the verb used in Deuteronomy 16:21 is נָטַע (nata), meaning “to plant.” One does not “plant” a carved idol; one plants a tree. This suggests that the verse refers to the planting of trees that could later be fashioned into Asherah poles or used for idolatrous worship.

---

5. Usage in Other Biblical Texts

1 Kings 16:33 records:

“And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.” (KJV)

The NIV renders this:

“Ahab also made an Asherah pole…” (NIV)

Some modern translations, such as the Ancient Roots Bible (2008), use “totem-pole” to convey the idea of a carved tree still rooted in the ground. The ESV also emphasizes tree-planting:

“You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the LORD your God that you shall make.” (ESV)

This supports the idea that the prohibition involved planting trees near the altar—trees which could later be transformed into idols—not simply erecting carved poles.

---

6. The Function of Groves

In Israelite and Canaanite worship, groves of trees were frequently associated with idolatry, though the trees themselves were not idols per se. 2 Chronicles 15:16 notes:

“…she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.”

Here, the idol was made in the grove; the grove itself was not the idol. Likewise, Deuteronomy 7:5 commands Israel to destroy “their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire,” distinguishing groves from idols.

---

7. Interpretation of the Prohibition

The prohibition in Deuteronomy 16:21 concerns planting any tree near the altar of the LORD, whether or not it would later be used for idolatry. Translating the verse as a prohibition only of “Asherah poles” narrows the scope, potentially allowing trees to be planted that are not initially used as idols. The KJV’s broader rendering—“grove of any trees”—aligns with the Hebrew verb nata and with the broader cultic context in which trees planted near altars often became sites of idolatrous worship.

---

8. Conclusion

The KJV’s translation of Asherah as “grove” in Deuteronomy 16:21 reflects both the literal Hebrew wording and the historical context of tree-planting associated with idolatry. It is consistent with earlier English versions and with the Septuagint. Modern renderings such as “Asherah pole” may emphasize the idol itself, but they risk obscuring the original prohibition against planting trees near the altar of God. Thus, the charge that the KJV mistranslates this verse is unfounded. Rather, its wording preserves the broader sense of the original Hebrew.

 

1. Etymology and Name

• The name Asherah (Hebrew: אֲשֵׁרָה, ʾăšērāh) refers both to:

  1. A Canaanite goddess worshiped throughout the ancient Near East.

  2. A cultic object, typically a wooden pole or tree, associated with her worship.

This dual usage explains why some biblical passages refer to “cutting down Asherim” (plural), indicating physical objects, while others refer to “serving Asherah,” indicating devotion to the deity.

---

2. Asherah in the Canaanite Pantheon

2.1. Ugaritic Texts

The clearest picture of Asherah comes from Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria), where cuneiform tablets (c. 13th–12th century BCE) describe the Canaanite pantheon. In these texts:

• Asherah is called Athirat (Ugaritic: 𐎓𐎘𐎗𐎚, ʾAṯiratu).

• She is described as the consort of El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon.

• Her title is often “Lady Athirat of the Sea” (rbt ʾaṯrt ym), indicating some association with waters or fertility.

• She is depicted as the mother of the gods (qnyt ilm, “she who gives birth to the gods”) and plays a mediating role among divine beings.

2.2. Role and Attributes

Asherah was a fertility goddess, associated with life, reproduction, and nurturing. She was sometimes depicted as a maternal figure surrounded by offspring, or symbolized by a stylized tree, likely reflecting her life-giving and fertile characteristics.

---

3. Asherah in Ancient Israelite Religion

3.1. Biblical Prohibitions

The Hebrew Bible frequently condemns the worship of Asherah or the use of “Asherah poles”:

• Exodus 34:13 — “But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves (Asherim).”

• Deuteronomy 16:21 — “Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God…”

• Judges 3:7 — “And the children of Israel did evil…and served Baalim and the groves (Asheroth).”

• 2 Kings 23 — King Josiah purges the land of Asherah worship, cutting down poles and destroying cultic objects.

These repeated prohibitions indicate that Asherah worship was widespread among Israelites, often practiced alongside official Yahweh worship.

3.2. Asherah as Yahweh’s Consort?

Several archaeological finds suggest that some Israelites viewed Asherah as a consort of Yahweh, paralleling her role as consort of El in the broader Canaanite pantheon.

The most famous evidence comes from:

• Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions (8th century BCE, Sinai): Pithoi (large storage jars) bear inscriptions reading:

  “I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.”

• Khirbet el-Qom inscription (7th century BCE, Judah): A tomb inscription refers to Yahweh and “his Asherah.”

Scholars debate whether “his Asherah” refers to a goddess or a cultic object (pole/tree) representing her. But these inscriptions indicate some form of Yahweh–Asherah connection in popular religion.

3.3. Asherah Poles

Biblical references to “Asherah poles” describe wooden cult objects, sometimes planted as living trees, sometimes carved or erected near altars. These likely symbolized the goddess and served as ritual focal points in high places, groves, and sanctuaries.

• 1 Kings 15:13 and 2 Chronicles 15:16 mention the queen mother Maacah making “an idol in a grove (Asherah),” which Asa destroys.

• 2 Kings 21:7 states that King Manasseh “set a carved image of the Asherah” in the temple itself, showing the degree of syncretism.

---

4. Archaeological and Iconographic Evidence

4.1. Terracotta Figurines

Numerous pillar figurines from Iron Age Israel (8th–7th centuries BCE) have been found, especially in Judah. These depict a woman with prominent breasts, sometimes holding them, a common fertility motif. Many scholars associate these with Asherah or with fertility cults tied to her worship.

4.2. Tree Imagery

Asherah is frequently symbolized by a stylized tree, often with branches and foliage, sometimes flanked by caprids (goats) or lions. This “sacred tree” imagery is widespread in Near Eastern art (including Phoenician ivories and cylinder seals). It reinforces her role as a life-giving, nurturing goddess.

---

5. Decline and Suppression

During periods of religious reform, especially under Hezekiah (late 8th century BCE) and Josiah (late 7th century BCE), Asherah worship was aggressively suppressed:

• High places were destroyed.

• Asherah poles were cut down and burned (2 Kings 23:6).

• Her cult objects were removed from the temple itself.

This reflects the movement toward exclusive Yahweh worship (monolatry → monotheism) and the eradication of older Canaanite religious elements within Israelite practice.

---

6. Summary Table

---

7. Theological Significance

Understanding Asherah is crucial for interpreting the Old Testament’s polemics against “high places,” “groves,” and “foreign gods.” Her worship represents:

• A syncretistic phase in Israelite religion before full Yahweh-exclusive monotheism.

• A cultural-religious continuity with Canaanite religion.

