Misinterpretation in KJV (XIX)

Mark 6:20 (King James Version) For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

Mark 6:20 (New International Version) 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

20

For

Herod

feared

John

,

knowing

that

he

was

a

γὰρ2

ὁ1 Ἡρώδης3

ἐφοβεῖτο4

τὸν5 Ἰωάννην6

εἰδὼς7

←

αὐτὸν8

•

►9

gar

ho Hērōdēs

ephobeito

ton Iōannēn

eidōs

auton

1063

3588 2264

5399

3588 2491

1492

846

just

man

and

an

holy

,

and

observed

him

;

and

when

he

δίκαιον10

ἄνδρα9

καὶ11

→

ἅγιον12

καὶ13

συνετήρει14

αὐτόν15

καὶ16

→

→

dikaion

andra

kai

hagion

kai

synetērei

auton

kai

1342

435

2532

40

2532

4933

846

2532

heard

him

,

he

did

many

things

,

and

heard

him

gladly

.

ἀκούσας17

αὐτοῦ18

→

ἐποίει20

πολλὰ19

•

καὶ21

ἤκουε24

αὐτοῦ23

ἡδέως22

akousas

autou

epoiei

polla

kai

ēkoue

autou

hēdeōs

191

846

4160

4183

2532

191

846

2234

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mk 6:20.

συντηρέω (syntēreō), preserve; protect; defend. Cognate words: διατηρέω, παρατηρέω, παρατήρησις, τηρέω, τήρησις. Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: שׁמר (1×)

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (2011).

συν-τηρέω, -ῶ: impf. 3 pers. sing. συνετήρει; pres. pass. 3 pers. plur. συντηροῦνται; [fr. Aristot. de plant. 1, 1 p. 816a, 8 down];

a. to preserve (a thing from perishing or being lost): τί, pass. (opp. to ἀπόλλυσθαι), Mt. 9:17; Lk. 5:38 [T WH om. Tr br. the cl.]; τινά, to guard one, keep him safe, fr. a plot, Mk. 6:20 (ἑαυτὸν ἀναμάρτητον, 2 Macc. 12:42 [cf. Tob. 1:11; Sir. 13:12]).

b. to keep within one’s self, keep in mind (a thing, lest it be forgotten [cf. σύν, II. 4]): πάντα τὰ ῥήματα, Lk. 2:19 (τὸ ῥῆμα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, Dan. 7:28 Theod.; τὴν γνώμην παρʼ ἑαυτῷ, Polyb. 31, 6, 5; [absol. Sir. 39:2]).*

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers., 1889), 606.

  † συντηρέω.

  συντηρέω1 means “to keep” in the memory ἡ δὲ Μαρία πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς, Lk. 2:19;2 the prep. gives the verb an intensive sense. One also finds the meaning “to think of someone”3 and care for him, Herm. m., 8, 10, “to guard, protect someone,”4 Mk. 6:20; Herm. m., 5, 1, 7; s., 5, 6, 2 and pass. “to be preserved”5 (wine-skins). Mt. 9:17; Lk. 5:38 textus receptus. - Riesenfeld Ernst Harald Riesenfeld, Uppsala (Vol. 5–6, 8).

Christian Maurer, “Τίθημι, Ἀθετέω, Ἀθέτησις, Ἐπιτίθημι, Ἐπίθεσις, Μετατίθημι, Μετάθεσις, Παρατίθημι, Παραθήκη, [παρακαταθήκη], Προτίθημι, Πρόθεσις, Προστίθημι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 151.

4933.      συντηρέω suntēreō; from 4862 and 5083; to keep close, i.e. preserve:—kept … safe(1), preserved(1), treasured(1).

Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

4933.  συντηρέω suntērĕō, soon-tay-reh´-o; from 4862 and 5083; to keep closely together, i.e. (by impl.) to conserve (from ruin); ment. to remember (and obey):—keep, observe, preserve.

James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 69.

The Greek verb suntēreō in Mark 6:20 carries protective force that “observe” entirely misses. The term means “to preserve a thing from perishing or being lost, to guard one, to keep him safe,”[1] a meaning fundamentally different from passive observation. The KJV rendering obscures Herod’s active role in shielding John from danger—specifically, from Herodias’s murderous intentions.

