next »

[brandplucked]

None of the translations are pure, 100% inspired words of God. The book I linked to it is the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Hi jchthys.  It is fine that you have your own personal convictions, but may we examine them to see if they really fit the bill for being the preserved, complete and 100% true words of God or not?  I trust that you are willing to do that.

The particular version you recommend is allegedly the Hebrew texts for the O.T. and a very particular Greek text for the N.T.  To be more precise, it is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Critical Greek text.  Are you aware of the fact that the Nestle - Aland Critical Greek text is continually changing every few years, and they are now working on the NA 28th edition?  The Critical Text is not a fixed text at all.  It is undecided in many cases and they keep on tinkering, altering, adding and omitting to this Greek text you tell us is the pure words of God.

Also this particualr Greek text omits many entire whole verses that traditionally have been in almost every Bible in history until we get to modern times. Your Nestle-Aland 27th edition omits about 3000 words from the N.T. alone and adds another 200 or so as compared the the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible.

  For example, does your NA 27th edition contain IN THE TEXT ITSELF the whole of Matthew 23:14?  Remember, Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will not pass away.  Now Matthew 23:14 are some of Jesus' words and they are ONLY found in this verse. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widow's houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Here is your first of two questions I have for you.   Did the Lord Jesus Christ say these words in Matthew 23:14 and are they a part of inspired Scripture or not?

Question #2. You refer us to the Hebrew texts for the O.T. as being the complete and infallible words of God. I assume you aware of the fact that versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard etc. frequently reject the Hebrew texts, and not even in the same places.

Here is my second question for you.  Would you mind telling us exactly what the particular bible version you recommend says in 1 Samuel 13:1.  The King James Bible says: "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel,  (v.2)Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel..."

What does your "pure, 100% inspired words of God" say there in 1 Samuel 13:1?

Looking forward to hearing from you on these 2 verses,

God bless,

Will Kinney

[jchthys]

For the first verse: no, it is not inspired scripture.

For the second verse: it should read “Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty]-two years. The originally-written Hebrew and Aramaic is the inspired word of God. To determine what was originally written, we must consider all the evidence God has preserved for us. Through God’s providence we thus have all the inspired words.

Now I have a question for you: If such “tinkering” with the text is not permissible, why does the KJV tinker with the Hebrew text? What did God inspire at 2 Samuel 21:19?

[ridgerunner]

Mr. Kinney,

I've always had a preference and affection for the King James version that I could never explain.  I attributed it to being familiarity since I was raised with it, but I have never really considered myself 'King James Only'.  I have to admit, I do find other versions distasteful, but since I preferred King James I've never bothered to look into them.  Seemed like a moot point.  

I just wanted to say thanks for the time and research that you're presenting here, I have to admit that it's making me look into the King James Only position more.  A lot of your study is a little over my head since I'm not familiar with the LXX or some of the other texts you talk about, but it is very interesting and I appreciate the way you present your views kindly and with much research.

ridgerunner

[brandplucked]

For the first verse: no, it is not inspired scripture.

For the second verse: it should read “Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty]-two years. The originally-written Hebrew and Aramaic is the inspired word of God. To determine what was originally written, we must consider all the evidence God has preserved for us. Through God’s providence we thus have all the inspired words.

Now I have a question for you: If such “tinkering” with the text is not permissible, why does the KJV tinker with the Hebrew text? What did God inspire at 2 Samuel 21:19?

Hi jc. Thanks for getting back to me on this.  I will address the Matthew 23:14 verse later and the 2 Samuel 21:19 as well, but I cannot allow you to get a free pass on the misinformation you just posted about 1 Samuel 13:1.  Is the Biblia Sacra you said was the pure and 100% words of God in English, Hebrew or Latin?

I happen to know for a fact that what you told us "it should read" does NOT read that way in the Hebrew, nor in the Latin.  So what are you really using for your "pure and 100% true words of God".  That version you quoted from flat out MADE UP those numbers.  Is that how your Biblia Sacra reads?  They are even in brackets in your quote. So what is it you are really using as your final written authority for that verse?

Here is a little more info on that particular verse you may not be aware of.

1 Samuel 13:1

Have some of God's inspired words been lost? The modern version proponents would have us believe that such is the case.

One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is 1 Samuel 13:1. We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."

"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..." This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, the Ferrer Fenton translation 1903, the Jewish School & Family Bible Volumn 2 by Abraham Benisch, the Natural Israelite Bible English Version 2008 by Ed Schneider, the World English Bible 2008 by Michael Johnson, the New Berkeley Version 1969, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960 and 1995, the Italian Diodati version, the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996, the KJV 21st century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

There is a brand new Hebrew-English translation put out in 2003 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

In 1 Samuel 13:1 it reads as does the King James Bible: "Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel..."

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Habia ya reinado Saul UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS anos sobre Israel..."= KJB

The French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 both translate the passage as it is found in the KJB - "Saül avait régné UN AN; et quand il eut régné DEUX ANS sur Israël..."

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar Konig gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zurcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (FORTY) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

Young's tells us: "A SON OF A YEAR is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel", while Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "And when Saul had reigned ONE OR TWO years in his kingdom over Israel..."

Then we have the recent 1989 The Revised English Bible, and it reads differently than them all saying: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for TWENTY-TWO years."

When we get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years."

But wait. There's more to this Bible Babel. The 1970 New English Bible actually says: "Saul was FIFTY YEARS OLD when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FOR TWENTY TWO years."!!! So was Saul 30 or 40, or perhaps 50? And did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 22 years as the NEB, REB say, or 32 as some NASBs have it, or was it perhaps the 42 of the NIV?

Not only do the NIV, ASV, NEB and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.



Please let us know.  I am not dodging the Matthew 23:14 verse at all.  I will come back to that, Lord willing, in a very big way.

Will K

[jchthys]

The most literal translation of the Hebrew text as we have it is “A SON OF A YEAR is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel”. The KJV translators did their best at making some sense out of that without ‘over’-emending the text. (Note that there is no numeral ‘one’ in the Hebrew, either—this is also an addition to the text.)

The Hebrew manuscripts we have do not have the numerals. That does not mean that they are not original. God has providentially enabled us to arrive at his words, even if there is no Hebrew manuscript with the numbers.

[Gabriel Anast]

Did you read Will's text at all? He specifically stated that you invented the text you proposed, and demonstrated exactly what you did above, that the best translation is very like what we have in the KJ. He further demonstrated (implicitly) that what is presented in the modern versions assumes error, and that text from other areas is needed to fix the text at hand. This is not translation, it is revision.

So, as concerns your last post, either you are arguing with yourself (which you have commonly done in other threads, I might add) or you are admitting that you were wrong originally, and now agreeing with Will.

In either case the bit about the Hebrew not having numeral characters separate from letter characters is (I presume) obvious to Will, and implied in his presentation of the meaningful translation of the text.