• A key linguistic debate in Bible translation: whether “Asherah” should be rendered as “grove,” “pole,” or kept as a proper name.

 

 

2)  I create or I am creating a new heavens and a new earth in Isaiah 65

“I Create” or “I Am Creating” in Isaiah 65:17: An Examination of the Participial Form of Bārāʾ

1. Introduction

A common claim made by some modern critics is that the King James Version (KJV) mistranslates Isaiah 65:17 by rendering the Hebrew participle of בָּרָא (bārāʾ, “to create”) as “I create” rather than “I am creating.” The argument is that, since the Hebrew form is a participle, it must correspond to an English present continuous verb. This study examines the grammatical construction in Isaiah 65:17 and evaluates whether “I create” is a legitimate translation.

---

2. Textual Data and Translation Comparison

The verse in question reads as follows in the KJV:

Isaiah 65:17 — “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” (KJV)

The KJV renders the Hebrew participle בֹּורֵא (bōrēʾ) as “I create.” This rendering is not unique to the KJV. A number of major translations read identically:

• ESV: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth…”

• NASB, ASV, ERV, Lamsa, and JPS Tanakh (1917) all follow the same pattern.

The NIV uses a simple future construction:

“See, I will create new heavens and a new earth.” (NIV)

This reflects a common English way of expressing future or imminent action.

By contrast, a smaller number of versions opt for “I am creating”, such as:

• NLT: “Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth…”

• CEV, Amplified Bible, Young’s Literal, and Smith’s Literal similarly read “I am creating.”

It is thus inaccurate to suggest that the KJV stands alone or uniquely mistranslates the verse; its rendering is shared by many standard translations.

---

3. The Grammatical Issue

The key verb is בֹּורֵא (bōrēʾ), the Qal active participle (masculine singular) of בָּרָא (bārāʾ). The claim that “I am creating” is the only correct translation rests on the assumption that Hebrew participles function exactly like English present participles, which is not the case.

In English, a participle used verbally typically takes the “-ing” form (e.g., “I am creating”), indicating an ongoing action in the present. However, in Biblical Hebrew, the participle is an aspectual form, not a tense marker. It primarily expresses incomplete or ongoing action, but its temporal reference (present, future, or timeless) depends entirely on context, not morphology.

---

4. Functions of the Hebrew Participle

The Qal participle in Biblical Hebrew can function in several ways:

1. Present continuous / progressive: e.g., “I am creating.”

2. Gnomic or habitual: e.g., “I create” (describing a general truth or characteristic action).

3. Imminent or future: “I am about to create” or “I will create” — especially when combined with the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “behold”).

4. Nominal: “the one who creates,” “creator.”

In Isaiah 65:17, the participle occurs in a verbal sense, preceded by הִנְנִי (hinnenî), literally “Behold, I…,” a construction frequently used to indicate imminent or future action.

---

5. The Hinneh + Participle Construction

The construction הִנֵּה + participle (or הִנְנִי + participle, “Behold, I am…”) is common in Biblical Hebrew and often denotes a future or imminent act, though it may also describe a current action. A parallel example is found in Genesis 6:17:

“And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth…” (KJV)
Hebrew: הִנְנִי מֵבִיא (hinnenî mēbîʾ) — participle of בוא (bôʾ, “to bring”).

This construction is usually translated in English either with a present progressive (“I am bringing”) or with a simple future (“I will bring”), depending on stylistic preference and context.

In Isaiah 65:17, the Hebrew reads:

הִנְנִי בֹּורֵא שָׁמַיִם חֲדָשִׁים וָאָרֶץ חֲדָשָׁה
hinnenî bōrēʾ šāmayim ḥădāšîm wāʾāreṣ ḥădāšāh
“Behold, I [am] creating / I create / I will create new heavens and a new earth.”

Given the eschatological context of the verse, the participle clearly refers to God’s future creative act, not to an action currently underway at the time of speaking.

---

6. Contextual and Stylistic Considerations

The broader context of Isaiah 65 describes the future renewal of creation, not a present, ongoing creative act. Translating the participle as “I create” fits this context well, functioning as a present tense with future reference — a common idiom in both Biblical Hebrew and English. Translating “I am creating” would be grammatically possible, but may misleadingly suggest an action already in progress, which does not align as well with the prophetic and eschatological setting of the verse.

Moreover, the widespread use of simple present or future translations among major versions (KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV) reflects a recognition of this construction’s conventional nuance.

---

7. Conclusion

The claim that Isaiah 65:17 must be translated “I am creating” because bōrēʾ is a participle is linguistically unsound. Hebrew participles do not correspond directly to English participles, and their tense value is determined by context, not form.

The הִנְנִי + participle construction frequently denotes imminent or future action, and “I create” (KJV, ESV, NASB) or “I will create” (NIV) are both grammatically valid and contextually appropriate translations. “I am creating” is also grammatically possible, but less natural in English and less reflective of the future focus of the passage.

Consequently, the KJV’s rendering “I create” is not incorrect, but is fully justified within Hebrew grammar and idiom.

 

 

3) Plain or oak 

The Translation of “Plain” in Genesis 12:6: A Defense of the KJV Rendering

1. Introduction

A recurring critique of the King James Version (KJV) concerns its rendering of certain Hebrew geographical terms, particularly in passages where modern translations prefer a botanical or arboreal term. One such example is Genesis 12:6, where the KJV reads that Abram came “unto the plain of Moreh,” while most contemporary translations render the phrase as “the oak of Moreh” or “the terebinth tree of Moreh.” This study examines the linguistic, historical, and contextual considerations underlying the KJV translation and argues that “plain” is both linguistically defensible and contextually appropriate within the idiom of seventeenth-century English and the Hebrew text itself.

---

2. Textual Comparison

KJV (1611):

“And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.”

ESV:

“Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.”

NASB:

“Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanites were in the land at that time.”

NKJV:

“Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.”

Thus, while modern translations consistently prefer “oak” or “terebinth tree,” the KJV and earlier English Bibles render the phrase with “plain.” The question, then, is whether the KJV translators misunderstood the Hebrew, or whether their rendering reflects a legitimate interpretive choice.

---

3. Historical Translation Tradition

The KJV stands within a well-established translation lineage that predates it by more than a century. Earlier English Bibles—including the, Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), and Bishops’ Bible (1568)—all read “plain” in this verse. The Latin Vulgate also reads vallem or convallum (“valley/plain”):

pertransivit Abram terram usque ad locum Sychem usque ad convallem illustrum — “Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, to the noble vale.” (Vulgate)

Thus, the KJV translators did not innovate this rendering but continued a long-standing Western translation tradition that preferred “plain” for the Hebrew term in question.

