Biblical Errors Inspired by Who?

by Harald Zieger

May 18, 2025

Are the Bibles, as translated and available today, the “Inspired Word of God”?

And can the highly rated authorized King James version hold the truth to that statement?

2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The Answers in Genesis reproduction of Noah's Ark: 

Here is a presentation of Noah's family by Answers in Genesis.  Where do they get the information about the color of Noah's sons? Where in the Bible can one find that?  I began to search, but couldn’t find one word about it in Scripture.

Many modern sects hold that the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (the A.V.) is in itself the “inspired word of God.”

We must ourselves ask this:  Is God the author of error? Did Yahweh reveal His Word directly to man in the English language in the year 1611? 

If the King James Version of the New Testament contains at least some errors, then it should be reasoned that this version, no matter how venerated, was also translated by fallible men.

Written at Westminster Abbey by the scholars of the Anglican Church at the behest of the English Parliament in 1643, The Westminster Confession of Faith was also accepted and adopted by many other denominations both in England and abroad. 

The churchmen at that time, just over thirty years after the institution of the King James Bible by the Anglicans, did not even consider the A.V. by itself to be the inspired word of God, but admitted instead the authority of the original languages. The veracity of this statement, as it appears in the Confession, has been verified from several sources. From Chapter 1, Section 8 of The Westminster Confession of Faith:     

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. 

But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope”.

We have much more classical Greek literature available to us than even classical Latin. Here, we will see just how well the translators knew this venerated edition of the writings commonly referred to as the Bible. This examination shall commence with a walk-through of some of the translations found in the epistles of the apostle Paul. 

Romans 1:4: “And declared to be the Son of God….” Paul is often criticized for this phrase, yet the verb ὁρίζω (orizo) does not ever mean to declare, and it is evident from Scripture that not only were there other sons of God, i.e., Deut. 14:1 and Luke 3:38, but that Yahshua Christ was a son of God long before His passion and resurrection. 

There are several hundred differences between the King James Version and other translations, yet not all of them are due solely to differences in translation. Many are due to the differences in the texts of the various manuscripts employed. Many others, however, represent a difference of interpretation within the broader context of Scripture. With a few exceptions, here I will neglect those and attempt to focus upon plain errors which can be shown from Greek grammar and the meanings of words as they are known from literature, both Biblical and otherwise, and errors of interpretation, which can be demonstrated from the immediate context of particular verses within the passages wherein they appeared. 

Aside from the Hebrew Bible, the Greek poets also claimed a status for men as sons of God, or of a god, for which we see Paul’s own words in Acts 17:28. Here, Paul uses a rhetorical device to tell us that Christ proved His own sonship. The verb ὁρίζω, according to Liddell & Scott (after this L&S), is basically to divide or separate from, as a boundary. Thus, it is evident that Christ was “distinguished as a Son of Yahweh,” which is what Paul is telling us.

Why this is important will become clearer in a later part about wrongly translated words.

Romans 2:9 and 2:10: “and also of the Gentile … and also to the Gentile” in these verses, and also at Romans 3:9, I Corinthians 10:32 and 12:13, and twice in John 7:35, the A.V. translated Ἕλλην” (G1672), which is the Greek word for Greek, as gentile instead. 

G1672   (Strong's Concordance)

Ἕλλην

Hellēn

hel'-lane

From G1671; a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; 

By extension, a Greek-speaking person, especially a non-Jew: - Gentile, Greek.

Rom 2:9  Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Judeans first, and also of the Gentiles; GREEK

Rom 2:10  But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Judeans first, and also to the Gentiles: GREEK

Rom 3:9  What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Judeans and Gentiles, GREEKS that they are all under sin;

1Co 10:32  Give none offence, neither to the Judeans, nor to the Gentiles, GREEKS nor to the church of God:

1Co 12:13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be  Judeans or Gentiles, GREEKS, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

John 7:35  Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, GREEKS and teach the Gentiles? GREEKS

This one is really dishonest, since Paul consistently used the Greek word ἔθνος to refer to the nations, and the A.V. consistently renders ἔθνος as gentile– or sometimes heathen or nation – everywhere else it appears. Ἕλλην is a specific word meaning Greek, and nothing else.

Romans 8:15: “the Spirit of adoption”. The word υἱοθεσία does not, by itself, ever mean adoption in Greek writings. The word means a placement or a position of a son. There were other words in Greek literature which were consistently used to describe the act of adoption, namely εἰσποίησις (a noun, a making into), εἰσποίέω (a verb), and εἰσποιητός (an adjective). 

