Misinterpretation in KJV (XIV)

Hebrews 9:7 (King James Version)

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Hebrews 9:7 (New International Version)

But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

But

only

the

high

priest

entered

•

the

inner

room

,

and

that

δὲ2

μόνος8

ὁ9

ἀρχιερεύς10

←

•

εἰς1

τὴν3

δευτέραν4

←

•

•

de

monos

ho

archiereus

eis

tēn

deuteran

only

once

a

year

,

and

never

without

blood

,

which

he

offered

•

ἅπαξ5

τοῦ6

ἐνιαυτοῦ7

•

οὐ11

χωρὶς12

αἵματος13

ὃ14

→

προσφέρει15

hapax

tou

eniautou

ou

chōris

haimatos

ho

prospherei

for

himself

and

for

the

sins

the

people

had

committed

in

ὑπὲρ16

ἑαυτοῦ17

καὶ18

►22

τῶν19

ἀγνοημάτων22

τοῦ20

λαοῦ21

◄22

←

←

hyper

heautou

kai

tōn

agnoēmatōn

tou

laou

ignorance	.
←

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Heb 9:7.

Hebrews 9:7 represents a critical omission in the KJV where the translators simply dropped a crucial theological qualifier, fundamentally altering the scope and nature of the high priest’s atonement work. The passage should read that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice “for the sins the people had committed in ignorance,” yet the KJV renders it merely as “for the errors of the people,” stripping away the essential concept of ignorance.

The Theological Distinction

The Greek word agnoema, used only once in the New Testament, means literally an act of ignorance and refers to a sin of ignorance.[1] This distinction matters profoundly because a distinction is drawn between errors (agnoēmata) and crimes (harmartēmata)[2]—not all sins were equal in the sacrificial system. It regards sin in the mildest light possible without making excuses for it, referring to sins not especially meant to occur rather than open outright acts of rebellion.[1]

The KJV’s omission of the ignorance qualifier obscures this crucial theological category. By rendering the passage without specifying that these were sins committed unknowingly, the translation loses the essential framework distinguishing between unintentional transgressions and willful rebellion. This categorical distinction shaped Israel’s entire sacrificial theology.

The Nature of the Atonement

The high priest entered the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice for “the sins the people had committed in ignorance,” and these errors apparently were such that the people were liable to punishment for them. This was willful ignorance—the people could have known the right course to follow, but chose not to know it.[3] The KJV’s rendering obscures this paradox: sins of ignorance that nonetheless carried culpability because the ignorance itself was culpable.

The broader theological implication is significant. Errors through ignorance are in the Bible distinguished from errors of the heart and wilful errors.[4] By omitting this qualifier, the KJV conflates categories that Scripture carefully separates, weakening the reader’s understanding of how the Levitical system addressed different grades of transgression and how Christ’s atonement encompasses both.

[1] Kevin J. Conner, Foundations of Christian Doctrine (Conner Ministries, 2022), 139.
[2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933). [See here.]
[3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 517.
[4] W. L. Walker, “Err, Error,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr et al. (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 970.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XIII)

Hebrews 10:23 (King James Version)

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

Hebrews 10:23 (New International Version)

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

Let

us

hold

unswervingly

to

the

hope

we

profess

,

for

he

who

→

→

κατέχωμεν1

ἀκλινῆ6

►5

τῆς4

ἐλπίδος5

τὴν2

ὁμολογίαν3

γὰρ8

ὁ9

→

katechōmen

aklinē

tēs

elpidos

tēn

homologian

gar

ho

promised		is		faithful	.
ἐπαγγειλάμενος10		•		πιστὸς7
epangeilamenos				pistos

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Heb 10:23.

Hebrews 10:23 contains what is widely acknowledged as one of the KJV’s most indisputable translation errors, where “profession of our faith” should read “profession of our hope.”[1] This mistranslation creates a cascading theological problem that undermines the passage’s coherence and doctrinal force.