Take time here and care to present a thoughtful opinion.

--gabe

[jchthys]

What I meant is that the KJV also emends the text by adding ‘one’ and skewing the meaning of the text. I also stated that emendation when the manuscript is patently corrupted is sometimes what enable us to arrive at the inspired words of God.

It must also be mentioned that the KJV does exactly the same kind of emendation in 2 Samuel 21:19.

[Gabriel Anast]

The KJ does not correct the Hebrew text here. It well represents the meaning of the Hebrew text to the English reader. There is no skewing of meaning that I can see. However, in the version you suggested, the text is not only completely re-written, but re-written without any consideration of context.

As concerns an implied singular vs. the explicit number, "1" or "one." Just as in English, "I spent a year at school" means the same as "I spent one year at school," so too in Hebrew (especially since Hebrew relies much more on construction for meaning than does English... English being much more literal and less poetic in general). In other words, "I spent one year at school" would be an unlikely rendering in Hebrew.

I also stated that emendation when the manuscript is patently corrupted is sometimes what enable us to arrive at the inspired words of God.

If the manuscript is patently corrupted, no translator can preserve the original meaning... but the corruption will be plain to a reader that knows the entire text well. For the translator to not state his opinion that the text is corrupt, but to instead double corrupt ("emend" in your vocabulary) the text based on his assumptions about the original corruption is a thing that most translators would get fired for. Bible translators, I guess, being the notable exception.

As concerns the 2 Sam 21:19 translation... I would agree that there seems to be a problem, and that the KJV translators evidently followed Coverdale and the Vulgate which both seem to have corrected the text with the phrase, "brother of." Note that the KJ, while not getting the meaning, did faithfully note that "the brother of" was not in the text. The newer versions just close the lid and flush us down... having, of course, not even attempted a reasonable translation, but instead preserve the KJ problems, gut the translation notes, and / or re-write the text entirely (not making mention of the fact, of course).

Here is a comment that I borrowed from this blog post: KJV-Only and 2 Samuel 21:19

Geisler gives us more information indicating that the [KJV] rendition in 2 Samuel 21:19 can be arrived at by misreading the text a certain way. In fact the authors of Hard Sayings of the Bible provide great detail into what Geisler stated.

    The copyist of the 2 Samuel 21:19 text made three mistakes: (1) He read the direct object sign that comes just before the name of the giant that Elhanan killed, namely Lahmi, as if it were the word “Beth,” thereby getting “the Bethlehemite,” when the “Beth” was put with “Lahmi.” (2) He also misread the word for “brother” (Hebrew ˒āḥ) as the direct object sign (Hebrew ˒eṯ) before Goliath, thereby making Goliath the one who was killed, since he was now the direct object of the verb, instead, as it should have been, “the brother of Goliath.” (3) He misplaced the word “Oregim,” meaning “weavers,” so that it yielded “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim,” a most improbable reading for anyone: “Elhanan the son of the forests of weavers.” The word for “weavers” should come as it does in 1 Chronicles 20:5 about the spear being “a beam/shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (212). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.

[Cherika Four Seasons]

The King James Version is by far my most preferred protestant translation.

Hey Andiclaire,
do you have a non-protestant bible? does such a thing exist?

I'm just wondering because I have a coptic (koptic?) friend, and she was telling me bible stories the other day.....that I couldn't find in my bible! 

But she swears they are in her Egyptian translation, so I'm seriously curious, are there other bibles out there? who wrote them? and what do they teach?

sorry to bug you with these questions, if you don't know thats cool !  I just thought you might since you mentioned it 

Note by moderator: This post is a bit off topic (not that this thread is tracking particularly well), but here are some links that might answer your questions: Simple Overview 1, 2 - Incredibly dense comparison - Very indepth discussion of KJ / protestant canon - You might post further questions here: Extrabiblical books

[brandplucked]

The most literal translation of the Hebrew text as we have it is “A SON OF A YEAR is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel”. The KJV translators did their best at making some sense out of that without ‘over’-emending the text. (Note that there is no numeral ‘one’ in the Hebrew, either—this is also an addition to the text.)

The Hebrew manuscripts we have do not have the numerals. That does not mean that they are not original. God has providentially enabled us to arrive at his words, even if there is no Hebrew manuscript with the numbers.

Hi jc.  So according to your view, part of your "pure and 100% inerrant words of God" have been lost, right?

If you have "arrived at his words" then which one of all those multiple -choice versions got it right?

"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..." This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, the Ferrer Fenton translation 1903, the Jewish School & Family Bible Volumn 2 by Abraham Benisch, the Natural Israelite Bible English Version 2008 by Ed Schneider, the World English Bible 2008 by Michael Johnson, the New Berkeley Version 1969, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960 and 1995, the Italian Diodati version, the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996, the KJV 21st century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

There is a brand new Hebrew-English translation put out in 2003 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

In 1 Samuel 13:1 it reads as does the King James Bible: "Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel..."

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Habia ya reinado Saul UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS anos sobre Israel..."= KJB

The French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 both translate the passage as it is found in the KJB - "Saül avait régné UN AN; et quand il eut régné DEUX ANS sur Israël..."

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar Konig gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zurcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (FORTY) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

Young's tells us: "A SON OF A YEAR is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel", while Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "And when Saul had reigned ONE OR TWO years in his kingdom over Israel..."

Then we have the recent 1989 The Revised English Bible, and it reads differently than them all saying: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for TWENTY-TWO years."

When we get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years."

But wait. There's more to this Bible Babel. The 1970 New English Bible actually says: "Saul was FIFTY YEARS OLD when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FOR TWENTY TWO years."!!! So was Saul 30 or 40, or perhaps 50? And did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 22 years as the NEB, REB say, or 32 as some NASBs have it, or was it perhaps the 42 of the NIV?

Not only do the NIV, ASV, NEB and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.


By the way, the King James Bible is right and I will gladly explain to you why it is once you have either admitted or denied that the copy of your alleged pure and 100% inerrant words of God has lost some of the text or just plain made it up out of thin air.

The Hebrew text has not been lost and the King James Bible got it right - not just a "guess".

Will K

[brandplucked]

hi jc.  According to your preferred bible, who or how many different men killed Goliath?
(as I side note, I am not  done with the 1 Samuel 13:1 example yet, and I haven't even gotten to your "pure and inerrant Nestle- Aland 27th edition New Testament thingy yet.  Is that still your story and your are sticking to it?

Please pay special attention to all the examples of elliptical language at the end of this article.
God bless,
Will K

Who or How Many Different Men Killed Goliath?

2 Samuel 21:19 Who killed Goliath?

At an internet Bible club I belong to, a King James Bible critic wrote the following: “This is where my problem comes in with the KJV Only people. The translation is not true to text. The italiics show the words "the brother of" were not there but the tranlslators "thought" this is what the writer of 2 Samuel meant to say. When the NIV and other tranlsations stay true to text they are criticized for being "different" than the KJV which is mistranslated in the first place.”

