Misinterpretation in KJV (VIII)

Acts 12:4 (King James Version)

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Acts 12:4 (New International Version)

After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

•

After

arresting

him

,

he

put

him

in

prison

,

handing

him

over

to

καὶ2

→

πιάσας3

ὃν1

→

ἔθετο4

•

εἰς5

φυλακήν6

παραδοὺς7

αὐτόν12

◄7

→

be

guarded

by

four

squads

of

four

soldiers

each

.

Herod

→

φυλάσσειν11

►9

τέσσαρσιν8

τετραδίοις9

←

←

στρατιωτῶν10

βουλόμενος13

•

intended

to

bring

him

out

for public trial

after

the

Passover

.

◄13

→

ἀναγαγεῖν17

αὐτὸν18

◄17

τῷ19 λαῷ20

μετὰ14

τὸ15

πάσχα16

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ac 12:4.

Acts 12:4 represents a singular and puzzling inconsistency in the KJV’s translation strategy, where the translators rendered the Greek word pascha as “Easter” in this one instance while translating it as “Passover” throughout the remaining 28 occurrences in the New Testament.

The Anomaly Itself

The word “Easter” appears only once in the KJV at Acts 12:4, despite the Greek word pascha being translated correctly as “Passover” in the 28 other places where it occurs in the New Testament.[1] This creates a jarring discontinuity: readers encounter “Passover” consistently throughout Scripture, then suddenly encounter “Easter” in Acts 12:4, then return to “Passover” in subsequent passages. Later revisions of the KJV consistently translate pascha as “Passover” in all passages, including Acts 12:4, across the ASV, RSV, and NEB.[1]

The Theological Problem

The substitution introduces conceptual confusion by conflating two distinct realities. The Greek word pascha appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament and always refers to the Jewish Passover, although in English and other modern languages the term has carried over to refer to the Christian festival.[2] Herod’s intention in Acts 12:4 was to arrest Peter after the Jewish Passover festival—a specific historical and religious moment tied to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. By rendering this as “Easter,” the KJV obscures the Jewish context and suggests instead a Christian ecclesiastical observance that did not yet exist in the first century.

The Etymology Problem

The English word “Easter” is thought to be derived from the name of a Teutonic goddess of spring, Eastre, and to have been adapted by Christians to its present usage about the 8th century after Christ.[1] Easter became attached by association of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection, which happened at the time of the Passover.[3] Substituting this pagan-derived term for the Hebrew festival name fundamentally alters the theological resonance—replacing a term laden with redemptive history with one freighted with post-biblical ecclesiastical development.

The Translator’s Inconsistency

The occurrence of “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is chiefly noticeable as an example of the want of consistency in the translators, as in earlier English versions Easter had been frequently used as the translation of pascha, but at the last revision Passover was substituted in all passages but this one.[3] This suggests the Acts translator operated on different principles than those responsible for other portions of the New Testament, choosing what seemed familiar rather than what was most accurate.

[1] Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard Frederic Vos, and John Rea, in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Moody Press, 1975). [See here, here, here, here.]
[2] Tremper Longman III, Peter Enns, and Mark Strauss, eds., in The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 466.
[3] Alexander J. Schem, “Easter,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 3:12.

Misinterpretation in KJV (VII)

The KJV contains several other significant mistranslations that merit theological examination, particularly where rendering choices obscure biblical meaning or create doctrinal confusion.

Psalm 12:7: Pronoun Antecedent Error

The KJV renders Psalm 12:7 as “Thou shalt keep them” when contextually and grammatically the pronoun should refer to people, not words[1]. The theological implication is substantial: God’s promise concerns preserving His people through generations, not merely preserving textual accuracy. The KJV’s error shifts focus from God’s covenantal protection of His community to an abstract notion of textual preservation—a fundamental misalignment with the psalmist’s intent.