The Fundamental Error

The Greek word in the manuscript is unambiguously hope (elpis), not faith (pistis)—hope appears in all manuscripts and all editions of the Textus Receptus.[1] Hope and faith are entirely distinct words, making it impossible to argue the translators simply chose “faith” as an acceptable alternative rendering at this point.[1] The Greek word for hope appears 52 other times in the New Testament, and in every instance the KJV translators rendered it as “hope,” not “faith.”[1] This single exception stands as an anomalous intrusion into an otherwise consistent translation pattern.

The Theological Disruption

After faith in the previous verse come hope and love respectively, here and in verse 24, with these three nouns linked in various parts of the New Testament, especially 1 Corinthians 13:13.[2] The KJV’s substitution of “faith” for “hope” fractures this triad, obscuring the theological architecture Paul constructs. The passage should read “the confession of our hope,”[3] emphasizing believers’ public declaration of future expectation grounded in God’s promises.

The Contextual Meaning

The word translated “firmly” is not an adverb but an adjective modifying hope, and hope here probably means the objects of hope rather than a feeling with which we look to the future, so the text probably means “Let us hold on to our confession of (faith in) the unshakable things we hope for.”[2] By substituting “faith,” the KJV obscures this distinction between present trust and future expectation—the believer’s confidence in what God has promised versus confidence in God’s present character.

The Interpretive Consequences

The readers of Hebrews were being tempted to forsake their confession of Jesus Christ by going back to old covenant worship, and the writer did not exhort them to hold on to their salvation because their security was in Christ, but rather invited them to hold fast to “the hope we profess.”[4] The KJV’s rendering weakens this exhortation by replacing eschatological hope with present faith, diminishing the forward-looking dimension essential to the passage’s encouragement during persecution.

[1] William W. Combs, “Errors in the King James Version?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 4 (1999), 4:158.
[2] Paul Ellingworth and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 231–232.
[3] Tabletalk Magazine, August 2004: A Defining Era: The History of the Church in the Fourth Century (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2004), 30.
[4] Warren W. Wiersbe, Pause for Power: A 365-Day Journey through the Scriptures (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2010). [See here.]

Misinterpretation in KJV (XII)

Acts 19:2 (King James Version)

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:2 (New International Version)

...and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

2

and

asked

•

them

•

,

“

Did

you

receive

the

Holy

Spirit

when

τε2

εἶπέν1

πρὸς3

αὐτούς4

Εἰ5

→

→

ἐλάβετε8

►6

ἅγιον7

πνεῦμα6

→

you		believed	?”
→		πιστεύσαντες9

•

They

answered

,

“

No

,

we

have

not

even

heard

that

there

δὲ11

οἱ10

πρὸς12 αὐτόν13

Ἀλλʼ14

→

►20

οὐδʼ15

←

ἠκούσαμεν20

εἰ16

→

is		a		Holy		Spirit	.”
ἔστιν19		►17		ἅγιον18		πνεῦμα17

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ac 19:2.

Acts 19:2 represents one of the most consequential mistranslations in the KJV, where a single preposition fundamentally altered Christian theology by suggesting the Holy Spirit’s reception occurs after conversion rather than at conversion. The KJV renders Paul asking the disciples “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” while all modern translations translate “when you believed,” a difference that is not slight.[1]

The Grammatical Foundation

The Greek literally reads “Having believed, did you receive?” with “having believed” (pisteusantes) as a Greek aorist past participle and “did you receive” (elabete) as the main verb, also in the aorist.[2] The tense of the participle normally shows its relation to the main verb, and because this participle is in the past, this normally means that its action precedes the action of the main verb.[2] The King James translators, as good Greek scholars, translated the participle “since ye believed” to bring out that the believing must take place before the receiving.[2]

The Theological Distortion

Entire theologies of a second reception of the Holy Spirit have been based upon this KJV rendering, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is materially impacted by how one translates this passage.[1] The preposition “since” creates temporal distance between faith and Spirit-reception, suggesting a gap—a second, distinct experience. This single word choice spawned the Pentecostal and charismatic doctrine of Spirit baptism as a post-conversion blessing.