Brother Marty Shue has also written a good article on this verse which can be seen here: http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/2Sam2119.html

My Response: Hi___________, here is some more info you may not be aware of.  By the way, do you believe the NIV always follows the Hebrew texts?

2 Samuel 21:19 with 1 Chronicles 20:5.  So who killed Goliath?  Was it David or did two different people kill the same giant?

New American Standard Version (NASV)- And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and ELHANAN the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite KILLED GOLIATH the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

New International Version (NIV)- In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, ELHANAN son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite KILLED Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

King James Bible - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where ELHANAN the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite,SLEW THE BROTHER OF GOLIATH the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Notice carefully that both the NASV and the NIV say that "Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite".

The way I can best explain it is that both Hebrew and Greek are elliptical languages.  Elliptical means certain things are implied but not directly expressed.  We use this in English too.  "Been there, done that".  In this expression, there is no subject in the English sentence.

Likewise the Hebrew and the Greek frequently leave out the subject, or the verb or the direct object or other parts of speech; instead they are sometimes implied.  Notice here in the same chapter that we have several words "added", and if they were left out, it would not make much sense.

1 Samuel 21:1   IT IS for Saul.  HIS bloody house;

V. 6 WHOM the Lord did choose; I will give THEM

v.9 in the first DAYS

As far as the word "brother" being "added" to the text, the KJB is not at all alone in this.  So does the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, the 1998 New International Readers Version put out by the same people who brought us the NIV, the 2001 Easy-to-Read Version, the 1996 New Living Translation, Young's 'literal' version, Webster's 1833, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the French Martin 1744, the Italian Nuova Diodati 1991, the Portuguese O Livro of 2000 (again, this is the NIV in Portuguese!), the Third Millenium bible, the NKJV 1982, and the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament.


Not only this but the NIV when translated into the Portuguese O Livro 2000, and the International Reader’s Version 1998, and the revision of the NIV called Today’s NIV (TNIV 2005) all read saying that Elhanan killed THE BROTHER OF GOLIATH, and don’t even put the word in italics in the TNIV! So is the old NIV now out of date? These modern versionists are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Even Daniel Wallace's NET bible version agrees with the King James Bible saying: " On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed THE BROTHER OF Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

  But then the good doktor Wallace goes on to tell us in his footnotes that it is his opinion that all the texts have been corrupted.  He says: "The Hebrew text as it stands reads, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.? Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread Bethlehemite ( bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name (et lakhmi).  The Samuel text misread the word for brother ( akh) as the accusative sign ( et), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.?

Though Daniel Wallace gives us a convoluted and highly subjective evaluation of the text, it is important to note that the "scholars" all give different opinions from each other.  What one affirms another absolutely denies.  John Gill, Adam Clarke, David Guzik, Gleason Archer, and Constable Thomas each gives a different explanation of the text, and none of these scholars agrees with any of the others.

Adam Clarke likewise believes the Hebrew text has been corrupted and he sides with the King James Bible reading. In his commentary he states: “Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; DAVID, NOT ELHANAN, SLEW GOLIATH. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78.

So too does John Gill agree with the King James reading - “the word "brother" is rightly supplied from (1 Chronicles 20:5) ; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain.”

Matthew Henry also sides with the KJB reading - “The rest of the giants fell by the hand of David's servants. 1. Saph was slain by Sibbechai, one of David's worthies, 2 Samuel 21:18,1Ch+11:29. 2. Another, WHO WAS THE BROTHER TO GOLIATH, was slain by Elhanan, who is mentioned 2 Samuel 23:24.”

  The NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard etc. all create a contradiction when compared with 1 Chronicles 20:5 where we are clearly told that Elhanan killed THE BROTHER OF Goliath, not Goliath himself. They scream bloody murder at the KJB for "adding" the word brother, yet they themselves often do the very same thing.

For example the NASB adds "son" to Mark 1:19,  2:14, 3:18; Mat. 22:42, adds "wife" to John 19:25, and "mother" to Mark 15:47, Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:10.

A similar example occurs in the New Testament in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13.  The King James Bible, as well as Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Douay 1950, Darby 1870, Italian Diodati, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 all say "and Judas THE BROTHER of James".  Several modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV wrongly say: "And Judas THE SON of James", but in any case there is no Greek word for either "brother" or "son".  The King James Bible is correct in that Judas (Jude) and James were BROTHERS, and the Greek text does supply this elliptical word in the book Jude where we read: "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and BROTHER OF James..."

There are many examples of this elliptical construction in the Hebrew, and Greek too for that matter.

As a direct object (which is the case here in 2 Samuel 21:19) we see in 2 Kings 23:19 "And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke THE LORD to anger, Josiah took away..." Here the words "the LORD" are added to the text in the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NKJV, NASB and the NIV, yet they do not occur in the Hebrew.  The NIV, NASB didn't even put it in italics as did the KJB.

Hosea 1:9 "Then said GOD, Call his name Loammi: for ye ARE not my people, and I will not be your GOD."  Here both words GOD at the beginning and end of the sentence are not in the Hebrew, neither is the verb "are".  Yet in both places the NASB places the words LORD and God, and not even in italics, though they do not occur in the Hebrew.  One is the subject and the other is a direct object.  They are implied but not literally stated.

The NASB also does the same in Hosea 1:6 "And the LORD said to him", adding Lord as the subject even though not in the Hebrew.  The KJB italicized the word God.

Just go through the book of 2 Samuel, where we find "the brother of" Goliath, and notice the many verses where something needs to be added for it to make sense.  2 Sam. 1:18 "he bade them teach the children of Judah THE USE OF the bow" (here the KJB is correct while the NIV, NKJV, NASB are wrong, though they too added words like "the song of the bow")

There are many verbs not in the Hebrew which are implied and so placed into the correct English translation. For the moment, let's look at some nouns that are supplied in the English text, but are implied in the elliptical Hebrew.

2:23 "smote him under the fifth RIB"

3:7 "and ISHBOSHETH said to Abner"

3:18 "Now then do IT"

3:27 "under the fifth RIB"

4:12 "and hanged THEM up over the pool..took the head..and buried IT"

6:1 "all the chosen MEN of Israel"

6:5 "all manner OF INSTRUMENTS OF fir wood"

6:6 "put forth HIS HAND"

6:19 "a good piece OF FLESH, and a flagon OF WINE" (different in the NASB, but it still adds nouns not found in the Hebrew texts)

7:9 "the name of the great MEN"

8:4 "David houghed all the chariot HORSES"

8:10 "and JORAM brought him vessels"

9:10 "thou shalt bring in THE FRUITS"

10:9 "he chose all the choice MEN and put THEM in array"

11:17 "and there fell SOME OF the people"

11:24 "and SOME of the king's servants be dead"

Anyway, you get the idea.  As I said, there are many verbs implied that must be supplied by the English, but these few examples just listed are all nouns as is "the brother of" Goliath.  The King James Bible is always right. Accept no substitutes.