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

G5206   (Strong's Concordance)

υἱοθεσία

uihothesia

hwee-oth-es-ee'-ah

From a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087; the placing as a son, that is, adoption (figuratively Christian sonship in respect to God): - adoption (of children, of sons).

While a son can be placed for adoption, where υἱοθεσία may be used to describe the act of the placing, it does not describe the actual adoption, and υἱοθεσία can be used also to describe other things, such as the placing of a son into a household or as an heir, which also happens to correctly describe the Christian promise as it is outlined in the Old Testament as well. 

Therefore, and especially since there is no other indication in the text that the idea of adoption is ever in the context, υἱοθεσία needs to be rendered here “spirit of the position of sons (or of a son)”. At Romans 8:23, the phrase “waiting for the adoption” would better be rendered “awaiting the placement of sons”. In Romans 9:4, the phrase “ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία” should be “whose is the position of sons”. 

It is absolutely dishonest that υἱοθεσία be translated as adoption, because the word has a much more general meaning, and the translators can only have presumed that Paul used the word to mean adoption. Yet, the overall context of Paul’s letters and of the New Testament refutes such a presumption.

And in the context of the universalist view, they had to use the phrase that way to make room to squeeze in everyone who can walk and speak.

Rom 8:15  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of the position of sons, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the placement of sons, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; whose is the position of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Romans 15:9 to 11: 

Let me first quote the A.V. rendering of this pericope:

Rom 15:9  And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

Rom 15:10  And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

Rom 15:11  And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

Verse 9 paraphrases II Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49:

2Sa 22:50 Therefore I will give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen, and I will sing praises unto thy name.

Psa 18:49 Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name.

In the places where the A.V. has “Gentiles” here, the word is “heathen” in the A.V. in those corresponding Old Testament verses.

Verses 10 and 11 quote Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 117:1, respectively:

Deu 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Psa 117:1 O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.

In those places in the A.V., it reads “nations” where the A.V. has “Gentiles” here in Romans. 

The words "gentile" (which is not even an English word), "heathen," and "nation" in the New Testament are most often used to represent the Greek word ἔθνος, which primarily refers to a nation in the sense of ethnicity. Here and elsewhere, it is evident that by translating ἔθνος into these various words indiscriminately, it is relatively easy to create false doctrines and to pervert the interpretation of the promises to Abraham and the other patriarchs. 

While there are a couple of places where we could legitimately translate the word ἔθνος as heathen, it must be done with great reservation, and also with the knowledge that the word does not ever bear the meaning non-Adamite by itself, and that it can also properly and literally be rendered people in these places.

1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The phrase “the princes of this world” needs to be rendered “the governors of this age”. The word αἰών, from which the English word eon is derived, is only temporal in meaning and never spatial.

Yet on several occasions, the A.V. has rendered the word as world, as the translators also always rendered both κόσμος and οἰκουμένη as world, thus obfuscating the differences in meaning among those three different words. Respectively, the three words should be taken to mean:  

aἰών  age

kόσμος  society, order

οἰκουμένη  living space, land

Yet to take this a step further, the way that the A.V. translators understood the word world is different than how we understand it today, and if this is so, then they must be pardoned, but only in this respect.

Let's investigate the word world in the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Edition. We find that it derives from an Old and Middle English word, weorold, and we are referred to an entry for a supposed proto-Indo-European word (wi-ro) in their appendix of so-called “Indo-European Roots”.

When we check this entry, we find that the word world comes from the Germanic wer, akin to the Latin vir, for man, and the Germanic ald, which is a life or an age (from which we get our word old), and that, put together, the word “world” means only “age of man.”

Therefore, originally, “world” is a temporal term and not a spatial one! It means our Adamic age, and it does not mean everyone on the planet or the planet itself! Our confusion over the meaning of this word has led us into total confusion when attempting to understand our own literature, especially our Bibles! Why do we let satan publish dictionaries? The “world” is the age of Adamic man, and it should be nothing else!

1 Corinthians 4:14

1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

While it does not seem to make a big difference, the A.V.’s mistreatment of ἐντρέπω certainly does have an impact where it appears in several verses. 