The Modern Challenge

Modern versions generally translate “since ye believed” as “when you believed,” but this translation is based on their theological presuppositions.[2] However, receiving the Spirit involves a definite outpouring of the Spirit, and it hardly seems that receiving the Spirit is being defined as believing in Acts 19:2.[2] Matthew 22:25 provides a parallel: “Having married a wife, he died”—clearly distinct events where the marrying preceded the dying, probably by some time.[2]

The KJV’s rendering, while grammatically defensible from one interpretive angle, created a theological schism that persists today—all from a single preposition’s ambiguous translation.

[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 285–286.
[2] Ralph Dell Colle et al., Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 65–66.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XI)

John 13:2 (King James Version)

And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

John 13:2 (New International Version)

The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.

•

The

evening

meal

was

in

progress

,

and

the

devil

had

already

καὶ1

→

δείπνου2

←

→

→

γινομένου3

←

τοῦ4

διαβόλου5

►7

ἤδη6

prompted

Judas

,

the

son

of

Simon

Iscariot

,

to

βεβληκότος7 εἰς8 τὴν9 καρδίαν10

Ἰούδας14

•

•

→

Σίμωνος15

Ἰσκαριώτου16

ἵνα11

betray		Jesus	.
παραδοῖ12		αὐτὸν13

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Jn 13:2.

John 13:2 exemplifies a critical grammatical error in the KJV that creates narrative impossibility. The KJV renders the passage as “supper being ended,” suggesting the meal had already concluded, yet the immediate context demonstrates that the meal was actively occurring—a temporal contradiction that fundamentally distorts the passage’s meaning.

The Grammatical Mistake

The Greek verb form in John 13:2 is a genitive absolute construction (genitive participle with its own subject), which describes an action happening simultaneously or contemporaneously with the main clause. The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. The KJV’s rendering of “supper being ended” misinterprets the participle’s aspect—treating it as completed action when it actually denotes ongoing action. The correct sense is “while the supper was taking place” or “with the supper in progress,” not “after the supper had finished.”

The Narrative Contradiction

The error becomes immediately apparent in the verses that follow. Jesus got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. (John 13:4–5) These actions occur during the meal itself. Furthermore, Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. (John 13:26–30) The bread-dipping episode clearly takes place while eating is occurring. If supper had already ended, these events would be temporally impossible.

The Theological Significance

This mistranslation obscures the intimacy and poignancy of Jesus’s final hours. By placing the meal’s conclusion before the foot-washing and betrayal announcement, the KJV severs the connection between Jesus’s act of humility and his knowledge of Judas’s impending treachery. The theological force lies in Jesus performing this menial service while fully aware of the betrayal unfolding around him—an act of sacrificial love despite imminent betrayal. The KJV’s temporal confusion diminishes this profound juxtaposition of servant love and tragic betrayal occurring within the same sacred moment.

Misinterpretation in KJV (X)

Several other additional KJV mistranslations that merit theological examination, revealing patterns of error across different types of passages.

Temporal and Aspectual Errors

John 13:2 renders “supper being ended,” but should read “supper taking place,” since saying supper was already finished conflicts with verses 12 and 26, which describe events occurring during the meal[1]. This temporal confusion obscures the narrative sequence of Jesus’s final hours with his disciples. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 12:2 uses “I knew a man” when the Greek verb tense demands “I know a man,” fundamentally altering whether Paul speaks of a past revelation or present knowledge[1].

Doctrinal Distortions

Acts 19:2 asks “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” when it should read “Did you receive the Holy Ghost when you believed?”—a distinction that has spawned the entire doctrine of Second Blessing[1]. The KJV’s temporal preposition fundamentally misrepresents the relationship between conversion and Spirit-reception, creating theological error from linguistic imprecision.

Semantic Obsolescence

Hebrews 10:23 renders “the profession of our faith,” but the Greek term should be translated “confession,” and more problematically, the word for “hope” appears thirteen times in the Greek text translated as “hope,” with this one exception rendered as “faith”[2]—an inconsistency that obscures the passage’s actual meaning.