Acts 12:4: Anachronistic Translation

In Acts 12:4, the Hebrew word for Passover is actually translated as “Easter” even though in every other place it is translated as “Passover” by the KJV, some 28 times[1]. This inconsistency introduces theological confusion by substituting a Christian ecclesiastical term for a Jewish festival, obscuring the continuity between Old Testament redemptive history and New Testament fulfillment. Easter carries post-biblical theological baggage that distorts the passage’s meaning.

Psalm 77:2: Metaphorical Misinterpretation

The KJV renders “My sore ran in the night” when it should be “my hand was stretched out”[1]. The original conveys the psalmist’s posture of desperate prayer—an extended hand reaching toward God—whereas the KJV’s rendering suggests physical illness, fundamentally altering the passage’s spiritual significance.

Inconsistent Word Translation

The Hebrew term “dabhar” (a word or thing) is rendered by eighty-four separate English words, “panim” (face) by thirty-four, and “sim” (to set or place) by fifty-nine[1]. The seventeenth-century translators, for all their learning, had a rather imperfect grasp of biblical Hebrew, and at times they get confused about the syntax, and they repeatedly miss the nuance, or even the actual meaning, of Hebrew words[2]. This inconsistency forces readers to interpret contextually rather than rely on consistent theological vocabulary.

Poetic Compression Loss

In Psalm 23, the KJV renders “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil” with seventeen words and twenty syllables, whereas the Hebrew original contains eight words and thirteen syllables[2]. The power of biblical poetry inheres in its terrific compactness, and the King James translators, attached to a more orotund and expansive Jacobean rhetoric, rarely produce English equivalents of this compactness[2]. This expansion dilutes the emotional intensity and theological force of the original.

[1] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Chattanooga, TN: ATRI Publishing, 2011). [See here, here, here, here.]
[2] Robert Alter, The Art of Bible Translation (Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2020), 7–9.

Misinterpretation in KJV (VI)

Romans 8:26 (King James Version)

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:26 (New International Version)

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

•

In

the

same

way

,

the

Spirit

•

helps

us

in

our

δὲ2

Ὡσαύτως1

←

←

←

τὸ4

πνεῦμα5

καὶ3

συναντιλαμβάνεται6

←

►7

ἡμῶν9

weakness

.

•

We

do

not

know

what

we

ought

to

τῇ7 ἀσθενείᾳ8

γὰρ11

→

►17

οὐκ16

οἴδαμεν17

τί12

→

καθὸ14 δεῖ15

→

pray

for

,

but

the

Spirit

himself

intercedes

for

us

τὸ10 προσευξώμεθα13

←

ἀλλὰ18

τὸ20

πνεῦμα21

αὐτὸ19

ὑπερεντυγχάνει22

•

•

through		wordless		groans	.
►23		ἀλαλήτοις24		στεναγμοῖς23

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ro 8:26.

Romans 8:26 presents a fundamental tension between grammatical accuracy and theological clarity in the KJV’s rendering of “the Spirit itself.”

The Grammatical Foundation

The Greek noun for Spirit (pneuma) is neuter, yet when a pronoun replaces it, the pronoun becomes masculine.[1] The KJV’s use of “the Spirit itself” reflects the neuter pronoun auto agreeing with the neuter noun pneuma, making the translation formally correct grammatically.[1] From a strict linguistic standpoint, the translators followed Greek grammar precisely—the pronoun matches its noun’s gender.

Why This Creates a Problem

As a translation, however, this rendering fails to convey the personality of the Holy Spirit.[1] The word “spirit” suggests absence of personhood in English, since the gender of “spirit” is neuter, making “it” the appropriate pronoun—yet Scripture provides abundant evidence that the Holy Spirit is indeed a Person.[2] The KJV’s inconsistency compounds this problem: it uses masculine pronouns in some passages (John 14-16) and neuter pronouns in others (Romans 8:16, 26), referring to the same Spirit.[3]

The Theological Correction

While “the Spirit itself” is technically correct because of the neuter gender of both noun and pronoun, it is better to follow the theologically correct reading “the Spirit himself” (as in the NIV, NASB, and NKJV).[2] This rendering is poor English, though good Greek; contemporary translations correctly translate as “the Spirit himself,” since the Greeks understood the nouns to which pronouns referred and were not confused by grammatical gender.[3]

Paul clearly thought of the Holy Spirit as fully personal—“a ‘he’ and not an ‘it’.”[4] The KJV’s choice, while grammatically defensible, obscures this essential theological truth about the Spirit’s personhood.