---

4. The Hebrew Term: אֵלוֹן (ʾēlōn)

The Hebrew noun אֵלוֹן (ʾēlōn) is derived from a root meaning “strong” and is etymologically related to אֵלָה (ʾēlāh), meaning “oak” or “terebinth.” Lexically, ʾēlōn can denote a large tree, usually an oak, but it also appears to have a broader semantic range that can include a place associated with such trees—that is, a grove or wooded area.

The term occurs ten times in the Hebrew Bible. In the KJV, ʾēlōn is rendered as “plain” or “plains” in all but one instance (Judges 12:12, where it appears as the proper name “Elon”). The related word ʾēlāh is consistently rendered “oak” in the KJV, as in Genesis 35:4:

“And Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.” (KJV)

This demonstrates that the KJV translators were fully aware of the lexical difference and did not confuse ʾēlōn with ʾēlāh. Their choice of “plain” was therefore deliberate and interpretive, not a misunderstanding.

---

5. Broader Meaning and Geographical Reference

While ʾēlōn can denote an individual tree, it can also designate a region identified by the presence of oaks or terebinths, much as the English “wood” or “forest” can refer both to a single stand of trees and to a geographic area. This interpretation is strengthened by other occurrences of ʾēlōn, such as Genesis 13:18:

“Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.” (KJV)

The same phrase appears in the ESV as “by the oaks of Mamre,” and in the NIV as “near the great trees of Mamre.” Here, the context clearly refers to a region where trees stood, not to Abram literally dwelling “in an oak.” Thus, ʾēlōn Mamre describes a district distinguished by large trees, rather than a single tree. The same interpretive logic applies to ʾēlōn Moreh in Genesis 12:6.

---

6. Linguistic and Semantic Considerations

The semantic range of ʾēlōn is broader than the English “oak” and can encompass the notion of a wooded or tree-covered plain. In this light, “plain” in the KJV may be understood not as a flat, treeless expanse (its modern sense), but as an open region characterized by trees—precisely what the Hebrew text suggests. In Early Modern English, “plain” could denote “a field or open tract of land, sometimes wooded” (see Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “plain,” sense 2a, 16th–17th c.). Therefore, the KJV rendering would have naturally conveyed to its original readers the sense of a geographic area known for its trees, aligning closely with the Hebrew idiom.

---

7. Contextual and Theological Factors

In Genesis 12:6, Abram is described as journeying “through the land” to a specific locality—the place of Shechem. The mention of “the plain of Moreh” thus serves as a topographical marker, situating the narrative geographically rather than describing a particular tree. Furthermore, later biblical references (e.g., Deuteronomy 11:30) indicate that the ʾēlōn Moreh was a region of religious or covenantal significance, not a single sacred oak. Translating the term as “plain” therefore fits the narrative and theological context, avoiding the implication that Abram stopped to worship at a Canaanite sacred tree—an association that the term “oak of Moreh” might inadvertently evoke.

---

8. Evaluation and Conclusion

The evidence suggests that the KJV translators’ choice of “plain” in Genesis 12:6 was linguistically, historically, and contextually sound. The term ʾēlōn can refer not only to an individual tree but also to a region defined by trees. The rendering “plain” reflects both the older English sense of the word and the geographical sense of the Hebrew term, consistent with the broader translation tradition of the Vulgate and early English Bibles.

Consequently, the KJV’s “plain of Moreh” should not be viewed as a mistranslation but as a faithful representation of the Hebrew concept within the idiom of its time. Modern translations that render “oak” or “terebinth” are lexically precise within a narrower sense, but the KJV’s “plain” preserves the topographical nuance and contextual breadth of the original Hebrew expression.

 

 

4)  Barcelet or Cord 

The Translation of “Bracelet” in Genesis 38:18: A Defense of the KJV Rendering

1. Introduction

Critics of the King James Version (KJV) frequently assert that its rendering of Genesis 38:18—“thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff”—is inaccurate. The Hebrew term translated as bracelets is פָּתִיל (pāṭîl), which most modern translations render as “cord” or “ribbon.” The usual argument is that this pāṭîl refers to the cord attached to Judah’s signet, not a separate ornament worn on the wrist.
This study examines the linguistic, historical, and contextual evidence for the KJV’s translation and argues that “bracelet” is a linguistically valid and contextually accurate rendering supported by both ancient and traditional sources.

---

2. Textual Comparison

Genesis 38:18 (KJV):

“And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.”

Genesis 38:25 (KJV):

“…Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.”

Modern translations:

• ESV: “Your signet and your cord and your staff.”

• NASB: “Your seal and your cord and your staff.”

• NIV: “Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand.”

• NRSV: “Your signet and your cord and the staff.”

The key difference lies in the rendering of pāṭîl: the KJV reads “bracelets,” while modern translations prefer “cord.” The question is whether pāṭîl here denotes a distinct ornamental object or merely the string holding the seal.

---

3. The Hebrew Term פָּתִיל (pāṭîl)

The noun פָּתִיל (pāṭîl) derives from the root פ־ת־ל (p-t-l), meaning “to twist” or “to twine.” Its basic sense is “a twisted cord or band,” though its material and function vary by context.

Examples of its use include:

• Numbers 15:38 — “a ribband (pāṭîl) of blue,” describing the decorative tassel cords on garments.

• Judges 16:7–8 — Samson bound with “seven green withs (pāṭîlîm),” i.e., cords or ropes.

• Genesis 38:18, 25 — “signet, and pāṭîl, and staff.”

The word thus conveys a braided, twisted, or woven strand, used variously for ornamentation, ritual, or binding. The KJV translators understood it in this passage as an ornamental band, consistent with its broader semantic range.

---

4. The Septuagint and Early Translation Tradition

The Septuagint (LXX) reads bracelet like the KJV . The Greek translation reads:

LXX (Genesis 38:18):
καὶ εἶπεν, τί σοι δώσω; ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, τὸν σφραγιστήρά σου καὶ τὸ βραχιόνιόν σου καὶ τὴν ῥάβδον σου τὴν ἐν τῇ χειρί σου.
“And she said, your seal, and your bracelet, and your staff that is in your hand.”

The Greek βραχιόνιον (brachiónion) denotes an armlet or bracelet—a piece of personal jewelry, not a mere cord. This indicates that ancient Jewish-Greek translators, familiar with Near Eastern material culture, interpreted pāṭîl as a personal ornament.

The Vulgate confirms this understanding:

signaculum, et armillam, et baculum tuum — “your signet, and your bracelet, and your staff.”

Many pre-KJV English versions read bracelet

Coverdale Bible : He sayde: What pledge wilt thou that I geue the? She answered: Thy signet, and thy bracelet, and thy staff that thou hast in thy hade. Then he gaue it her, and laye with her, and she was with childe of him.