L&S even defines ἐντρέπω as “to feel shame or fear”, where they cite only the N.T. for this use, at ἐντρέπω part II. Section 4 of their definition. Yet this is not the general sense of the word, which basically means “to turn about...linger, hesitate...to turn towards, give heed to, pay regard to, to respect or reverence...” (L&S). 

Therefore, we must ask, how could it mean anything differently only where it appears in the N.T.? We cannot agree that ἐντρέπω should ever mean to shame. The A.V. also has “to be ashamed” for this word at II Thess. 3:14 and Titus 2:8, but it has “to revere” (or “reverence”) at Matt. 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13, and Heb. 12:9, and “to regard” at Luke 18:2 and 4. 

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may turn about.

Tit 2:8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part would have respect, having no evil thing to say concerning us.

Mat 21:37 But last of all, he sent unto them his son, saying, They shall respect my son.

Mrk 12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will respect my son.

II Thess. 3:14 and Titus 2:8, but it has “to revere” (or “reverence”) at Matt. 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13, and Heb. 12:9, and “to regard” at Luke 18:2 and 4. 

1 Corinthians 4:14 needs to be rendered correctly: “I do not write these things regarding you, but as I would advise my beloved children.” Now the real difference is whether we perceive an authoritarian Paul who seeks to shame his audience, as the A.V. would have it, or whether we have an adjuring Paul, exhorting his audience as a brother, and that agrees with the use of the word in all secular Greek writings.

1 Corinthians 16:22

Here, the KJV, leaving certain words untranslated, reads

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

The translation of these words would lead to rendering the cause:

1Co 16:22  “If anyone does not love the Prince, he must be accursed, a rebel to be destroyed.” 

The veracity of this translation can be demonstrated using a tool as simple as Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The Greek word ἀνάθεμα means accursed, and Μαράνα𝝉ά is a Hebrew phrase made up of two words, mara (see Strong’s #’s 4751 and 4785), a rebel, and natha (see Strong’s #’s 5421 and 5422), in the passive to be destroyed. 

2 Corinthians 6:17

In this verse, the KJV adds the word thing to the text.  This passage needs to be rendered: 

2Co 6:17 Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince, and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you.

It is asserted here that “the impure” directly refers to the subject “them” earlier in the passage, and therefore, no added words are necessary to understand this verse. 

The KJV translators have added hundreds of words to the New Testament, whereas it is only necessary to add a handful. With an honest translation, it is rarely necessary to add words to the text in order to capture the meaning of the original Greek

II Corinthians 8:2 

This word ἁπλότης [aplotaes] appears in Rom. 12:8 (KJV: “simplicity”), Eph. 6:5, and Col. 3:22 (KJV: “singleness”), and needs to be translated  “simplicity” on those three occasions. At II Cor. 11:3, the word  “sincerity” needs to be used where the A.V. has “simplicity”. Yet at II Cor. 8:2, 9:11, and 9:13, where the subject of discussion is economic, the A.V. translates the word “liberality”, “bountifully”, and “liberal” respectively.

On each occasion, the word must be rendered “sincerity”. We must maintain a distinction between giving with sincerity and giving liberally, or bountifully, as the professional churchmen would have it, although the meaning of the word does not. This is a blatantly dishonest device on the part of the King James translators, who were obviously seeking to enrich the churchmen at the expense of the flock

Galatians 4:5 

Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we would recover the position of sons.

The verb ἀπολαμβάνω, [appolambano], is correctly translated in this context, “to recover,” but is merely “to receive” in the KJV. If the writer intended to say 'receive,' then λαμβάνω without the prefix would have been sufficient.

For ἀπολαμβάνω, L&S have “to take or receive from another, to receive what is one’s due... II. to take back, get back, regain, recover...”. 

λαμβάνω is simply to receive. The KJV more properly renders ἀπολαμβάνω “receive...again” at Luke 6:34. 

Luk 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

The same word, ἀπολαμβάνω, is correctly translated in Luke.