[1] Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: The Doctrines of Man, Sin, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 248–249.
[2] Anthony D. Palma, The Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective (Springfield, MO: Logion Press; Gospel Publishing House, 2001), 20.
[3] P. C. Nelson, Bible Doctrines: Discover Profound Truths for Everyday Living (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 2009), 68–69.
[4] Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 427.

Misinterpretation in KJV (V)

Matthew 5:13 (King James Version)

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Matthew 5:13 (New International Version)

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

13

“

You

are

the

salt

of

the

earth

.

But

if

the

salt

Ὑμεῖς1

ἐστε2

τὸ3

ἅλας4

►6

τῆς5

γῆς6

δὲ8

ἐὰν7

τὸ9

ἅλας10

loses its saltiness

,

how

can

it

be

made

salty

again

?

It

is

no

μωρανθῇ11

ἐν12 τίνι13

→

→

→

→

ἁλισθήσεται14

•

→

►17

οὐδὲν16

longer

good

for

anything

,

except

to

be

thrown

out

and

ἔτι18

ἰσχύει17

εἰς15

◄16

εἰ19 μὴ20

→

→

βληθὲν21

ἔξω22

◄21

trampled		underfoot	.
καταπατεῖσθαι23		ὑπὸ24 τῶν25 ἀνθρώπων26

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Mt 5:13.

Matthew 5:13 presents a striking grammatical oddity where the KJV renders salt as “if the salt have lost his savour,” employing the masculine possessive pronoun for an inanimate object. This reflects a fundamental linguistic gap in seventeenth-century English.

The Historical Context of “Its”

In older forms of English the possessive pronoun “its” did not exist; instead “his” was used for both masculine and neuter forms, with “his” functioning as “semi-generic” for both masculine and neuter genders.[1] At the beginning of the seventeenth century “its” was beginning to come into common use, but had not yet become normative.[1] The KJV translators faced a dilemma: adopting the emerging “its” would violate their instruction to minimize changes from earlier versions, yet retaining “his” for neuter nouns created confusion.

The KJV’s Awkward Solution

The translators’ solution was to rephrase neuter possessive forms using “thereof.”[1] However, this approach was applied inconsistently. The KJV uses “its” only once (Leviticus 25:5, “that which groweth of its own accord”).[1] Occasionally the neuter use of “his” was retained, resulting in very odd statements such as “if the salt have lost his savour” (Matthew 5:13).[1]

The Problem This Creates

The phrase “salt have lost his savour” personifies salt as masculine, creating cognitive dissonance for modern readers. The grammatical construction suggests salt possesses masculine characteristics when the passage simply describes salt losing its flavor—a purely functional property. Similar constructions appear throughout: “Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches” (Daniel 4:14) and “learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender” (Matthew 24:32).[2] These renderings force readers to navigate archaic pronouns rather than focus on the theological meaning—that salt losing its preservative power becomes worthless, just as disciples losing their spiritual distinctiveness become ineffective.

[1] Rodney J. Decker, “400 Years of the KJV,” Journal of Ministry and Theology (2012), 16:1:26.
[2] Martin H. Manser, Natasha B. Fleming, et al., I Never Knew That Was in the Bible! (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 218.

Misinterpretation in KJV (IV)

Philippians 4:13 (King James Version)

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Philippians 4:13 (New International Version) I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

13

I

can

do

all

this

through

him

who

gives

me

strength

.

→

ἰσχύω2

←

πάντα1

←

ἐν3

τῷ4

→

►5

με6

ἐνδυναμοῦντί5

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Php 4:13.