Matthews Bible :Than sayde he, what pledge shall I geue the? And she sayde: thy sygnet, thy bracelet, and thy staffe that is in thy hande. And he gaue it her & lay by her, & she was whith childe by him.

Great Bible : “He sayde, what pledge shall I geue the? She answered: thy sygnett, thy bracelet, and thy staffe that is in thy hande. And he gaue it her and lay by her and she was with chylde by hym.

Bishops’ Bible : He sayde: What pledge shall I geue thee? She sayde: Thy signet, thy bracelet, and thy staffe that is in thyne hande. And he gaue it her, and laye by her: and she was with chylde by hym

 

---

5. Lexical and Semantic Considerations

Although pāṭîl can denote “cord,” its core meaning—“something twisted or braided”—can apply equally to woven or plaited jewelry. The translation depends on function, not mere form.

The Numbers 15:38 usage (“ribband of blue”) already shows pāṭîl used for a decorative band with symbolic or aesthetic purpose. In Genesis 38, where the object forms part of a set of personal identifiers, the ornamental sense is contextually preferable.

In Early Modern English, bracelet encompassed a broader range than today. The Oxford English Dictionary defines its sixteenth- and seventeenth-century usage as:

“A band, ring, or chain worn for ornament, usually round the arm, wrist, or neck.” (OED, “bracelet,” sense 1a)

Hence, a plaited or twisted band of cord or leather worn as adornment perfectly fits the period sense of “bracelet.” The KJV translators, working within this semantic framework, naturally chose “bracelet” to represent pāṭîl’s ornamental function.

---

6. Contextual Analysis: Three Distinct Pledge Items

Tamar asks Judah for three separate tokens:

“Thy signet, and thy bracelet, and thy staff.”

If pāṭîl were merely the cord of the signet, the phrase would be redundant (“your signet and its cord”). The Hebrew syntax uses waw-conjunctions (“and”) to list distinct items, implying that pāṭîl is independent of the seal.

Each object—signet, bracelet, and staff—symbolizes an aspect of Judah’s personal identity:

• the signet signifying his authority;

• the bracelet as a personal ornament;

• the staff as his position and status.

In ancient Near Eastern practice, pledges or tokens typically involved recognizable personal items, not accessories of the same object. This strengthens the case that pāṭîl here refers to an independent ornament, as the KJV preserves.

---

7. Cultural and Archaeological Context

Archaeological findings confirm that in the second millennium BCE, braided or woven bands were worn as bracelets or armlets, sometimes bearing seals, amulets, or insignia. Such items could be of linen, leather, or metal, often symbolizing social rank or family identity.

The LXX translators, immersed in the Hellenistic Near East, understood pāṭîl in precisely this cultural sense, rendering it brachiónion—an armlet. The KJV translators, following that same interpretive trajectory, rightly preserved the word “bracelet,” which in their English context meant any decorative band or plaited ornament.

---

8. Evaluation of Modern Renderings

Modern translations that render pāṭîl as “cord” or “its cord” emphasize lexical precision but at the expense of contextual and historical nuance. Three points challenge this view:

1. Redundancy: “Your seal and its cord” refers to a single composite item, whereas the Hebrew lists three distinct ones.

2. Historical Translation Evidence: The LXX, Vulgate, and all pre-modern English versions interpret pāṭîl as a separate ornament.

3. Cultural Context: Judah’s pledge consists of recognizable personal tokens. A plain cord would lack the distinctive value required for such a pledge.

Hence, “bracelet” reflects the contextual distinctness and personal significance of the item more accurately than “cord.”

---

9. Conclusion

The KJV’s translation of פָּתִיל (pāṭîl) as “bracelet” in Genesis 38:18 and 38:25 is linguistically legitimate, culturally informed, and textually supported by both ancient and traditional sources.

The Septuagint’s brachiónion and the Vulgate’s armillam demonstrate that this interpretation dates back to antiquity. Early English Bibles uniformly preserved this reading. Within the idiom of seventeenth-century English, “bracelet” naturally conveyed the sense of a braided or twisted band worn as adornment, corresponding closely to the Hebrew concept.

While modern translations prefer “cord” for its literal precision, the KJV rendering retains the contextual and cultural breadth of pāṭîl, preserving its sense as a personal, ornamental pledge item. Far from being erroneous, “bracelet” stands as a historically and linguistically defensible translation choice.

 

5) Beautiful / In form 

 

The Translation of “Beautiful and Well Favoured” in Genesis 29:17: A Defense of the KJV Rendering

1. Introduction

Critics of the King James Version (KJV) often allege that its rendering of Genesis 29:17 omits part of the Hebrew description of Rachel’s beauty, specifically the expressions denoting “form” and “appearance.” The verse in the Hebrew text contains a twofold phrase emphasizing Rachel’s physical attractiveness, which modern translations render as “beautiful in form and appearance.” The KJV, however, translates this as “beautiful and well favoured.”

This study examines the linguistic, textual, and historical dimensions of the verse and argues that the KJV does not omit but rather faithfully represents both Hebrew terms through idiomatic Early Modern English. The rendering “beautiful and well favoured” accurately conveys the dual sense of tōʾar (“form”) and marʾeh (“appearance”) in a manner consistent with both translation tradition and context.

---

2. Textual Comparison

Genesis 29:17 (KJV):

“Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.”

Modern translations:

• ESV: “Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance.”

• NASB: “Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful of form and face.”

• NIV: “Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful.”

The contrast concerns the description of Rachel. Whereas modern translations render two distinct attributes (“form” and “appearance”), the KJV conveys these through the coordinated English expression “beautiful and well favoured.”

---

3. The Hebrew Text

The Hebrew of Genesis 29:17 reads:

וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת וְרָחֵל הָיְתָה יְפַת־תֹּאַר וִיפַת מַרְאֶה
wəʿênê Lēʾāh raḵôṯ, wə-Rāḥēl hāyəṯāh yəpaṯ-tōʾar wə-yəpaṯ marʾeh.

Literally:

“Leah’s eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form (tōʾar) and beautiful of appearance (marʾeh).”

The two key terms are:

• תֹּאַר (tōʾar) — “form, shape, figure.”

• מַרְאֶה (marʾeh) — “appearance, look, countenance.”

Together, they present a comprehensive description of Rachel’s beauty—her physical form and her visible appearance.

---

4. The KJV Rendering

The KJV translates this clause as:

“but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.”

Rather than omitting either term, the KJV consolidates both Hebrew expressions into two English adjectives that together preserve the full sense.

The phrase “beautiful” represents yepath tōʾar (“beautiful of form”), while “well favoured” corresponds to yepath marʾeh (“beautiful of appearance”). In Early Modern English, “well favoured” meant “pleasant in countenance” or “comely in appearance.” Thus, the KJV’s rendering captures both aspects of Rachel’s beauty—her figure and her facial appearance—in idiomatic English.

