KJV Error: Mistranslation in Genesis 25:27

The Hebrew word tam means perfect, in the sense of being whole, complete, blameless and mature.

This word is used to describe Job:

KJV Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

In the King Kames Bible the word tam is translated as perfect nine times, undefiled twice and upright once, and each of these translations are in-line with the meaning of the Hebrew word tam.

but, one time this word is translated very differently.

KJV Genesis 25:27 And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

In this passage the King James translation diverges from the meaning of tam and instead uses a word that has nothing to do with the meaning of the Hebrew word tam. Why weren't the King James consistent and translated the above as , 'Jacob was a perfect man,' like they did for Job in Job 1:1?

I found out a long time ago, that when the King James Translates a verse that is not consistent with the Hebrew, all you have to do is look to the Septuagint to find out why they translated a particular verse the way they did.

When we look at Job 1:1 again, we find that the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word tam with the Greek word αμεμπτος, which means perfect, the same as the Hebrew word tam and the King James Translation is consistent with the Hebrew and the Greek.

But when we examine Genesis 25:27 we find that the Greek translated the Hebrew word tam as απλαστος, which means plain or simple and the King James Translation bypasses the Hebrew and instead follows the Greek Septuagint in its translation.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• mesorah
• masoretic
• king
• james
• version
• errors
• bible
• translations
• translating
• kjv
• onlyist
• onlyism
• english
• of
• hebrew
• authorized
• mistranslations
• mistakes
• wrong
• interpretation

[BURNINGRIOT]

I don't see what the problem is. The septuagint is older than the masoretic text, so the KJV translation would make sense to me. The Jews who came up with the Masoretic cannon rejected Jesus, and the Septuagint was around before the birth of Jesus.

[MasoreticVsKJV]

@BURNINGRIOT The Septuagint is still a translation and therefore unable to convey the nuances of the original language. As for the Jews, you wouldn't even have a Bible if it wasn't for them as they are the ones who meticulously copied over the centuries to preserve it for you.

[bloodyswordisa63]

I have the original manuscripts.

They read 'perfect'

' Answer a fool according to his folly', etc, etc...

[CBALLEN]

@MasoreticVsKJV Would the word Tam=perfect mean they were perfect in their genealogy as Noah was?Did this mean without Nephilim blood in them?

[TheGenuineChristian]

Keep them coming Jeff. This KJV needs to be exposed for what it is; words of biased men.

[awhooker]

The Septuagint's απλαστος (without deceit) can legitimately express a Hebrew Vorlage reading תם (complete, perfect), and the KJV's 'plain' is an acceptable rendition. 'Plain' - without excess, being bare, without blemish.

Samuel Johnson's 1768 dictionary gives the meaning 'not obscure' as a meaning for 'plain', and so I don't think 'plain' as a translation for תם is bad, given its meaning in the 18th century.

[sikmiz777]

So you're saying that the KJV is wrong because instead of using the word "it" the KJV uses "his". But every other translation uses "it" and not "her". So you suggest that every translation of the Bible is incorrect ? You cannot apply a gender role to an inanimate object; although it has a feminine characteristic in the word it's self. By making this statement you are not only attacking Jesus, but you are attacking the Father by calling Him a liar. You are the one that has been deceived by the e

[Robbi165]

To BURNINGRIOT ; You don't see what the problem is? The LXX is NOT OLDER than the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic differences are the addition of vowels, but there is absolutely NO CHANGE to the original Text.

[BURNINGRIOT]

@MasoreticVsKJV Are you sure about that, regarding your statement of the Septuagint? It was 70 Jews who translated it; and thank God they are a meticulous people for the reason you mentioned and beyond. Since the Septuagint was made to service Greek speaking Jews, what makes you think they weren't meticulous enough to translate the precise meaning from Hebrew into Greek? In serving their brethren, I'm sure they did preserve the precise meanings.