Paul uses the word in the sense “to receive what is one’s due” at Rom. 1:27 and Col. 3:24. In the CNT it is “recovered” at Luke 15:27, in context, where the A.V. also has “received”. Rendering “receive” here when the meaning of the word is obviously much stronger is, at the least, an abdication of the responsibility which Christians have, to examine the Scriptures. At the most, it is deceptive. Coupled with the mistranslation of υἱοθεσία as “adoption”, rather than as the “position of a son” (for which see the discussion above concerning Romans 8:15), it is surely deceptive, since it is tantamount to creating a new religion. Errors such as this appear in the KJV rather consistently, and so it has in essence created a new religion, which is not Christianity! Here, note Deut. 14:1 and know that Paul is addressing “lost” Israelites (and only lost Israelites, i.e. Matt. 10:6, 15:24) for which see Gal. 3:13, 15, 16, 22-26; 4:3-6, 28, 31; and 5:1. These statements, made to Galatians, would be utter nonsense unless Paul knew that he was speaking to “lost” Israelites (those of the Assyrian deportation and times earlier), and so here one can only write “recover” if one wants to write honestly. The Christogenea New Testament renders Galatians 4:5: “in order that He would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons”, which indeed we are if we are Adamic peoples

Galatians 4:5 

Paul uses the word in the sense “to receive what is one’s due” at Rom. 1:27 and Col. 3:24. Where the word needs to be translated “recovered” at Luke 15:27, in context, the A.V. also has “received”. Rendering “receive” here when the meaning of the word is obviously much stronger is, at the least, an abdication of the responsibility which Christians must examine the Scriptures. At most, it is deceptive. 

Coupled with the mistranslation of υἱοθεσία [uiocessia] as “adoption”, (for which see the discussion above concerning Romans 8:15), it is surely deceptive, since it is tantamount to creating a new religion. Errors such as this appear in the KJV rather consistently, and so it has, in essence, created a new religion, which is not Christianity! Here, note Deut. 14:1 and know that Paul is addressing “lost” Israelites (and only lost Israelites. 

Only to the lost Israelites, see Matt. 10:6, 15:24: 

Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

If we look at Gal. 3:13, 15, 16, 22-26; 4:3-6, 28, 31; and 5:1. These statements, made to Galatians, would be utter nonsense unless Paul knew that he was speaking to “lost” Israelites (those of the Assyrian deportation and times earlier).

Therefore, one can only write “recover” if one wants to be honest. Thus, Gal 4:5 can only be honestly translated 

In order that He would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons”, which indeed we are if we are Adamic peoples

2 Thessalonians 3:2 

2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

The last clause of this verse, consistent in all of the ancient manuscripts which the NA27 cites, is indisputably:

οὐ [u, unconditional negative] γὰρ [gar, since] πάντων [panton] ἡ [hey] πίστις [pistoc]. 

A word for “men”, italicized by the A.V. here, does not appear in the clause. Neither does the verb “to have”, but that word is not italicized in the A.V.

The conjunction γάρ is here explained by Liddell & Scott: “I. Argumentative, to introduce the reason for a statement, which usually precedes....” This first use fits this occasion perfectly. Other uses of γάρ listed are “II. Epexegetic” and “III. Strengthening,” and do not fit the grammatical purpose or the context here. L & S states that γάρ is in Greek “regularly placed after the first word of a sentence,” although of course this is not the case in English. γάρ here is rendered “since”, to introduce the reason for the statement which precedes.

The word πάντων here is the Genitive Plural of πᾶς, “all”. The Genitive case marks source or possession. Surely in this case it does not indicate source. The particle οὐ is an unconditional negative, as opposed to the conditional μή. Here it negates πάντων, the word which follows.

The verb εἰμί, [eimi] “to be”, is unique among Greek verbs in that “as in classical Greek, so also in the N.T. εἰμί is very often omitted...ἐστίν most frequently of all the parts” (quoting Thayer, εἰμί, VI., p. 180 col. B.). ἐστίν is the 3rd person Present singular of εἰμί, i.e., “it is” or “is”

ἡ πίστις, “the faith”, with the definite article, is in the Nominative case and certainly cannot be the object of any verb, as the A.V. has it to be, supplying a verb of their own which does not exist. That situation would require the Accusative Case: τὴν πίστιν. Since ἡ πίστις is Nominative, the words must be the subject of the clause. This is a fundamental of grammar and should be readily evident in any Greek grammar textbook.

With this, it should be clear that the A.V. rendering of the clause is absolutely untenable. 

The rendering of the text: since (the conjunction γὰρ introducing the reason for the preceding statement) the faith (because in English we are inclined to state the subject of the clause at its beginning) is (ἐστίν being implied, as it often is) not (the negative particle preceding that which it negates) of (i.e. belonging to, or for) all (being in the Genitive case), 

And that we should be protected from those disgusting and wicked men since the faith is not for all. 

This is the only proper and literal translation.