---

5. Historical Translation Tradition

The KJV follows a long and consistent translation tradition found in earlier English Bibles, all of which employ the same phrasing:

• Coverdale: “And Lea was tender eyed, but Rachel was beutyfull & well fauoured of face,
  

• Mathews Bible: Lea was tender eyed, but Rahell was beutifull & well fauoured.
• The Great Bible: Lea was tender eyed, but Rahel was bewtyfull & well fauored.
  

• Geneva Bible: And Leah was tender eyed, but Rahel was beautifull and faire.

• Bishops’ Bible: Lea was tender eyed: but Rachel was beautifull and well fauoured

The Latin Vulgate reads:

Rachel decora facie et pulchra specie — “Rachel was beautiful in face and fair in appearance.”

Thus, the KJV translators stood within a translation lineage, drawing from both the Vulgate and earlier Reformation-era English renderings. The phrase “beautiful and well favoured” was therefore not an innovation but an established idiom expressing the dual description of beauty found in the Hebrew.

---

6. Semantic Correspondence

6.1. Beautiful = יְפַת־תֹּאַר (yepath tōʾar)

The noun tōʾar refers to physical form or shape. Translating it as “beautiful” effectively conveys the idea of graceful form or bodily attractiveness, as “beautiful” in Early Modern English often included both form and proportion.

6.2. Well Favoured = יְפַת מַרְאֶה (yepath marʾeh)

The term marʾeh means “appearance, sight, or countenance.” “Well favoured” in the English of 1611 denoted one who was good in appearance or handsome.
The Oxford English Dictionary (s.v. “favour,” sense 8a) records that in the 16th–17th centuries, “favour” meant “the look or appearance of the face; countenance.” Hence, “well favoured” naturally translates yepath marʾeh.

This phrase recurs elsewhere with the same Hebrew wording, such as in Genesis 39:6, where Joseph is described as:

“a goodly person, and well favoured.”
The Hebrew there, yephe tōʾar w’yephe marʾeh, is parallel in structure to Genesis 29:17, demonstrating that the KJV consistently translates this idiom in the same way.

---

7. Stylistic and Idiomatic Considerations

Early Modern English favored euphonic and non-redundant phrasing. Rendering the Hebrew phrase literally as “beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance” would have sounded repetitive to contemporary readers. The KJV translators therefore condensed the repetition into an elegant English couplet—“beautiful and well favoured”—which retained the sense while conforming to natural English style.

This reflects the KJV translators’ stated principle in their 1611 Preface, The Translators to the Reader:

“We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words… but that we should express the sense of the Scriptures in the language of the people.”

Thus, the translation is dynamic and idiomatic, not deficient. It expresses both aspects of Rachel’s beauty clearly and naturally to an English-speaking audience.

---

8. Linguistic and Contextual Analysis

The twofold expression yepath tōʾar w’yepath marʾeh appears elsewhere describing figures of notable beauty (e.g., Joseph in Genesis 39:6 and David in 1 Samuel 16:12). In each case, the KJV employs the same idiomatic English equivalent: “goodly person and well favoured.”

This consistent translation practice shows that the KJV translators understood the Hebrew construction not as two unrelated terms, but as a Hebrew parallelism—a poetic form where the second phrase restates or amplifies the first. Rendering it as a concise English pair (“beautiful and well favoured”) accurately reflects the Hebrew’s poetic symmetry without unnecessary redundancy.

---

9. The Argument of KJV Advocates

Advocates of the KJV translation present the following arguments in defense of “beautiful and well favoured”:

Thus, the KJV’s rendering is neither incomplete nor inaccurate but a legitimate idiomatic condensation of the Hebrew description.

---

10. Conclusion

The claim that the KJV “omits” words in Genesis 29:17 is linguistically and historically unfounded. The phrase “beautiful and well favoured” conveys precisely the sense of the Hebrew expression “beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance.” The translators maintained fidelity to both meaning and idiom while avoiding redundant literalism.

The rendering accords with all earlier English Bibles and the Vulgate tradition, preserves Hebrew parallelism in natural English, and exhibits the stylistic restraint characteristic of the Authorized Version. Far from constituting an omission, the KJV’s phrase represents an elegant and accurate synthesis of the Hebrew description within the idiomatic framework of Early Modern English.

 

6) Brass or Copper

 

The Translation of “Brass” in Deuteronomy 8:9: A Defense of the KJV Rendering

1. Introduction

One frequently cited criticism of the King James Version (KJV) concerns its rendering of Deuteronomy 8:9, in which the text describes the mineral wealth of the Promised Land as a place “out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.” Modern translations replace “brass” with “copper,” arguing that one cannot “dig brass,” since brass is an alloy of copper and zinc that must be smelted, and that the alloy itself was not known in the ancient Near East during the Mosaic period.

This study examines the linguistic, historical, and metallurgical background of the term in both the Hebrew text and Early Modern English. It will demonstrate that the KJV’s rendering “brass” accurately reflects both the semantic range of the Hebrew word נְחֹשֶׁת (neḥōšet) and the meaning of “brass” in seventeenth-century English, and that it stands firmly within the long tradition of English Bible translation.

---

2. Textual Comparison

Deuteronomy 8:9 (KJV):

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

Modern translations:

• ESV: “…a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper.”

• NASB: “…a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper.”

• NIV: “…a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.”

The modern preference for “copper” reflects a desire for metallurgical precision. The KJV’s “brass,” however, accords with both the linguistic usage of Early Modern English and the ancient semantic range of the underlying Hebrew and Greek terms.

---

3. The Hebrew Text and Key Term

The Hebrew reads:

אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲבָנֶיהָ בַרְזֶל וּמֵהֲרָרֶיהָ תַּחְצֹב נְחֹשֶׁת
ʾereṣ ʾăšer ʾăvanehā barzel ûmêharārehā taḥṣōḇ neḥōšet

“A land whose stones are iron, and from whose hills you may hew neḥōšet.”

The term נְחֹשֶׁת (neḥōšet) is the general Hebrew designation for copper or copper-based metals, including bronze and other related alloys. The word appears more than 130 times in the Hebrew Bible and refers variously to:

1. Native copper or copper ore (as here in Deut 8:9);

2. Bronze, a copper-tin alloy (e.g., Exod 27:2; 38:2);

3. Copper-coloured metals or objects in a general sense (e.g., Job 40:18).

There is no distinct Hebrew word for “bronze” or “brass”; neḥōšet served as a comprehensive metallurgical term.