Objections:

One man in the internet Bible clubs raises this objection to the King James Bible reading in 2 Samuel 21:19 - (and found also in the NKJV 1982, Todays NIV 2005, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, the 1998 New International Readers Version put out by the same people who brought us the NIV, the 2001 Easy-to-Read Version, the 1996 New Living Translation, Young's 'literal' version, Webster's 1833, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the French Martin 1744, the Italian Nuova Diodati 1991, the Portuguese O Livro of 2000 (again, this is the NIV in Portuguese!), the Third Millenium bible, and the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament.)

This Bible critic says: “I believe the KJV-except where it's obviously WRONG. YOU seemta value your false doctrine more than the TRUTH. The KJV ADDED the words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel outta the blue. Lessee ya prove any differently! There's a LOT more evidence FOR two Goliaths than against it-the fact that "Goliath" is a HEBREW name, the fact that the two battles were more than 30 years apart, and the ADDED words in the KJV, an addition NOT found in the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles. Lessee YOUR explanation of why the KJV ADDED those words!” (end of comments)

The simple reason the King James Bible and several others “add” the words “the brother of” Goliath, is because they ARE found in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 where it says: “and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite”.

In 2 Samuel 21:19 the text says: “Elhanan...slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite”. I agree with him that this battle recorded here probably occured some 20 or 30 years after David killed Goliath as recorded in 1 Samuel 17. But this is an argument in favor of the KJB reading; it was the brother of Goliath that Elhanan killed and not Goliath.

Otherwise, in order to fit TWO men from the SAME place and with the SAME weapons and with the SAME name of Goliath, we would have to believe that the events written about in 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5 are teaching that the SAME man Elhanan killed BOTH the brother of Goliath AND Goliath, and that one event is recorded in 2 Samuel 21 and the other in 1 Chronicles 20. Now, if you choose to believe that, no one can stop you. But it seems to stretch logic and reasonableness well beyond the breaking point.

Here is what some other Bible commentators have to say about the idea of two Goliaths being killed by two different men.

Adam Clarke says: “Verse 19. Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim-slew-Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree.”

John Gill comments: “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite - the word "brother" is rightly supplied from (1 Chronicles 20:5) ; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain, though some so interpret it, and take Elhanan to be David; so Jarchi, and with which agrees the Targum; but he was slain not at Gob, but in the valley of Elah, nor had David any such name as Elhanan.”

David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible - Verses18-22 - Three more Philistine giants are killed (Saph, Goliath's BROTHER, and an unnamed giant) 1 Chronicles 20:5 makes it clear that Elhanan killed Goliath's BROTHER, not Goliath himself.”

Matthew Henry comments on 2 Samuel 21 saying: “The rest of the giants fell by the hand of David's servants. 1. Saph was slain by Sibbechai, one of David's worthies. Another, WHO WAS BROTHER TO GOLIATH, was slain by Elhanan, who is mentioned 2 Samuel 23:24.”

Charles H. Spurgeon likewise comments: “we should certainly read, as in the parallel text, "and Elhanan the son of Jair, slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath."

Will Kinney

[jchthys]

Note that the KJ, while not getting the meaning, did faithfully note that "the brother of" was not in the text.

So did the TNIV. And the NIV has a footnote saying what the translators believed the correction should be.

In 1 Samuel 13, the NIV translators did just what the KJV does in 2 Samuel 21:19—it has brackets.

And the lack of ‘the brother of’ cannot be due to ellipsis. Ellipsis is the leaving out of understood information that does not change the meaning of the text. One cannot leave out ‘the brother of’ and mean the same thing—it is, yes, a scribal error.

And to be more specific on that particular Hebrew/Greek edition: I believe it has all God’s words, whether in the text or footnotes. I do not necessarily believe that all the editor’s choices are correct, but we do have all God’s words there.

To Cherika Four Seasons: Yes, the non-Protestant Bible includes several other Old Testament books. I, along with other Protestants, believe they are not inspired, but the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe that they are, and they call them the ‘Deuterocanonical books’. You can read about themhere on Wikipedia.

[Charles Churchill]

I have a question for Will. Reading through your posts on this forum and your geocities web site I think I understand your position.

My question is about applying your position to Bible study. For instance: in the thread on the word 'church', Gabe referenced other aspects of the Greek word 'ekklesia' that are not necessarily embodied in the English word 'church'. It would seem to me, that according to your position on the KJV, this would be a sinful thing to do (to look at the Greek text or any other translation for any other sense or aspect of the Word of God that does not seem to be indicated by the words used in the KJV text) I'll fully admit that I may not be doing justice to your position, but I'm interested in the answer.

Thanks,
Charles

[AndysDad]

Here is what some other Bible commentators have to say about the idea of two Goliaths being killed by two different men.

Adam Clarke says: “Verse 19. Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim-slew-Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree.”

Will, it is clear that you don't believe that there is any corrupted text in the KJV; however, it appears from the above that you believe that the Hebrew text had become corrupted and that the KJV infallibly corrected it. Is this true?

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

Note that the KJ, while not getting the meaning, did faithfully note that "the brother of" was not in the text.

So did the TNIV. And the NIV has a footnote saying what the translators believed the correction should be.

You mean, the TNIV copied the KJV without thinking, and so did the NIV, but having already not thought through what they were doing, they also "gutted the translation notes" (ie: the italicized portion of the KJV) without comment. Then, in the case of the NIV, they added a cross ref to the Chronicles passage... which is implicitly what the KJV translators did (the NIV abstracted it one step making it much less likely that the reader would read it). But since there is no uniformity in the nature of the translation notes in the NIV, it is not at all obvious what is being said unless one compares the (T)NIV to the KJ to see why the notes are there in the first place.

To make this easier to read:

In 2 Sam 21:19 The NIV and the TNIV preserve the KJ error. The rest of what they do (in this particular verse) is just push around the KJ markup to make it appear that they have done something "better." In both cases they muddy what the translators did and thought... and make it much harder to see the original error.

What the KJ translators did by accident, the (T)NIV handlers embalm in thoughtless self affirmation.

In 1 Samuel 13, the NIV translators did just what the KJV does in 2 Samuel 21:19—it has brackets.

I agree that in principle the type of textual changes are the same, but the NIV handling of 1 Sam 13:1 totally re-constructs the verse... it doesn't just add borrowed meaning from another, obviously parallel passage.

And the lack of ‘the brother of’ cannot be due to ellipsis. Ellipsis is the leaving out of understood information that does not change the meaning of the text. One cannot leave out ‘the brother of’ and mean the same thing...