Herod kept John safe from the evil plots of Herodias, who was seeking to kill him, and the imperfect tense indicates he “kept on keeping him safe,” maintaining a constant watch over John.[1] This wasn’t mere surveillance; it was deliberate intervention. Mark describes Herod as “protecting him,”[2] a rendering that captures the protective dimension entirely absent from “observed.”

The broader narrative context amplifies this distinction. Herodias harbored a continual desire to kill John that had been frustrated up to that point, but “she was not able to,”[2] precisely because Herod’s protective custody prevented her from acting. She had no power herself to order the execution; Herod knew that John was a righteous and holy man and kept protecting him and even listening to him.[3]

The verb choice reveals Herod’s internal conflict. Herod feared John, with the imperfect tense indicating he was in a continual state of fear.[1] This fear—rooted in John’s moral authority—motivated protective action. The turmoil in Herod’s mind makes his action all the more damnable,[2] since he eventually surrenders to pressure despite his own better judgment and his demonstrated commitment to John’s safety.

The KJV’s “observed” reduces a complex portrait of reluctant protection to mere watching, obscuring how Herod actively resisted Herodias’s demands until manipulated at his birthday feast. The Greek demands recognition that Herod was John’s guardian, not simply his observer.

[1] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 1:128.
[2] Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 304.
[3] Henry E. Turlington, “Mark,” in Matthew–Mark, ed. Clifton J. Allen, Broadman Bible Commentary (Broadman Press, 1969), 317.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XVIII)

2 Corinthians 12:2 (King James Version)

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2 (New International Version)

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

I

know

a

man

in

Christ

who

fourteen

years

ago

→

οἶδα1

→

ἄνθρωπον2

ἐν3

Χριστῷ4

τὸν23 τοιοῦτον24

δεκατεσσάρων7

ἐτῶν6

πρὸ5

oida

anthrōpon

en

Christō

ton toiouton

dekatessarōn

etōn

pro

was

caught

up

to

the

third

heaven

.

Whether

it

was

in

the

body

→

ἁρπαγέντα22

←

ἕως25

►27

τρίτου26

οὐρανοῦ27

εἴτε8

•

•

ἐν9

→

σώματι10

harpagenta

heōs

tritou

ouranou

eite

en

sōmati

•

•

or

out

of

the

body

I

do

not

know

—

God

οὐκ11

οἶδα12

εἴτε13

ἐκτὸς14

►16

τοῦ15

σώματος16

→

►18

οὐκ17

οἶδα18

ὁ19 θεὸς20

ouk

oida

eite

ektos

tou

sōmatos

ouk

oida

ho theos

knows	.
οἶδεν21
oiden

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2 Co 12:2.

2 Corinthians 12:2 renders “I knew a man” when the Greek verb tense demands “I know a man,”[1] fundamentally altering whether Paul speaks of a past revelation or present knowledge. This mistranslation obscures the passage’s rhetorical and theological dimensions.

The Grammatical Issue

The Greek present-tense verb indicates Paul’s ongoing knowledge of this person’s experience, not a past acquaintance. By rendering it in the past tense, the KJV creates temporal distance between Paul’s speaking and his knowledge, suggesting he merely recalls an old event rather than maintaining present awareness of it. The shift from present to past tense fundamentally changes the force of Paul’s statement.

The Rhetorical Context

Paul is employing third-person speech as part of a satirical style in which he pretends to be less than he really is, and the uncertainty regarding details is part of the satirical nature of these verses. In verses 1–6 Paul uses paradoxical language, treating ecstatic heavenly visions—which his opponents valued—in a satirical fashion as having no value in authenticating one’s apostleship, speaking in a way his readers would have recognized as “tongue in cheek.”[2] The present-tense formulation strengthens this ironic posture: Paul maintains present knowledge of his own experience while feigning detachment through third-person narration.

The Theological Significance

Paul states that he actually ascended into the highest heaven but does not know whether he went in his physical body or whether the experience was in his spirit only. Indeed, it did happen; he was caught up to the highest heaven. The question for Paul was whether it was a bodily ascension or “in spirit only.”[2] The present tense underscores Paul’s certainty about the event itself while maintaining genuine uncertainty about its nature—a distinction the KJV’s past tense obscures. By using “knew,” the KJV weakens Paul’s rhetorical irony and makes his uncertainty appear more comprehensive than the text intends.