---

4. The Septuagint and Vulgate Renderings

The Septuagint (LXX) translates neḥōšet with the Greek χαλκός (chalkos), which in classical and Hellenistic usage denotes copper, bronze, or any copper-based alloy without metallurgical distinction.

LXX: ἐξ ὧν ὀρῶν ἐκτεμνεῖς χαλκόν — “from whose mountains you will quarry copper/bronze.”

Brenton renders this as Brass 

Deuteronomy 8:9 a land on which thou shalt not eat thy bread with poverty, and thou shalt not want any thing upon it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of its mountains thou shalt dig brass. Brentons Septuagint 

Similarly, the Vulgate renders neḥōšet as aerem (aes in the classical form):

de montibus illius effodies aerem — “from whose mountains thou shalt dig bronze.”

Deuteronomy 8;:9 ubi absque ulla penuria comedes panem tuum et rerum omnium abundantia perfrueris cuius lapides ferrum sunt et de montibus eius aeris metalla fodiuntur

Where without any want thou shalt eat thy bread, and enjoy abundance of all things: where the stones are iron, and out of its hills are dug mines of brass:

Both ancient versions therefore use generic metallic terms, not specific alloy designations. The KJV’s “brass” fits precisely within this same tradition of broad semantic equivalence.

---

5. The English Word “Brass” in Historical Usage

In Early Modern English, the word brass did not carry the narrow metallurgical meaning it has today. It was commonly used for copper and all copper-based alloys, including bronze.

The Oxford English Dictionary (s.v. “brass,” sense 1) defines the period usage as:

“A general name for copper and its alloys, including bronze; formerly applied to any metal of bright yellowish colour.”

Contemporary examples confirm this generic sense:

• Coverdale: A londe where thou shalt not eate bred in scarcenes, and where thou shalt lacke nothinge: A lode where ye stones are yron, where thou shalt dygge brasse out of hilles:

• Geneva: A land wherein thou shalt eate bread without scarcitie, neither shalt thou lacke any thing therein: a land whose stones are yron, and out of whose mountaines thou shalt digge brasse.

• Bishops’ Bible: “A lande wherin thou shalt eate bread without scarcenes, neither shalt thou lacke any thyng: a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hylles thou shalt digge brasse

All these translations follow the Vulgate’s aes/aerem and the Greek chalkos with the same English term “brass.” Hence, the KJV is not an outlier but the continuation of an established lexical convention.

---

6. Metallurgical and Archaeological Background

6.1. Copper and Bronze in the Ancient Near East

Archaeological evidence shows that copper mining and smelting were well developed in the Sinai, Negev, and Arabah regions long before the Israelite entry into Canaan. The Timna Valley and Feinan (Punon) sites, active from the third millennium BCE, are notable examples.

The Israelites would therefore have known the extraction of copper ores such as malachite and chrysocolla, which were smelted into usable metal or alloyed with tin to make bronze.

6.2. The Phrase “Dig Brass”

The Hebrew verb taḥṣōḇ (“to hew, to quarry, to dig”) refers to extracting ore from rock. In English idiom of the seventeenth century, “to dig brass” meant the same: to mine the ore from which copper metal was obtained. The KJV translators used an idiomatic English equivalent, not a technical metallurgical description.

Thus, “dig brass” should be understood as “mine copper ore,” fully consistent with the sense of the Hebrew expression.

---

7. Linguistic Correspondence across Languages

This alignment demonstrates that “brass” perfectly matches the semantic field of the corresponding Hebrew, Greek, and Latin terms as understood in the ancient and early-modern linguistic contexts.

---

8. Contextual and Theological Coherence

The purpose of Deuteronomy 8:9 is not to specify metallurgical composition but to highlight the abundant natural resources of the Promised Land. The pairing “iron and brass” symbolises strength, prosperity, and technological capability.

In this rhetorical and theological context, the KJV’s “brass” communicates the intended meaning clearly to its early-modern audience: a valuable, workable, and lustrous metal representing the material richness of God’s provision. The translation succeeds in conveying function and imagery rather than technical detail.

---

9. The Argument of KJV Advocates

KJV defenders typically advance four key points in favour of the reading “brass”:

Hence, the KJV’s wording is not erroneous or anachronistic, but entirely consistent with its linguistic and cultural milieu.

---

10. Conclusion

The charge that the KJV mistranslates Deuteronomy 8:9 by using “brass” rests on a misunderstanding of historical English semantics and of the Hebrew term neḥōšet. In biblical Hebrew, neḥōšet encompassed both copper and bronze, while in Early Modern English, brass served as the standard generic term for copper-based metals.

The KJV translators, following centuries of English usage and the precedent of the Septuagint and Vulgate, rendered the verse idiomatically as “dig brass.” This expression conveyed precisely what the Hebrew intended—the mining of copper-bearing metal—in a form both natural and meaningful to their audience.

Therefore, the KJV’s translation is linguistically sound, historically justified, and contextually faithful, accurately preserving the sense of the original text within the idiom of its own age.

 

7)  Faith or hope 

The Translation of “Faith” in Hebrews 10:23: A Defense of the KJV Rendering

1. Introduction

In The King James Only Controversy, James White criticizes the KJV’s translation of Hebrews 10:23, which reads:

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised).” — KJV

White objects that the KJV incorrectly renders the Greek word ἐλπίς (elpis), which he insists should be translated “hope,” not “faith.” He writes:

“The KJV’s very unusual translation of the Greek term elpis as ‘faith’ is difficult to understand. The Greek term appears thirteen times in the TR, and each time it is translated ‘hope’ with this one exception.” (White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 226).

This study examines the linguistic, grammatical, and theological basis of the KJV’s rendering, arguing that while “hope” is the usual gloss for elpis, the translation “faith” in this context is not incorrect. The choice reflects both the semantic overlap between hope and faith and the translators’ commitment to conveying sense rather than uniformity of word-for-word correspondence.

---

2. Textual and Linguistic Analysis

2.1. The Greek Text

κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ, πιστὸς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος.
katechōmen tēn homologiān tēs elpidos aklinē, pistos gar ho epangeilamenos.

Literal translation:

“Let us hold fast the confession of the hope unwavering, for faithful is He who promised.”

The two key terms in question are:

• ὁμολογία (homologia) — confession, profession, declaration.

• ἐλπίς (elpis) — expectation, confidence, hope.

The KJV renders homologia as “profession” (elsewhere “confession”) and elpis as “faith.”

---

2.2. Usage of ὁμολογία (homologia)

James White’s claim of inconsistency cuts both ways. The term homologia is rendered differently across versions and even within the same translation:

Thus, modern translations also vary in rendering homologia as “profession,” “confession,” or “acknowledgment,” depending on context. The KJV’s “profession” in Hebrews 10:23 is therefore consistent with its translation philosophy of expressing contextual sense rather than rigid lexical uniformity.