The part where I say:

As concerns the 2 Sam 21:19 translation... I would agree that there seems to be a problem, and that the KJV translators evidently followed Coverdale and the Vulgate which both seem to have corrected the text with the phrase, "brother of."

...means, "I agree with you"

When I say, "corrected" what I really mean in ivory tower speak is, "emended."

—it is, yes, a scribal error.

What is a scribal error? The misunderstanding of the Hebrew that presented a difficult meaning in English, which the translators and the KJ editors explained by adding in an explanatory phrase from a parallel text? Or perhaps the simple misunderstanding to begin with... which is preserved without thought in the modern "translations."

One is a legitimate mistake possibly because of a scribal error in the Hebrew that Coverdale (and Jerome) was translating from. The other (t/niv) is a self ingratiating "better handling" of the translation which makes it impossible to follow the original translator's quandary.

And to be more specific on that particular Hebrew/Greek edition: I believe it has all God’s words, whether in the text or footnotes. I do not necessarily believe that all the editor’s choices are correct, but we do have all God’s words there.

Uh... huh... so, although you seem to be a NIV onliest... you are really a Hebrew and Greek onliest? Do you really read Hebrew or Greek?

As much as I think that Will's insistence that, "People that don't believe the KJV is the preserved word of God don't believe there is a preserved word anywhere," is over the top... it certainly seems to apply here.

Maybe it makes it safer to have the preserved word in a language you cannot understand...

--gabe

PS: to help clarify this, maybe you could comment on Will's assertion from earlier in this thread thus:

The particular version you recommend is allegedly the Hebrew texts for the O.T. and a very particular Greek text for the N.T.  To be more precise, it is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Critical Greek text.  Are you aware of the fact that the Nestle - Aland Critical Greek text is continually changing every few years, and they are now working on the NA 28th edition?  The Critical Text is not a fixed text at all.  It is undecided in many cases and they keep on tinkering, altering, adding and omitting to this Greek text you tell us is the pure words of God.

In any case, this is more of a rhetorical question as I personally find your answer to his question #1 is sufficient:

Will's Q: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widow's houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." Did the Lord Jesus Christ say these words in Matthew 23:14 and are they a part of inspired Scripture or not?

jchthys A: No, it is not inspired scripture.

[jchthys]

And to be more specific on that particular Hebrew/Greek edition: I believe it has all God’s words, whether in the text or footnotes. I do not necessarily believe that all the editor’s choices are correct, but we do have all God’s words there.

Uh... huh... so, although you seem to be a NIV onliest... you are really a Hebrew and Greek onliest? Do you really read Hebrew or Greek?

As much as I think that Will's insistence that, "People that don't believe the KJV is the preserved word of God don't believe there is a preserved word anywhere," is over the top... it certainly seems to apply here.

Maybe it makes it safer to have the preserved word in a language you cannot understand...

Whether I read Hebrew or Greek is irrelevant. (For the record, I have some familiarity with both, but only Greek I can really read.) The question could be put the other way: can most people of the world read English, especially 1611 English? I am no more important than speakers of any other language.

I am a Hebrew-and-Greek-onliest in the sense that I believe God inspired no translations in any other language.

PS: to help clarify this, maybe you could comment on Will's assertion from earlier in this thread thus:

The particular version you recommend is allegedly the Hebrew texts for the O.T. and a very particular Greek text for the N.T.  To be more precise, it is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Critical Greek text.  Are you aware of the fact that the Nestle - Aland Critical Greek text is continually changing every few years, and they are now working on the NA 28th edition?  The Critical Text is not a fixed text at all.  It is undecided in many cases and they keep on tinkering, altering, adding and omitting to this Greek text you tell us is the pure words of God.

We have all the words of God in such an edition. Some people may differ on which are exactly those words—just as you and I differ over texts such as Matthew 23:14—but there is not, for example, any inspired book which we do not have today.

[Gabriel Anast]

Heh... as much as it galls me to say it, I almost agree with you... except the (IMO, pitiable) assumption that a Greek "text" that changes every time it is issued could in any way be authoritative.

Anyway... if you are saying the sum total of manuscript evidence as presented in those manuscripts (not the Nestle-Aland, for instance) then I agree with you in general.

Do you really read Greek? Is it Trivium-school-book-type Attic Greek, or is it something that focused more on Koine (If I may)?

--gabe

[brandplucked]

I have a question for Will. Reading through your posts on this forum and your geocities web site I think I understand your position.

My question is about applying your position to Bible study. For instance: in the thread on the word 'church', Gabe referenced other aspects of the Greek word 'ekklesia' that are not necessarily embodied in the English word 'church'. It would seem to me, that according to your position on the KJV, this would be a sinful thing to do (to look at the Greek text or any other translation for any other sense or aspect of the Word of God that does not seem to be indicated by the words used in the KJV text) I'll fully admit that I may not be doing justice to your position, but I'm interested in the answer.

Thanks,
Charles

Hi Charles.  Good questions.  The word ekklesia is not always translated as "church", not even in the KJB.  They knew that; I knew that.  I was talking about the word "church", not doing a full study on the Greek word ekklesia.  This word is also translated in the KJB as "assembly" three times.  See Acts 19:32,39 and 41.  But in the context, this was surely not a church at all, but a political meeting or gathering.

It is my position that the King James Bible is the only pure, perfect, inspired, infallible and 100% true Bible by which all others are to be measured.  You may well disagree with my belief, but at least you know where I stand on this most vital issue.

The other side of this issue does not in fact believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and infallible words of God.  They may start off saying that they do, but the more you push them against the wall, they begin to hem and haw, and backtrack, and stutter and you find out eventually that they are "original onlyists" who in essence are Bible agnostics - they are not really sure what God may or may not have said in every growing and unnerving amounts.


God bless,
Will K

[Charles Churchill]

Will,
My question isn't specifically about the word ekklesia, that was just an example.

My question is about applying your position to Bible study. For instance: in the thread on the word 'church', Gabe referenced other aspects of the Greek word 'ekklesia' that are not necessarily embodied in the English word 'church'. It would seem to me, that according to your position on the KJV, this would be a sinful thing to do (to look at the Greek text or any other translation for any other sense or aspect of the Word of God that does not seem to be indicated by the words used in the KJV text) I'll fully admit that I may not be doing justice to your position, but I'm interested in the answer.

I'm interested in the implications of your position.

Thanks,
Charles

[brandplucked]

Note that the KJ, while not getting the meaning, did faithfully note that "the brother of" was not in the text.

So did the TNIV. And the NIV has a footnote saying what the translators believed the correction should be.

In 1 Samuel 13, the NIV translators did just what the KJV does in 2 Samuel 21:19—it has brackets.

And the lack of ‘the brother of’ cannot be due to ellipsis. Ellipsis is the leaving out of understood information that does not change the meaning of the text. One cannot leave out ‘the brother of’ and mean the same thing—it is, yes, a scribal error.