[1] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Philippians, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 301.
[2] Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 217–218.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XVII)

Mark 6:20 renders “observed him” when the Greek indicates Jesus was “protecting him” or “keeping him safe.”[1] The KJV’s choice obscures Herod’s protective concern for John the Baptist, suggesting mere observation rather than active safeguarding.

John 20:17 commands “Touch me not,” but the Greek verb is a present-continuous-imperative, indicating Mary Magdalene was already holding onto Jesus and should “stop holding” or “do not keep on holding” him.[1] This mistranslation has fueled theological speculation about why the risen Jesus forbade physical contact, when the text actually describes Jesus gently releasing himself from her grasp.

2 Corinthians 2:17 renders “corrupt the word of God” when the Greek term should be translated “peddle the Word of God,”[1] fundamentally changing Paul’s accusation from moral corruption to commercial exploitation. The image shifts from doctrinal contamination to mercenary preaching.

Galatians 6:11 reads “how large a letter I have written unto you” when Paul is actually referring to “large letters”—the physical size of the characters he wrote, not the epistle’s length.[1] This error has spawned interpretations about Paul’s eyesight problems, when he was simply noting his handwriting style.

Isaiah 4:5 mistranslates “canopy” as “defence,” and Isaiah 5:25 renders “refuse” as “torn.”[2] These errors obscure Isaiah’s poetic imagery and prophetic meaning.

The KJV compounds confusion by using different forms for the same person—Jesus and Joshua both refer to the same Old Testament character, while Cis and Kish, Noe and Noah, and Judas, Judah, Juda, and Jude represent identical individuals with inconsistent transliterations.[2]

The translators employed inconsistent renderings throughout—the Hebrew word dabhar appears as eighty-four different English words, panim as thirty-four, and in the New Testament, katargein appears twenty-seven times rendered seventeen different ways.[2] Most strikingly, Acts 12:4 translates the Hebrew word for Passover as “Easter,” the only instance where this occurs among twenty-eight total uses.[2]

[1] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Philippians, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 300–301.
[2] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Chattanooga, TN: ATRI Publishing, 2011). [See here, here, here, here.]

Misinterpretation in KJV (XVI)

1 Kings 10:28 (King James Version)

And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.

1 Kings 10:28 (New International Version)

Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue—the royal merchants purchased them from Kue at the current price.

•

Solomon’s

horses

were

imported

from

Egypt

and

from

1 וּ

5 אֲשֶׁ֥ר6 לִ7 שְׁלֹמֹ֖ה

3 הַ4 סּוּסִ֛ים

→

2 מוֹצָ֧א

8 מִ

9 מִּצְרָ֑יִם

10 וּ

11 מִ

û

ʾăšer li šəlōmō

ha sûsîm

môṣāʾ

mi

miṣrāyim

û

mi

Kue

—

the

royal

merchants

purchased

them

from

Kue

at

the

12 קְוֵ֕ה

►13

14 הַ15 מֶּ֔לֶךְ

13 סֹחֲרֵ֣י

16 יִקְח֥וּ

•

17 מִ

18 קְוֵ֖ה

19 בִּ

→

qəwē

ha melek

sōḥărê

yiqḥû

mi

qəwē

bi

current		price	.
20 מְחִֽיר		←
məḥîr

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Ki 10:28.

1 Kings 10:28 exemplifies how the KJV’s mishandling of a Hebrew word transformed a passage about Solomon’s commercial acumen into an economically nonsensical account of textile imports. The Hebrew word miqwēh was misinterpreted when it could instead be read “from Kue”[1], fundamentally altering the passage’s meaning.

The Root of the Error

The Masoretes—the Hebrew scholars who added vowels to the consonantal Hebrew text—did not seem to understand the reference and added vowels that produced the reading now found in the KJV, “linen yarn.”[2] The same consonants, when vocalized differently, yield “from Kue” instead. This was not a matter of ambiguous translation but of misidentifying what the text actually referenced.

The Geographic Reality

Kue is a name for Cilicia[1], a region in southeast Asia Minor. It was a source of fine horses in Solomon’s day.[3] The KJV’s rendering creates an absurd scenario: Solomon importing both horses and linen yarn from Egypt, with merchants receiving “the linen yarn at a price.” Why would linen yarn accompany horse imports, and why would it warrant special mention?