1. Etymology and historical meaning

2. Nuance of difference in Early Modern English (the language of the KJV)

3. Theological and contextual implications

---

1. Etymology and Core Meaning

So both words mean “to declare or acknowledge,” but the prefix changes the direction or tone:

• con- (“with”): to agree or admit with someone — typically to acknowledge something true or real (sometimes wrongdoing, sometimes faith).

• pro- (“before”): to declare before others — to state openly or publicly one’s belief or commitment.

In other words:

• Confess emphasizes admission (either of faith or fault).

• Profess emphasizes affirmation (especially of faith or allegiance).

---

2. Nuance in Early Modern English (16th–17th Century)

By the 1500s–1600s, when the KJV was translated, “confess” and “profess” had begun to diverge in meaning:

Thus, “confession” could sound more penitential or inward, while “profession” sounded more public, steadfast, and outward.

The Oxford English Dictionary reflects this:

• Confess (v.) — “To acknowledge or avow, especially a fault or crime; to own or admit as true.”

• Profess (v.) — “To declare openly or freely; to affirm one’s faith or allegiance publicly.”

So when the KJV says:

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith” (Heb. 10:23),
the word profession carries the sense of open, steadfast declaration — not mere private admission.

This would have sounded to a 17th-century reader like:

“Let us hold firmly to our public declaration of faith.”

---

3. Theological and Contextual Implications

In the Greek New Testament, both ὁμολογέω (verb) and ὁμολογία (noun) literally mean “to say the same thing,” hence “to agree” or “to declare in agreement.” Context determines whether that declaration is:

• confession of sin, or

• profession/confession of faith.

The KJV translators, aware of both nuances, made deliberate distinctions:

• When the context involved acknowledging guilt or sin, they used confess:

  “Confess your faults one to another” (James 5:16).

• When the context involved affirming or holding to belief, they used profess:

  “Hold fast the profession of our faith” (Heb. 10:23).
  “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses” (1 Tim. 6:12).

This distinction is not arbitrary — it mirrors how English speakers of their time differentiated confession of sin from profession of faith.

---

4. Summary of the Difference

Thus, confession is agreeing with the truth; profession is proclaiming that truth openly.
Both are legitimate renderings of the same Greek root, but each emphasizes a different aspect of expression — one inward, one outward.

---

5. Why This Matters for Hebrews 10:23

The KJV’s “profession” fits the context perfectly.
Hebrews 10:23 exhorts believers to hold fast their public allegiance to Christ under persecution — a steadfast, visible profession of faith, not merely an inward confession.

Hence:

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (KJV)
accurately captures the verse’s rhetorical and theological force: an exhortation to persevere in open, unwavering commitment to Christ.

---

✅ In Summary

So, when the KJV uses profession rather than confession, it isn’t mistranslating — it is discerning a contextual and theological nuance that modern English now often blurs.

---

2.3. Usage of ἐλπίς (elpis)

The noun elpis (Strong’s G1680) generally means “hope,” but its semantic field includes expectation, confidence, or trust.
Lexical sources note this breadth:

BDAG: “elpis — expectation, hope, confidence; that which is the basis for hoping, trust, reliance.”
Liddell–Scott: “expectation, confidence, that which gives ground of hope.”

The KJV generally translates elpis as “hope,” but not uniformly. The translators, like other early modern English versions, allowed contextual equivalents such as “faith” or “confidence” when warranted by sense.

---

3. The Semantic Overlap Between Hope and Faith

3.1. Theological and Lexical Proximity

In the New Testament, faith (pistis) and hope (elpis) are distinct yet interrelated theological concepts. Faith often denotes belief and trust in God’s promises, while hope expresses the confident expectation of their fulfillment. The two are so intertwined that one can be seen as the temporal extension of the other—faith projected toward the future becomes hope.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for (elpizomenōn), the evidence of things not seen.” — Hebrews 11:1.

Here, the participle elpizomenōn (“things hoped for”) defines faith’s content. Thus, faith and hope are mutually implicative: faith believes the promise; hope expects its realization.

In Hebrews 10:23, the writer’s exhortation to perseverance under persecution centers not on an abstract emotion of hope but on steadfast trust in God’s promises—a sense that naturally falls under “faith.”

---

3.2. “Hope” as “Trust” in Modern Translations

The verb form of elpis, ἐλπίζω (elpizō), is frequently translated “to trust” even in modern versions:

Even the NASB and ESV—known for lexical precision—render elpizō as “trust” in contexts emphasizing confidence in God’s faithfulness.

If elpizō (“to hope”) can mean “to trust,” then its noun form (elpis) may validly convey “faith” or “trusting confidence.”

This semantic overlap validates the KJV’s choice of “faith,” which emphasizes the active confidence believers hold in their confession.

---

4. Translation Philosophy and Lexical Flexibility

James White’s criticism presumes that a single Greek word must always correspond to one English term. The KJV translators explicitly rejected that mechanical approach. In their Translators to the Reader (1611), they wrote:

“We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words… for that were to become the servants of words rather than the interpreters of sense.”

This principle explains both the variation between “confession” and “profession” (homologia) and the rendering of elpis as “faith” here. The KJV translators sought conceptual equivalence, not lexical uniformity.

Moreover, even modern translations freely vary in rendering key theological terms. For instance:

• Pistis (“faith”) is sometimes translated “faithfulness” (Rom 3:3, Gal 5:22 ESV).

• Elpis is sometimes “confidence” or “trust.”
  Thus, the KJV’s “faith” at Hebrews 10:23 fits within accepted translational elasticity.

---

5. Contextual Considerations in Hebrews 10:23

The surrounding verses (Hebrews 10:19–25) emphasize bold access, assurance, and steadfast trust in God’s promises:

• v.22: “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.”

• v.23: “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.”

• v.24: “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works.”

The progression from faith (v.22) to faithfulness (v.23) to love (v.24) parallels the triad faith–hope–love in Pauline theology (1 Cor. 13:13). Within this context, translating elpis as “faith” strengthens the thematic coherence: the writer urges steadfast trust grounded in assurance, not merely emotional optimism.

Hence, the KJV’s rendering connects faith in God’s promise (10:22) with the profession of that faith (10:23), forming a unified exhortation.

---

6. Theological Coherence: Hope as Faith Projected Forward

Theologically, hope can be viewed as faith extended into the future—trust that what God has promised will come to pass. The KJV translators, aware of this equivalence in theological discourse, may have deliberately rendered elpis as “faith” to reflect the dynamic relationship between the two concepts.

As Augustine observed, “Faith believes what it does not yet see; hope expects it.” (Enchiridion, 8.29). Thus, the “profession of our faith” expresses not mere optimism but steadfast trust in the faithfulness of God who promised—precisely the sense of elpidos in this verse.

