[LostTribe]

I did check the NIV and NASB and they don't read Jews!  The King James strikes again!

Yes, this is an excellent example of a problem causing people to disagree unnecessarily, caused by a mistranslation (or by editorial bias) in the original King James Version.  "Men of Judah" was not the same as "Jews".

There are many such examples of KJV errors. They are well documented.  This error and many others were corrected in the NKJV and other later Bibles.

This example points out the need for constant vigilance and reevaluation of what mere men have done before. The word "Jew" was not in the original source documents.

[fortheDeclaration]

did check the NIV and NASB and they don't read Jews! The King James strikes again! Yes, this is an excellent example of a problem causing people to disagree unnecessarily, caused by a mistranslation (or by editorial bias) in the original King James Version. "Men of Judah" was not the same as "Jews". There are many such examples of KJV errors. They are well documented. This error and many others were corrected in the NKJV and other later Bibles.

Leaving aside the issue of errors in the King James, other translations did have it as noted in my earlier post (ASV,YLT)

This example points out the need for constant vigilance and reevaluation of what mere men have done before. The word "Jew" was not in the original source documents

Now, that is funny! Even the Septuagint (Origen, 3rd century AD) has 'Jew'

The word in 2Ki.16:6 is not 'men of Judah' as the NIV has, but Jew.

I checked both Hebrew texts and they read the same.