The KJV characteristically employed “which” for “who” in Philippians 4:13, rendering the passage as “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”[1] This grammatical choice creates a fundamental ambiguity about the sentence’s meaning that modern readers struggle to resolve.

The Antecedent Problem

The relative pronoun “which” lacks a clear antecedent in the sentence structure. Grammatically, “which” should refer to the nearest noun, which is “things”—suggesting that the things themselves strengthen Paul. However, contextually and theologically, the intended meaning points to Christ as the source of strength. The Greek construction allows for ambiguity, though contextually Christ is the most likely referent.[2] The KJV’s use of “which” instead of “who” obscures this intended reference and forces readers to rely on contextual clues rather than grammatical clarity.

The Theological Impact

The actual meaning is that Christ, who continually infuses Paul with strength, serves as his source of strength and contentment.[3] By using “which,” the KJV creates the false impression that Paul’s accomplishments themselves provide the strengthening—a reading that inverts the theological point. The passage emphasizes dependence on Christ’s indwelling power, not self-reliance through achievement.

Modern Clarity

Contemporary translations resolve this by using “who” or restructuring entirely: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” or “through him who gives me strength.” These renderings eliminate ambiguity and clarify that Christ—not the things Paul accomplishes—provides the enabling power. The Greek preposition points to vital personal union with Christ, emphasizing that because of his living relationship with the all-sufficient Christ, Paul can do whatever the Lord calls him to do.[3] The KJV’s grammatical choice obscures this relational foundation entirely.

[1] Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 187.
[2] Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014). [See here.]
[3] Steven J. Cole, “Lesson 27: The Secret for Contentment (Philippians 4:10–13),” in Philippians, Steven J. Cole Commentary Series (Dallas: Galaxie Software, 2017). [See here, here.]

Misinterpretation in KJV (III)

The KJV contains several additional translation errors beyond those already discussed, stemming from both textual limitations and the translators’ incomplete mastery of biblical languages.

Grammatical Misrenderings

The KJV characteristically employed “which” for “who,” as seen in Philippians 4:13 where it reads “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”[1] This creates confusion about the antecedent—whether Christ or “things” performs the strengthening. Similarly, the KJV uses “his” for “its,” rendering “salt has lost his savour” in Matthew 5:13[1], which personifies salt inappropriately. The plural form “cherubims” appears in Hebrews 9:5 instead of the correct Hebrew plural “cherubim.”[1]

Archaic Vocabulary Problems

Words that held different meanings in the seventeenth century create systematic confusion: “allege” was used for “prove,” “communicate” for “share,” “suffer” for “allow,” “allow” for “approve,” “let” for “hinder,” “prevent” for “precede,” and “conversation” for “conduct.”[1] These semantic shifts render passages obscure or misleading to modern readers who interpret the words according to contemporary definitions.

Underlying Textual Issues

The Greek text underlying the KJV was essentially medieval and contained accumulated scribal mistakes, though most variations were small in significance and did not materially affect the Bible’s message.[1] The translators lacked access to many valuable manuscripts now known, including the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrian Manuscripts, as well as early papyrus documents.[1] This textual poverty forced the translators to work with inferior source material, introducing errors that later revisions corrected through access to earlier, more reliable witnesses.

[1] Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 186–187.

Misinterpretation in KJV (II)

Genesis 15:12 (King James Version)

And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Genesis 15:12 (New International Version)

As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him.

and

•

a

thick

and

dreadful

darkness

came

over

him

.

12 וְ

13 הִנֵּ֥ה

►15

16 גְדֹלָ֖ה

•

14 אֵימָ֛ה

15 חֲשֵׁכָ֥ה

17 נֹפֶ֥לֶת

18 עָל

19 ָֽיו

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ge 15:12.

Genesis 15:12 presents a critical mistranslation where the KJV’s grammatical confusion obscures the unified nature of God’s manifestation to Abram.