The Economic Context

If the Masoretes and the KJV are correct, then Solomon imported horses and linen yarn from Egypt. If modern translations are correct (which in all likelihood they are), then Solomon imported horses from Egypt and Kue—that is, Cilicia in southeast Asia Minor.[2] The latter interpretation reveals Solomon’s sophisticated commercial strategy: From Egypt, Solomon acquired chariots. Thus Solomon acted as the middleman, putting horses with chariots and exporting them to other kingdoms. This proved to be a very lucrative arrangement for Solomon.[2]

The KJV’s error obscures Solomon’s role as an international merchant-trader, transforming a passage demonstrating his economic wisdom into a bewildering reference to imported textiles.

[1] Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard Frederic Vos, and John Rea, in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Moody Press, 1975). [See here, here.]
[2] Phil Logan, “Kue,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1001–1002.
[3] Parsons Bible Atlas (WORDsearch, 2012). [See here.]

Misinterpretation in KJV (XV)

Isaiah 65:11 (King James Version)

But ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.

Isaiah 65:11 (New International Version)

“But as for you who forsake the Lord and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for Fortune    and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny,

“

But

as

for

you

who

forsake

the

Lord

1 וְ

→

→

2 אַתֶּם֙

→

3 עֹזְבֵ֣י

→

4 יְהוָ֔ה

w

ʾattem

ʿōzəbê

yhwh

and

forget

•

my

holy

mountain

,

•

5 הַ6 שְּׁכֵחִ֖ים

7 אֶת

10 י

9 קָדְשִׁ֑

8 הַ֣ר

ha šəkēḥîm

ʾet

y

qodši

har

who

spread

a

table

for

Fortune

11 הַֽ

12 עֹרְכִ֤ים

→

16 שֻׁלְחָ֔ן

13 ל

14 ַ15 גַּד֙

ha

ʿōrəkîm

šulḥān

l

a gad

and

fill

bowls

of

mixed

wine

for

Destiny

,

17 וְ

18 הַֽ19 מְמַלְאִ֖ים

→

→

→

23 מִמְסָֽךְ

20 ל

21 ַ22 מְנִ֥י

w

ha məmalʾîm

mimsāk

l

a mənî

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Is 65:11–12.

Isaiah 65:11 demonstrates how the KJV’s rendering of “troop” and “number” obscures what the Hebrew text explicitly identifies as Gad and Meni—pagan deities—leaving readers confused about the passage’s actual meaning.[1] The theological significance of this mistranslation extends far beyond mere word choice.

The Deities Behind the Names

Gad and Meni were Babylonian or Syrian gods—of fortune and of destiny, respectively.[1] Meni’s name means “allotment, portion, fate,” while Gad means “fortune,”[2] and the general scholarly view treats fortune as an object of idolatrous worship in this passage.[3] These were not abstract concepts but recognized deities worshiped by Israel’s neighbors and, shamefully, by apostate Israelites themselves.

The Ritualistic Offense

The passage describes Israel preparing a sacrificial meal and making a drink offering to these entities[1]—a formal act of religious devotion. By translating the divine names as vague common nouns, the KJV transforms Isaiah’s scathing denunciation of polytheistic apostasy into cryptic references that obscure the actual transgression. Isaiah upbraids the people for engaging in idolatrous worship of Gad and Meni—a fairly long way from “that troop” and “that number.”[1]

The Loss of Theological Force

The KJV’s rendering strips away the passage’s prophetic power. Isaiah condemns Israel’s abandonment of covenant loyalty for foreign gods, yet readers encounter only mysterious references to unnamed entities. Unless readers happened to have the 1611 marginal reading that indicated the original Hebrew terms translated number and troop were Gad and Meni,[1] the full weight of the indictment remains hidden. Modern scholarship’s expanded knowledge of ancient Near Eastern religion has made clear what the KJV obscured: Israel was engaging in deliberate, organized idolatry—not vague spiritual confusion.

[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 281–282.
[2] Tremper Longman III, Peter Enns, and Mark Strauss, eds., in The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 1129.
[3] John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Gad,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 3:705.