What issue(s) do the Jews have with the translation of the KJV 'Bible' (Gen.-Mal.)? (Exclude. Hebrew-Englis?

answer: Translation issues, interpretation issues

Isaiah 9:5 − The Hebrew Tanakh reads: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God” Isaiah was referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. Again, in an attempt to insert a Jesus prophecy, the KJV changed the tense from the present to the future, making it, “A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God”. [In Hebrew Hezekiah means “the mighty God.”]

Matthew 2:23 − “And he (Jesus) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets” Which prophets said that? According to scholars, rabbis and historians, the city of Nazareth did not exist during the writings of Hebrew Scriptures. The word “Nazareth” does not appear anywhere in Hebrew Scriptures. This is even verified by the New Testament Concordance!

One especially telling difference is that Christians have an entirely different breakdown of the Ten Commandments than Jews do. For Jews, the first commandment is "I am the Lord your G-d," and the second is "You shall have no other gods before me... You shall not make graven images." Christians don't consider "I am the Lord your G-d" as a commandment, and split the first two into "No other gods" and "no graven images." This seems like a small, inconsequential thing. But from the point of view of Judaism vs. Christianity, it is very telling. For Jews, the statement of G-d's identity is a commandment in and of itself, because there is only one G-d - the "I" in question. And therefore for Jews the commandment against other gods goes hand in hand with idolatry - you can not divide G-d, you can not worship more than one god, you can not pray to idols depicting other gods.

Isaiah 7:14 − The Hebrew Tanakh says “Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman (alma) is with child, and she will bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” **Take note, this was written in the present tense. ** But the Greek Septuagint changed “alma,” saying “Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 1:22-23). The church changed the entire verse from present to FUTURE tense and then went further to change the Hebrew alma, meaning a young woman to virgin.

and more

sturdy questions. right this is one for you.Did you already know that from the 1st e book (Genesis 3:15 ) to the final e book (Revelation 22:21) and all the books in between that's the tale of Jesus Christ. The old testomony foretold His coming and the hot testomony is approximately His beginning and lifestyles and dying and resurrection. Is that no longer a miracle that over those years and by using persons who in no way met one yet another yet all of them wrote approximately Jesus. it would desire to easily be God who might desire to take action miracle. How else might desire to the familiar thread of Christ the Saviour be written in this style of way. additionally, do you already know what proportion civilizations have needed to break the Bible? some nevertheless do yet have not succeeded. God preserved His Holy be conscious. in simple terms the survival of that's a miracle.

RW is correct. A simple example: the famous Isaiah 7:14. The correct translation of "ha-almah" is "the young maiden." It is most definitely *not* virgin, since there's another word for this--"bethulah". And even if you want to quibble about this, you cannot quibble about the first part of the word--it's "the", not "a". This indicates that it's someone that Ahaz and Isaiah both knew, most probably Ahaz' wife, and **cannot** be a forward-looking statement.

For what it's worth, the "Septuagint" often referred to was, for everything except the Torah, **never** translated into Greek by Jews. **That** was done by Christians.

it is inherently a less accurate translation, because its a hebrew-greek-english translation.

additionally it has very clear, deliberate mistranslations that warp the meaning of the text to make it appear to describe Jesus when it does not actaully mean that.

The KJV is the Word of God in English. All the other "translations" are from the corrupt Vaticanous and Sinaiticus texts, they all have numerous verses missing.

RW - proof plx, k thnx