And to be more specific on that particular Hebrew/Greek edition: I believe it has all God’s words, whether in the text or footnotes. I do not necessarily believe that all the editor’s choices are correct, but we do have all God’s words there.

Hi jc.  It seems your previous bold statement about that Biblia Italia or whatever being the pure and 100% infallible words of God is beginning to fall apart at the seams on you.  Now you tell us about the footnotes, and you do not always agree with their choices, but then still try to put on a brave face by saying "but we do have all God's words here".  This is like saying they are all in Webster's dictionary, all out of order, mixed up with lots of words that are not Gods words, but "Hey, there in there somewhere, right?"

Some Points.  the word "brother" can be elliptic.  Especially if it is explicitly stated in another part of Scripture as it is in 1 Chronicles 20:5 "he slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath".  

Word themselves can be elliptical.  Many examples in Scripture.  Look at Deut. 8:3 and compare with Matthew 4:4.  Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every WORD that proceedth out of the mouth of God."

In Deut. 8:3 the word "word" is not in the Hebrew texts.  But it is elliptical, and it IS found in the Greek text.  By the way, big difference between ITALICS and {BRACKETS}.  The KJB does not have anything in brackets like your N\A 27th Greek edition. It has hundreds of words in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.  And this is your "inerrant bible"

Will K

[Charles Churchill]

Will,
Part of the reason I'm asking this is that as I understand your position, the King James Bible cannot be compared to anything for any purpose whatsoever.  If the KJV is THE Word of God, 100% pure and possession 100% of the data that God intended to communicate to man through textual means, then there is no Greek or Hebrew  text that can have any bearing, or shed any light,  or  have any impact in any way upon the KJV. In fact, every Greek and Hebrew text, must instead be compared to the KJV and brought back to the English text to facilitate its understanding.

Is this a fair assessment of what you would hold to? If so, I'm having significant problems grappling with it.

Thanks,
Charles

[brandplucked]

Will,
Part of the reason I'm asking this is that as I understand your position, the King James Bible cannot be compared to anything for any purpose whatsoever.  If the KJV is THE Word of God, 100% pure and possession 100% of the data that God intended to communicate to man through textual means, then there is no Greek or Hebrew  text that can have any bearing, or shed any light,  or  have any impact in any way upon the KJV. In fact, every Greek and Hebrew text, must instead be compared to the KJV and brought back to the English text to facilitate its understanding.

Is this a fair assessment of what you would hold to? If so, I'm having significant problems grappling with it.

Thanks,
Charles

Hi Charles. And what would be the alternative?  WHICH Greek? and WHICH Hebrew texts?  If God has already gone through the preservation and purification process to produce the greatest Bible ever in print in the end times universal language of English, then how are you or anyone else going to improve upon it.

It is my contention that if a person does not believe that the King James Bible is the only perfect words of God in Bible form, then he does not believe that such an animal exists at all.  Am I wrong?  What do you think?  Have any of the modern versionists or scholars managed to produce the perfect, complete and 100% true Holy Bible yet?  If so, where can I get a copy so I can compare it to my KJB and see the differences and similarities?

God bless,
Will K

[ForeverGirl]

I hope I'm not "interrupting" here...  I just wanted to throw one more idea out there to see what you would think about it, Mr. Kenney.

Some history:
I used to work in Bible Translation in Papua New Guinea a long time ago. I am by no means a scholar or greatly learned in manuscript texts, etc... I did study Greek and Hebrew in order to get my "degree" - whatever that means. I have forgotten most of it... 15 years later.

Experience: During the brief time I did work on translating (two years) I usually (almost always) found clearer meaning for translation purposes by examining the KJV text. Being surrounded by other languages, I came to believe that this was partly because I was an English speaker/thinker.

However, there were some important and particular cases in which I found my understanding of the English text to be inadequate. This was due to CULTURAL implications within the text. I found that going back to the Hebrew text, and doing a word-study on every occurrence of a Hebrew word gave me far clearer understanding than the English could offer.

Why?

I believe this was because the Bible was written to Hebrews, by Hebrews, within a Hebrew context, which was starkly different from the other cultural groups existing at that time. I do believe this completely saturating aspect of culture-in-text can be seen through the English text... but I also found that it can take a lot more study, sweat, and prayer to find it. Many times looking at the Hebrew text made the process faster and easier and was verified in the English, once understood.
Examples: "devour widow's houses" in Mar 12:40, Mat 23:14, Luk 20:47... the use of the word "Corban" in Mar 7:11

My Outrageous Statement  : I don't know that I can back this up with evidence other than just minimal experience... but I believe the inspired, inerrant Word of God may be in more than just English today. I don't claim to know what languages it is in... However, I would guess that it exists in every major language where the Hebrew people have become significant: The last time I checked, 38% of the Jews in the world live in Israel... and 36% live in America! It makes sense to me that the Bible would be preserved in English... BECAUSE:

I believe that if God promised to preserve His word... He promised this to Hebrews. To His chosen people. The laws were written to them... those "tittles and jots" were Hebrew in origin.

As Mr. Kenney said, the English text we have today was a process that only came together around the year 1611... but all the pieces and parts were out there.
I believe that the same may be true of the Hebrew texts, and possibly others.

Again, all this is based on my understanding of 1) God's promises to the Hebrews regarding His Word and b)My own study and translation experiences.

Rebekah

[brandplucked]

I hope I'm not "interrupting" here...  I just wanted to throw one more idea out there to see what you would think about it, Mr. Kenney.

Some history:
I used to work in Bible Translation in Papua New Guinea a long time ago. I am by no means a scholar or greatly learned in manuscript texts, etc... I did study Greek and Hebrew in order to get my "degree" - whatever that means. I have forgotten most of it... 15 years later.

Experience: During the brief time I did work on translating (two years) I usually (almost always) found clearer meaning for translation purposes by examining the KJV text. Being surrounded by other languages, I came to believe that this was partly because I was an English speaker/thinker.

However, there were some important and particular cases in which I found my understanding of the English text to be inadequate. This was due to CULTURAL implications within the text. I found that going back to the Hebrew text, and doing a word-study on every occurrence of a Hebrew word gave me far clearer understanding than the English could offer.

Why?

I believe this was because the Bible was written to Hebrews, by Hebrews, within a Hebrew context, which was starkly different from the other cultural groups existing at that time. I do believe this completely saturating aspect of culture-in-text can be seen through the English text... but I also found that it can take a lot more study, sweat, and prayer to find it. Many times looking at the Hebrew text made the process faster and easier and was verified in the English, once understood.
Examples: "devour widow's houses" in Mar 12:40, Mat 23:14, Luk 20:47... the use of the word "Corban" in Mar 7:11

My Outrageous Statement  : I don't know that I can back this up with evidence other than just minimal experience... but I believe the inspired, inerrant Word of God may be in more than just English today. I don't claim to know what languages it is in... However, I would guess that it exists in every major language where the Hebrew people have become significant: The last time I checked, 38% of the Jews in the world live in Israel... and 36% live in America! It makes sense to me that the Bible would be preserved in English... BECAUSE:

I believe that if God promised to preserve His word... He promised this to Hebrews. To His chosen people. The laws were written to them... those "tittles and jots" were Hebrew in origin.