---

7. The Argument of KJV Advocates

Advocates of the KJV defend “faith” in Hebrews 10:23 on several grounds:

---

8. Conclusion

The KJV’s translation of ἐλπίς (elpis) as “faith” in Hebrews 10:23 is not an error but a contextually justified and theologically sound choice. The term’s lexical range includes confidence, trust, and expectation—concepts that naturally overlap with faith.

Moreover, the translators’ decision reflects their stated aim of communicating meaning, not enforcing uniformity. “Faith” in this verse expresses the believer’s confident, unwavering trust in God’s promises, aligning with both the immediate context and the larger theological themes of Hebrews.

Therefore, the charge that the KJV mistranslates Hebrews 10:23 is unfounded. The rendering “profession of our faith” faithfully conveys the intent of the text, preserving the dynamic relationship between faith as belief and hope as faith’s forward-looking expression.

8) Power or authority 

The Translation of “Power” in Luke 10:19: A Defense of the KJV Rendering

1. Introduction

In Luke 10:19, Jesus says to the seventy disciples:

KJV: “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.”

Critics often point out that two different Greek words appear here, both translated as “power”:

• ἐξουσία (exousia) — authority, right, jurisdiction.

• δύναμις (dynamis) — power, ability, might, force.

They argue that the KJV conflates these two terms, thereby obscuring the distinction between delegated authority and operative strength. Modern translations typically render the verse:

ESV: “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”

The KJV’s defenders respond that the translation “power” in both clauses is consistent with Early Modern English usage, and that the verse’s meaning — Christ giving His followers the effective power and right to overcome spiritual opposition — is clearly and faithfully conveyed.

---

2. The Greek Text

Ἰδοὺ δέδωκα ὑμῖν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πατεῖν ἐπάνω ὄφεων καὶ σκορπίων, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ἐχθροῦ, καὶ οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς οὐ μὴ ἀδικήσῃ.

Transliteration:

Idou dedōka hymin tēn exousian tou patein epanō opheōn kai skorpiōn, kai epi pasan tēn dynamin tou echthrou, kai ouden hymas ou mē adikēsē.

Literal rendering:

“Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will in any way harm you.”

The distinction between ἐξουσία and δύναμις is clear: the first denotes delegated authority, the second operative force or capability.

---

3. The Lexical Range of the Two Greek Terms

In Luke 10:19, Jesus contrasts two types of power:

• Given power (ἐξουσία): the right or authorization granted to the disciples.

• Enemy power (δύναμις): the active might or force of demonic opposition.

Thus, modern translators distinguish the two as “authority” vs. “power.”

---

4. The KJV’s Rendering and Historical English Usage

In Early Modern English, the word power had a far broader range of meaning than it does today.
The Oxford English Dictionary (s.v. “power,” sense 2) records that it could denote:

“The ability, capacity, or right to do something; control, mastery, authority; lawful power or delegated jurisdiction.”

Examples from 16th–17th-century English usage show this clearly: 

Let’s take a look at Matthew 28:18 (exousia)) 

• Tyndale: And Iesus came and spake vnto them sayinge: All power ys geve vnto me in heve and in erth.

• Coverdale : And Iesus came vnto them, talked with them, and sayde: Vnto me is geue all power in heauen and in earth.

• Geneva Bible : And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me, in heauen, and in earth.

• Bishops’ Bible: And Iesus came, and spake vnto the, saying: All power is geuen vnto me in heauen and in earth.

  We can contrast this against Luke 10:19 (dynamis))

• Tyndale:: Beholde I geve vnto you power to treade on serpetes and scorpions and over all maner power of the enimye and no thinge shall hurte you.
• Coverdale:Beholde, I haue geuen you power to treade vpon serpetes and scorpions, and ouer all power of the enemye, and nothinge shall hurte you.
• Bishops Bible:: Beholde, I geue vnto you power to treade on serpentes, and scorpions, and ouer all maner power of the enemie, & nothyng shall hurt you.
• Geneva Bible:Beholde, I giue vnto you power to treade on Serpents, and Scorpions, and ouer all the power of the enemie, and nothing shall hurt you.

Thus, “power” could refer to authority (exousia) or might (dynamis), depending on context. The KJV translators inherited this established idiom, in which power expressed both right and ability.

The distinction that modern English draws between “power” and “authority” simply did not exist with the same sharpness in 1611.

---

5. Translational and Theological Consistency

The KJV elsewhere translates ἐξουσία both as “power” and “authority,” depending on sense:

This shows that the KJV translators were aware of the nuance but chose power here (Luke 10:19) because the contextual sense includes both aspects:
Christ confers not only the right to act against evil, but also the empowerment to do so.

By using “power” twice, the KJV captures the parallelism and contrast in the verse:

“I give you power… over all the power of the enemy.”
The disciples’ divine empowerment exceeds the enemy’s power — same English word, opposite forces.

This rhetorical balance is more striking (and arguably clearer) in the KJV than in versions that separate “authority” and “power.”

Interestingly we should note that in Luke 20:20 the KJV also translates the Greek archē as power while it has used authority. 

Luke 20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.

---

6. Contextual and Theological Rationale

The disciples’ commission in Luke 10 links divine authorization (exousia) with effective spiritual capability (dynamis). The point is not the fine distinction between the two but their union in divine empowerment: believers are both authorized and enabled to overcome demonic opposition.

The KJV’s translation “power” in both cases thus emphasizes the totality of spiritual empowerment given to Christ’s servants.
By using one English word, the translators preserved the verse’s parallel structure and rhetorical symmetry, conveying a unified sense of superior divine power over the inferior power of the enemy.

This fits Luke’s broader theology of empowerment:

“Ye shall receive power (dynamin), after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you” (Acts 1:8).

In that light, “power” — encompassing both authority and might — perfectly captures the force of Jesus’ promise.

---

7. The Argument of KJV Advocates

KJV defenders summarize their reasoning as follows:

---

8. Conclusion

The criticism that the KJV mistranslates Luke 10:19 by rendering both ἐξουσία and δύναμις as “power” fails to account for the semantic range of English in 1611, the rhetorical symmetry of the verse, and the translatorial intent to express sense rather than mechanical differentiation.

In Early Modern English, power encompassed both authority (the right to act) and ability (the capacity to act).
The KJV’s rendering thus accurately reflects the dual nature of Christ’s gift — authorization and empowerment — and preserves the parallelism between divine and demonic “power.”

Far from being a mistranslation, the KJV’s wording captures the theological essence of the passage:

The believer’s God-given power, superior to the enemy’s power, guarantees victory and protection through divine commission.

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here