The Grammatical Error

The Hebrew literally reads “behold! a terror of great darkness,” or “behold! a terror, even great darkness, falling upon him,” where two separate entities of terror and darkness did not occur—the terror was the darkness.[1] The KJV’s rendering as “an horror of great darkness fell upon him” treats these as distinct phenomena, when the Hebrew employs a single construct phrase where darkness functions as a modifier intensifying the terror. The translators mistook an adjective relationship for a noun relationship, essentially reading the Hebrew as if two separate things descended upon Abram rather than recognizing that darkness itself constitutes the terror.

What This Means Theologically

In this special pronouncement of God’s presence, on the day when God ratified the eternally important Abrahamic Covenant, He did so by means of darkness.[1] The unified nature of this experience matters profoundly. The terror was the darkness[1]—not terror plus darkness, but a single overwhelming encounter where God’s presence manifests through obscurity rather than illumination. God could have manifested Himself with light, such as when His glory filled His tabernacle and later His temple, but He chose not to. In this case God revealed Himself by means of darkness.[1]

The KJV’s separation of these elements weakens the paradox at the heart of the narrative: God’s presence, typically associated with light and clarity, here appears as impenetrable darkness. The narrator pictures Abram as experiencing the approach of God, which produces a great sense of fear. The darkness may be so that Abram will not see God, as this could cause death.[2] By treating terror and darkness as distinct phenomena rather than as a unified manifestation, the KJV loses the theological force—that encountering the divine produces an experience so overwhelming it can only be described as terrifying darkness itself.

[1] Greg Harris, The Darkness and the Glory: His Cup and the Glory from Gethsemane to the Ascension. (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), 80.
[2] William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1998), 341.

Misinterpretation in KJV (I)

Job 3:8 (King James Version)

Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning.

Job 3:8 (New International Version)

May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

לִוְיָתָן n.m. serpent, dragon, leviathan, poet. and rare  -sea-monster = crocodile; whale; dragon producing exlipses (mythol.); fig. of Egypt as all-engulfing. 

cf. Richard Whitaker et al., The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).

Job 3:8 presents a striking mistranslation where the KJV renders the Hebrew word leviathan as “the mourning,”[1] fundamentally obscuring the mythological and poetic force of Job’s curse.

The Mistranslation’s Origin

The KJV’s error followed rabbinic precedent,[1] but this choice created confusion by substituting a mundane concept for a cosmic one. The translators appear to have conflated leviathan with a Hebrew word associated with funeral rites, leading them to render the passage as if Job were summoning those “ready to raise up their mourning.” This lexical confusion transformed a reference to a primordial monster into language about grief rituals—a fundamental category error.

What the Text Actually Conveys

Job’s actual allusion draws on ancient Near Eastern mythology, where a great dragon consumed the sun, and leviathan appears as a sea monster defeated by the god Baal in Ugaritic tradition.[2] By invoking leviathan, Job employs a mythic framework to express the intensity of his curse. The passage alludes to magicians summoning eclipses, understood as caused by a sun-consuming primordial monster disturbed from age-old sleep.[1] Job is not asking for mourners to lament his birthday—he’s invoking cosmic forces of chaos and destruction, calling upon those powerful enough to awaken the leviathan itself.

The Interpretive Consequence

The KJV’s domestication of this language strips away the mythic grandeur and cosmic resonance. Where Job expresses despair through apocalyptic imagery—summoning the most fearsome creature in the ancient Near Eastern imagination—the KJV reduces his lament to funeral customs. Modern translations recognize that “mourning” can alternatively be translated as “leviathan” or “crocodile,” capturing those courageous enough to confront such a fierce animal.[3] This restoration recovers Job’s rhetorical strategy: his curse reaches toward the deepest mythological resources available to express the magnitude of his suffering and his desire to unmake creation itself.

[1] David L. Jeffrey, in A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Richard D. Patterson, “Job,” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 770.
[3] John G. Butler, Job: The Suffering Saint, Bible Biography Series (Clinton, IA: LBC Publications, 2008), 69.