In 1611 A.D., 2000 years after the ‘Septuagint’s’ Greek
interpretation, the 12 gems were translated again, this
time into English in ‘The King James Version.’ Executed
at the behest of King James I of England, this is the
modern translation by which we know the Old Testament.
Starting with the ‘King James Version’ translation of
the Old Testament: three major flaws become very apparent
in the interpretation of the 12 gemsand in particular the Pitdah:
1. Many of the gemstones appearing in the King James
list were unknown to the Septuagint in 300B.C. So
how could the impoverished Hebrew slaves of the exodus
1000 years earlier have had access to them?
2. The breastplate measured a span in each direction
(approx 8-9 inches), which meant that the gems might
have measured up to as much as 2 to 2 1/2 inches each.
Where could the slaves have found gems such as these
in such sizes?
3. The ‘Topaz' we know today was only officially recognized in the 17th century, 100 hundred years after the ‘King James Version.' In addition, at the time of the translation Topaz was used to describe a multitude of yellow to yellow-green transparent gemstones.
However, of all the above it's point 3 that is the clincher to the 'King James' misnomer of Topaz. Before the more exacting influences of modern science, most gemstones were not classed by specific properties like gravity, refractive indexes etc., but by their color. At this time, the term Topaz was generic, and used to denote many different yellow to green colored gems. In addition to this, there is the fact that the official Topaz gem type of today wasn't recognized by that name until the 1700's. From these points alone, the 1611 ‘King James' translation of Topaz being the Pitdah gem of the breastplate can be largely refuted as conjecture.
Having dispelled the Topaz translation of the ‘King James Version’ as erroneous, there still remains
the question to the real identities of the earlier Septuagint Greek ‘Topazion,’ and its preceeding Hebrew name of 'Pitdah'…
It is important to state that the etymological theories
on these pages are speculative, and should not be
taken as gospel.