As Mr. Kenney said, the English text we have today was a process that only came together around the year 1611... but all the pieces and parts were out there.
I believe that the same may be true of the Hebrew texts, and possibly others.

Again, all this is based on my understanding of 1) God's promises to the Hebrews regarding His Word and b)My own study and translation experiences.

Rebekah

[brandplucked]

I hope I'm not "interrupting" here...  I just wanted to throw one more idea out there to see what you would think about it, Mr. Kenney.



My Outrageous Statement  : I don't know that I can back this up with evidence other than just minimal experience... but I believe the inspired, inerrant Word of God may be in more than just English today. I don't claim to know what languages it is in... However, I would guess that it exists in every major language where the Hebrew people have become significant: The last time I checked, 38% of the Jews in the world live in Israel... and 36% live in America! It makes sense to me that the Bible would be preserved in English... BECAUSE:

I believe that if God promised to preserve His word... He promised this to Hebrews. To His chosen people. The laws were written to them... those "tittles and jots" were Hebrew in origin.

As Mr. Kenney said, the English text we have today was a process that only came together around the year 1611... but all the pieces and parts were out there.
I believe that the same may be true of the Hebrew texts, and possibly others.

Again, all this is based on my understanding of 1) God's promises to the Hebrews regarding His Word and b)My own study and translation experiences.

Rebekah

Hi Rebekah.  You bring up some interesting points.  I agree with you that the true text for the OLD Testament was and is the correct Hebrew.  However what is happening today is that versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and even the NKJV often reject the Hebrew readings, and not at all always in the same places.  The "scholars" behind these modern versions all tell us that parts of the Hebrew bible have been corrupted or even lost.  I have several examples or you can read the quotes right out of versions like the NIV.

The King James Bible always follows the Hebrew readings, names and numbers, even when they sometimes on the surface look like contradicions.  However the main point is this.  The Bible is not just the Old Testament.  When God put the whole Bible into one book, then there has to be a translation into another language, unless you want everybody to become experts in archaic Hebrew and archaic Greek - neither Biblical Hebrew nor Biblical Greek languages are the same today as in Bible times.  Even the Greeks and modern day Hebrew speaking people would not understand it.

God, who sees the end from the beginning, knew that English would become the end times universal language, and that is exactly where He put His perfect, complete and 100% true preserved words.

No other Bible is seriously believed and defended as the infallible words of God.  The belief in the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture is definitely on the way down - WAY down, and people actually read these modern "updated" versions less and less.  Those are the facts.

Do you need to be a KJB onlyist to get saved and have your sins forgiven?  By no means. The gospel of salvation through the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is found in any version out there in any language and God can and does use them to save His people.  But they are not the perfect and 100% true words of God.  I do not even believe that one must believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to be saved.  If that were the case, then probably about 95% of present day Christians would not make it.

I support missionaries who are tying to take the gospel to the lost. But they should realize that God is not going to use them to give us a perfect Bible in another language.  Their goal should be to make the other language translation as close to the meaning of the KJB as possible and allow God to do the rest.

Anyway, thank you for your thoughts.

Bendiciones,
Will K

[Charles Churchill]

Will,
More on this later, but Rebekah's thoughts are part of the problem that I'm having issues. God created the Hebrew language and culture to bear His name and His Words.  There are concepts embedded in both Hebrew and Greek that are not carried in full by their English counterparts. (My very first thought along these lines were regarding the words Christ used when he said "it is finished", I believe the Greek words (centered around 'telos' carry within them some very significant concepts that are not embedded in English culture)

Anyway, this is fairly knee-jerk and I need to do more research, but that is where I'm coming from. It seems to me, that if the King James is the source of God's word, looking at a Greek Word like Telos would not be allowed, because the Enlgish phrase "it is finished" contains within it all that God wants me to understand about it...

As I said, more later,
Charles

[jchthys]

The King James Bible always follows the Hebrew readings, names and numbers, even when they sometimes on the surface look like contradicions.  However the main point is this.  The Bible is not just the Old Testament.  When God put the whole Bible into one book, then there has to be a translation into another language, unless you want everybody to become experts in archaic Hebrew and archaic Greek - neither Biblical Hebrew nor Biblical Greek languages are the same today as in Bible times.  Even the Greeks and modern day Hebrew speaking people would not understand it.

From what I have seen, I believe this to be false. In addition to 2 Samuel 21:19, here are some other examples:

• In Genesis 36:24 all Hebrew manuscripts and other ancient authorities read “found water”. The KJV reads “found mules” following a mediaeval Jewish commentator.
• In 1 Samuel 2:25 all Hebrew manuscripts read “God”; the KJV has “judge”.
• In Isaiah 19:10 all Hebrew manuscripts read “soul”; the KJV reads “fish”, following the Latin Vulgate.
• In Hosea 13:9 all Hebrew manuscripts read “he destroyed you”; whe KJV says “thou hast destroyed thyself”, for no apparent reason.
• In Malachi 2:12 all Hebrew manuscripts read “aware and awake”; the KJV has “the master and the scholar”, following the Latin Vulgate.

God, who sees the end from the beginning, knew that English would become the end times universal language, and that is exactly where He put His perfect, complete and 100% true preserved words.

No, [in my opinion,] English never has been (and is nowhere near becoming) a universal language. And even if English were to become a universal language, it would be modern English—not the English of the King James Version.

The belief in the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture is definitely on the way down - WAY down, and people actually read these modern "updated" versions less and less.  Those are the facts.

Please don’t state opinions—especially opinions without proof—as fact. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and read the NIV every day.

I support missionaries who are tying to take the gospel to the lost. But they should realize that God is not going to use them to give us a perfect Bible in another language.  Their goal should be to make the other language translation as close to the meaning of the KJB as possible and allow God to do the rest.

I believe that the KJV was also one of those translations—not perfect like the original, but as close to the meaning as the translators were able. And God has blessed the use of that translation, but it is not a perfect Bible.

Mod Edit: Um... yeah... by the way, jchthys, if Will has a weakness, bear it, and stay on topic... and if you would, "eat your own dogfood." ie: Please don’t state opinions—especially opinions without proof—as fact. Also, please quote your sources... especially since, in this case, they would be very on topic... James D Price... feel free to edit this out. Thanks.

[Gabriel Anast]

As regards sufficiency of the KJ text
My thoughts about the KJ English text is that it is perfect in its entirety as concerns the communication of God to man. I do not believe this is true for the modern versions (anything before 1985 in the broad strokes... I am not sure about the J P Green texts or the other so called literal translations as I have not studied them much).

