|
|
|
Translation Errors: King James Version of the Holy Bible
Is the KJV the inerrant Word of God as many pastors maintain, or is it a sloppy translation of the Word of God by men with an axe to grind who may have intentionally introduced 23,000 translation errors (or one error per verse) in the REAL Word of God? A simple test puts us on the right track. The KJV version of Deuteronomy 23:2 includes the word "bastard" which was translated from the Hebrew word "mamzer". We know from the OED and other lexigraphical records that a "bastard" at the time of King James was a child born to mixed race parents, but that the meaning today has completely changed to a child born out of wedlock. Of course this simple change in the definition of an English word cannot cause a switch in the Word of God from "mixed race parents" to "born out of wedlock". If the KJV really IS the inerrant word of God, then it too cannot be changed so drastically just by a change in the definitions of English words. Who did this and why they did it is another topic which is beyond the scope of this analysis of the KJV, but we must agree here that "bastard" cannot mean both, and that those who claim [read: jews] that the Hebrew word "mamzer" means "born out of wedlock" are LIARS. Jesus called them children of the devil, liars and the father of lies, and murderers from the beginning, which is proof enough for me that they're LIARS. How do you know when jews like Alan Dirshowitz are LYING? When their mouths are open. Another English word whose definition changed remarkably since the KJV is the word "stranger", a single English word which is translated from 8 different Hebrew words. In the following two verses in the KJV, it would appear that there's an error in the Word of God, wherein a "stranger" can become a fellow Israelite simply by getting circumcised, but on the other hand can never become king:
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, Exodus 12:48 Clearly to maintain that the KJV is the inerrant word of God would require that you do the basic research of the above two Hebrew words to understand the vast differences. It was a sin for solomon to marry the daughter of the Pharaoh, who was referred to as a "stranger" in the Deuteronomy sense, but it was not a sin for him to marry a stranger of the Exodus sense, so it's vital for any Christian to know which is a sin and which is not. Amazingly, almost two thirds of those who took the poll to exile blacks indicated that they know the difference. The third English word which has diverged so wildly from the original Hebrew context is the simple word "man" which was translated from more than 43 different Greek and Hebrew words. While our concordances and dictionaries completely ignore the difference between "enosh" and "adam", we know that Paul was fully aware of these differences when he quoted Psalms 8:4 in his writing in Hebrews 2:6: What is man [Enosh], that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man [Adam], that thou visitest him? Psalms 8:4 What4100 is man,582 that3588 thou art mindful2142 of him? and the son1121 of man,120 that3588 thou visitest6485 him? But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Hebrews 2:6 If you don't know this distinction between what Paul meant by "son of Adam" and "Enosh" because you rely solely on the MEN who "translated" the Word of God, then it's literally impossible for you to know what the original Word of God was all about.
YHUDAH vs. YHUDIY
JUDAH OR YHUDAH There are 771 instances of the word "Judah" in the KJV, 762 in the Old Testament which are translated from the Hebrew word "Jehudi", "Yhudah" or "Yhehudah", and 9 which are translated from the Greek word "Iouda". Each instance is a reference to Judah, a son of Jacob, or his descendants who lived in Judaea or Judea, who were members of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
JEW OR YHUDIY There are 276 instances of the words "jew" or "jews" in the KJV, 86 in the Old Testament which are translated from the Hebrew word "Jehudi", "Yhudiy" or "Yehudiy", and 190 in the New Testament which are translated from the Greek word "Ioudaios" There's never any indication in any of the Holy Scripture that any member of the Tribe of Judah [read: a descendant of Judah] was ever referred to as a "jew", nor is there any indication that any descendant of Jehudi was ever referred to as a member of the Tribe of Judah. Each original reference is very clear, so it's revealing that Strong's has two different numbers for the same word, and provides the same misleading "translation" for each number: H3064: Patronymic from H3063; a Jehudite (that is, Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (that is, Judah): - Jew. H3065: The same as H3064; Jehudi, an Israelite: - Jehudi. Where did this jewish sleight of hand come from?