Conceptual Loss

Hebrews 9:7 loses an entire theological concept: the KJV omits that the sins being addressed were “committed in ignorance,” yet the Greek is very expressive on this point[2]. This omission fundamentally alters understanding of the high priest’s atonement work.

Cultural and Linguistic Ignorance

Isaiah 65:11 renders “troop” and “number,” leaving readers confused, when the Hebrew terms Gad and Meni refer to Babylonian or Syrian gods of fortune and destiny—Isaiah is condemning idolatrous worship, not vague references[2]. Similarly, 1 Kings 10:28 mistranslates “linen yarn” when the text refers to Kue, a place in Egypt from which Solomon purchased horses[2].

[1] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Philippians, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 300–301.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 280–282.

Misinterpretation in KJV (IX)

Psalm 77:2 (King James Version)

In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord: my sore ran in the night, and ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted.

Psalm 77:2 (New International Version)

When I was in distress, I sought the Lord; at night I stretched out untiring hands, and I would not be comforted.

When

I

was

in

distress

,

I

sought

the

Lord

;

1 בְּ2 י֥וֹם

4 ִי֮

→

→

3 צָרָת

→

7 דָּ֫רָ֥שְׁתִּי

→

5 אֲדֹנָ֪6 י

at

night

I

stretched

out

untiring

hands

•

,

→

10 לַ֣יְלָה

•

11 נִ֭גְּרָה

←

13 לֹ֣א14 תָפ֑וּג

8 יָדִ֤

9 י׀

and

I

would

not

be

comforted

.

12 וְ

17 נַפְשִֽׁ18 י

15 מֵאֲנָ֖ה

←

→

16 הִנָּחֵ֣ם

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ps 77:2.

Psalm 77:2 presents a fundamental mistranslation where the KJV renders the passage as “my sore ran in the night,” when the Hebrew actually conveys “my hand was stretched out in the night.”[1] This error fundamentally alters the theological and emotional texture of the psalmist’s lament.

The Linguistic Confusion

The KJV’s error stems from combining an unusual Hebrew root word (ngr, literally “to flow” or “gush”) with a misinterpretation of “my hand,” treating it as if the flesh had been struck, similar to language in Job 23:2.[2] The Hebrew word yad (hand) was sometimes taken metaphorically for a wound, leading interpreters to render it as “my wound ran in the night.” However, the verb niggera signifies not only running as a sore does, but also being stretched forth or extended.[3] The translators conflated these possible meanings and chose the wrong one.

The Spiritual Meaning Lost

Rather than describing physical affliction, the correct rendering depicts the psalmist’s hands outstretched in the night, despairingly pleading with God—a gesture of anguish and prayer.[1] When the psalmist affirms that he sought the Lord in the day of his trouble and that his hands were stretched out to him in the night season, this denotes that prayer was his continual exercise—that his heart was so earnestly and unweariedly engaged in that exercise that he could not desist from it.[3]

When compared with the parallel phrase in Lamentations 3:49—“my eyes flow without ceasing, without respite”—Psalm 77:2 substitutes “my hand” for “my eyes” to convey an ambiguous gesture of imprecation—an oft-extended hand.[2] This distinction matters: the psalmist is not merely suffering physically but actively reaching toward God despite receiving no answer. The mode of expression describes the constant turning to God as an unchangeable inclination of the soul amid the ebb and flow of the tides of feeling.[4] The KJV’s rendering obscures this posture of persistent, desperate prayer.

[1] John Phillips, Exploring Psalms 1–88: An Expository Commentary, The John Phillips Commentary Series (Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp., 2009). [See here, here.]
[2] Richard D. Blake, “Exegetical Perspective on Psalm 77:1–2, 11–20,” in Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary: Year C, ed. David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 181.
[3] John Calvin and James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 3:206–207.
[4] John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Psalms (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 433.