• This means that after reading the text a few times, any reader that understands the content will begin to see that "congregation" in the OT is the same as "church" and "assembling" in the NT and (awkwardly) synthesize them in their own mind. This in not an Old English problem, nor is it a Hebrew idiom to English idiom problem, rather it is simply a translation anomaly. It does not, however, break the text as a whole, as I see it.
• This also means that places where transliteration occurred in one place, and translation in another, that I believe the text itself is sufficient to, with persistent study, make most of these anomalies plain.
• Finally, I believe that this means that in places where the translation is down-right impossible (the end of 1 Cor 7, and Malachi as concerns the word, "wife" and "husband" for instance) that the rest of the translation is sufficient to demonstrate to the careful reader that there must be an error in the translation at that point in the text as regards those words.

As regards the sufficiency of other texts
That there might be texts that (as does the KJ, IMO) present faithfully the perfect word of God in English or other languages is completely possible as I see it.

As regards the sufficiency of the manuscripts
One of the fundamental KJO positions is that the Hebrew texts used to translate the KJ no longer exist, or are not publicly available. This certainly may be the case. I am not in the place to know or to say one way or another.

I would argue, however, that our satisfaction in having the word of God is not in holding it but in knowing it. That even in the Hebrew, the necessary, overriding factor in determining the veracity of a text in question must be a strong foundation in knowledge of the text as a whole. I once saw extensive quotes in the Talmud of the book, the Testament of Job... a book of uncertain authorship and age. So, I went and read the Testament of Job. It was interesting, but it was obvious that the author had only a cursory familiarity with the books of Job and Genesis. Because of this, the Testament of Job was obviously fallacious in many of the key points of fact. Thus, presuming that Job and Genesis are correct, the Testament of Job can safely be completely discounted.

The same is true for aberrant manuscripts... they make themselves obvious once you know well the content of the entire text.

As regards the sufficiency of the Greek NT
The Greek NT is a very clear case of a translation... I do not believe that there was an original Hebrew NT as the Hebraic Roots crowd presents (with a few likely exceptions), but I do believe that the writers were all primarily Hebrew / Aramaic speakers that for the sake of expediency wrote in Greek.

Because the law and the prophets were in Hebrew, and the primary language for the authors was Hebrew, by necessity, the Greek (as it was written) was a type of translation. I do not believe that this in any way makes it less inspired or perfect.

@Charles Churchill: In my opinion, this means that it is not as useful as one might think to study the Greek and Greek word meaning. First, the NT is one of about 30 Koine documents that we have, and the other 29 are tiny, nearly useless texts as concerns comparison for lingual understanding. The upshot is that the only comparative text that is reliable will be the OT and (in general) the Hebrew language. So, in my opinion, it is better to (when wanting a more perfect meaning of NT English) to look for a parallel in the OT, look at the Hebrew behind that, and then to compare that to the Greek behind the NT passage in question.

That the OT is primarily preserved in Hebrew manuscript and the NT primarily in Greek manuscript is also, as I see it not an issue. We have obvious majority texts of both, and without knowing any of the text (as jchthys persistently demonstrates) we can be well satisfied that in these languages we have about 98% of the text perfectly presented as it was given. The rest, as I said above, can in almost every case (about ten-ish cases excepted, I think), discern the correct text by understanding the context and the text as a whole.

As regards preservation in English:
This is an amazing thing if it is true. I agree that it is possible that the KJ English is the best translation. It even seems likely to me... although I do not read any other modern languages (to my chagrin).

I also agree that it is possible (and even likely... the Bible is a dangerous thing, and has, especially since the Christianization of the Roman empire, been possibly the most abused and censored book) that some of the texts used to translate the KJ were lost, hidden or even destroyed.^[1] This could mean that it is possible that the only correct translation of certain texts survives in the KJ. Not sure this is the case, but it well could be. Note that if this were the case, these translations would be from minority texts, and again, would be demonstrated correct by the context and knowledge of the text as a whole.

The scary problem with this stance is what this unique preservation (evidently by God) in the English says about English speaking peoples. This is something that I have never seen typical KJVO types bring up, but that is often referred to and even strongly touted on white separatist type sites. Take a look at Sevyn7's posts on this very forum, and look at the links to some of his source material. I happen to be somewhat in agreement with the way some of these sites see the Hebrew bloodline working (an generally nothing else)... the significant differences stemming from the general lack of knowledge of the actual meaning of the Bible as regards these groups (white separatists and KJVO alike).

@Will: I know that some of this will appear directed at you... but, frankly, you are so different (to my mind) than the main body of the KJVO crowd that I honestly don't see you as KJVO. Your depth of knowledge of the various texts and frank willingness to study in some depth the manuscript and translation issues is refreshing and pleasant to me. Most here who read you (as far as I can tell) never get much past your opening statements before blowing a fuse. Anyway, I am not intending to offend you in any of this, and I do value the body of almost all that you have written.

--gabe


^[1]One of my favorite conspiracy theories is this: That the primary mandate of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington is the suppression and revision of history, not the preservation of it. Especially as regards a very specific mandate to carefully destroy historical evidence that does not fit the proscribed model.

[brandplucked]

Will,
More on this later, but Rebekah's thoughts are part of the problem that I'm having issues. God created the Hebrew language and culture to bear His name and His Words.  There are concepts embedded in both Hebrew and Greek that are not carried in full by their English counterparts. (My very first thought along these lines were regarding the words Christ used when he said "it is finished", I believe the Greek words (centered around 'telos' carry within them some very significant concepts that are not embedded in English culture)

Anyway, this is fairly knee-jerk and I need to do more research, but that is where I'm coming from. It seems to me, that if the King James is the source of God's word, looking at a Greek Word like Telos would not be allowed, because the Enlgish phrase "it is finished" contains within it all that God wants me to understand about it...

As I said, more later,
Charles

What more could you come up with that is not a personal interpretation for the words "It is finished." in John 19:30?  Something like Hal Lindsey comes up with as "Paid in full."?  That sounds nice, but it is a personal interpretation and it would not fit with what the Lord says in John 17:4.

Will K

[Charles Churchill]

Something like Hal Lindsey

Nice. Do you kiss all your Christian brothers with those lips?   

No, to be fair, I did say I just threw that out off the top of my head.  My only problem with your position is pretty similar to Gabe's. That the KJV is not THE Word of God in the sense that God will not allow His Word to be expressed in any other way, but that I do not know of a better translation/handling of the text. And, if, as you have asserted, the KJV represents the only way to access a translation/representation of the complete text of the Word of God, then, this makes it very special indeed. The KJV is and has been the Bible that I use for studying the scriptures.

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 08, 2012, 09:32:19 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6896
• Latest: ESTel987

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 34
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 1
• Guests: 27
• Total: 28
• ladyhen