yehu^di^y yeh-hoo-dee' The same as H3064; Jehudi, an Israelite: - Jehudi. Where did Strong's get the authority to "reinterpret" Judah to mean jew. Certainly not from the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible NEVER infers that "Yhudiy" is "patronymic from H3063". Strong's #H3063 is the definition of "Yhudah", a completely different race of people called Israelites who were from a completely different geographic location than the jews [Strong's #H3064] were from. Strong's is correct that the Hebrew word "Yhudiy" is translated as the English word "jew", but it simply has no basis for confusing H3063 [read: Judah] with both H3064 AND H3065 [read: Jehudi]. There's only one possible source of confusion about the KJV that might justify Strong's clear error that a "Jew" is a member of the Tribe of Judah, and that's the KJV translators use of the word "Jewry" in place of "Yehud":
In this instance, the KJV translators interpreted "yehu^d to mean "jewry" rather than "Judah". It seems that Strong's goes along with the game by confusing "Judah" and "Jewry", once again:
Most modern translators recognize the error and translate it as "Judah". The error by the KJV translators occurs again in the New Testament, twice translating the Greek word "Ioudaia" as "Jewry":
Strong's doesn't make the same error with G2449 that it made with G2453:
And, again, modern translators recognize and correct the error to "Judea" or "Judaea" (see below). This inability of both the KJV translators and Strong's to keep the distinction between Judah and Jehudi clear is an affront to the intelligence of 2 billion Christians worldwide. It's not a minor sleight of hand--it's an insult to God. The mistake isn't in the Holy Bible itself--it's with biased or ignorant KJV and Strong's translators who were most likely adversely influenced by jews. It's unconscionable that they'd translate "Yehudah" as "Judah" 762 times, "Yehudi" as "jew" 86 times, and then suddenly translate "Yehud" to mean "jewry" three times. The fact that all modern translators recognize the error suggests a very sinister plan was in play. There's no justification for attempting to mislead billions of Christians like this. It's the kind of treachery you'd expect from the same kind of jews who demanded that Pontias Pilate crucify Jesus Christ without cause. It's the perfect way to sow confusion, discredit important racial lineages, convince the world that jews and Israelites are "equal", but it's a very dangerous act of treachery by jews who're guests in so many host Christian and Muslim nations This perverse and pervasive "accomplishment" by jews worldwide is proof of their ability and willingness to mislead and LIE to the Christian and Muslim world. It's these kinds of LIES which undermine the moral compass and racial integrity of entire nations. It certainly misled our very own Christian Founding Forefathers. This alone is justification for 86 nations before us to throw the jews out. Banning school prayer, legalizing abortion, decriminalizing adultery and sodomy, is just icing on the cake compared to tampering with the Word of God. It's a crime of such immense proportions that words just can't describe it.
"AND JESUS SAID; O FATHER, FORGIVE THEM NOT FOR ‘THEY KNOW' WHAT THEY DO." But in The Emphatic Diaglott, Containing the Original Greek Text of what is commonly styled the New Testament (According to the Recession of Dr. J.J. Griesbach) with an Interlinearly Word for Word English Translation, A New Emphatic Version, based on the interlinearly translation, on the renderings of eminent critics, and on the various readings of "The Vatican Manuscript," No. 1209 in the Vatican Library, together with illustrative and explanatory foot notes, and a copious selection of references, to the whole of which is added a valuable alphabetical appendix, by Benjamin Wilson. States on page 304, that Jesus ACTUALLY SAID: "AND JESUS SAID; O FATHER, FORGIVE THEM NOT FOR ‘THEY KNOW' WHAT THEY DO." DO YOU SEE HOW THE ANTI-CHRISTS HAVE CHANGED SOME KEY SCRIPTURES IN THE PAST AND ARE STILL DOING SO WITH THE NEW BIBLE VERSIONS WHICH ARE CONTINUALLY COMING OUT?
Two thieves were crucified with Him; Dimas on His right and Gestas on His left. When they heard the mockery of the priesthood, they ask the same questions saying, "Yes, if you are the Christ, save yourself and us." Later, Dimas rebuked Gestas saying, "Don't you fear God? We are all being put to death. We deserve it because of what we have done, but this man is innocent." Then Dimas said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered, "Verily, I say unto you today, you shall be with Me in paradise." Unto Gestas he spoke not a word, To the Jews he said, "Father forgive them not, for they know what they do."
The King James version of the Bible is just that. A version concocted by the King under the guidance of the Pope so as to hide the real truth. I was taught by the church I went to, which is government controlled as it has to be by the treaty of 1213 and reiterated in the 1783 Treaty between The Pope's Elector, King John and the First President of the United States, Sam Huntington and Charles Thompson, Secretary. I read the passage, when Jesus was on the cross, from a very old manuscript that said, "Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do." This is different than what most people believe he said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."
|
               |
|
Modified Tuesday, November 02, 2010 Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
