Bible Problem

[forgiven61]

one of the arguments i get on translation kjv is hard to understand so we switched to the NIV , i have read nasb is more close than kjv.. kvj cause me to dig to understand certain words

 

[bobinfaith]

is what i use and many churches will not allow any thing but kjv

one of the arguments i get on translation kjv is hard to understand so we switched to the NIV , i have read nasb is more close than kjv.. kvj cause me to dig to understand certain words

Hello forgiven;

Through the years I have visited many other Churches and their pew bible will be the KJV, ESV, NIV and many others. I respect their choice of translation and would never think of going in as a visitor and tell them what they should use.

God bless you, brother, your family and Church.

 

[forgiven61]

i see it also i know a person went to church bible study. the teacher used a different translation . he challenged them on it. i use what i use 2 reasons cut my teeth on it. plus not buying new Bible for a translation

 

[Prim90]

Hello Prim90;

The KJV and NKJV are both literal, or formal equivalence which means that these translations remain as close to the Hebrew and Greek. The "transitional Bible" in this case the NKJV basically eliminates thee, thine, thou and thy are replaced with the current pronouns used today.

The discussion and commentaries will find other constructive reasons and arguments why the NKJV transition from the original King James, the same with all translations.

As far as the Greek Sinaiticus I don't know the significance why this would eliminate this discussion, however, the rest that you reference is good commentary. God bless you, sister.



Hello netchaplain;

I'm still not clear. Are you referring to the incorrect reading in 2 Samuel 21:19 being the KJV, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 being correct but from what translation?

It's ironic that you pointed to the imperfections of the KJV (added words) because most KJV students do not critique their preferred translation while the NIV was commended for correcting errors in Scripture. The NIV has been long criticised for it's English version of the original Hebrew and Greek. One pastor I knew suggested the NIV was demonic. Another Christian woman said the NIV omitted Scripture in support of accepted same gender relationships.

Your constructive reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 contrasting 1 Chronicles 20:5 and the italicized phrase of "the brother of" is what we call a minor note in the historical context of the Old and New Testaments.

For example, if Genesis 1:1 read, In the beginning "a God" created the heavens and earth would be considered an erroneous (major note) because there is only one God, not a God. In the argument of 1 Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19 the issue of the brother being italicized is a minor note.

Every translation has it's human critics and many students will dismiss other Bible translations over minor notes.

I agree the Bible will have it's errors and this is one of the important reasons translations are revised.

God bless you, Bob.

Bob how can they be the same the new King James Bible incorporates new words that have different meaning. The king James has undergone a number of revisions mainly to update into modern English or to fix printing errors from centuries gone by. But it still it remained the King James Bible and wasn’t called the New King James for good reason. If what you say is true we would have all traded our King James Bibles for the New James back in the late 70’s when the new King James came into being much before my time. But a lot of people didn’t and for good reason. Became the new King James is not a King James Bible it’s a whole new translation . And the very reason why the King James Bible remains a top seller. Examples. Proverbs 11:16 KJV Strong men retain riches. Positive NkJ ruthless men retain riches. Negative. Eccl 3:11 KJV ( God hath set the world in their heart ). The focus be on the world. NkJ ( God has put eternity in their hearts ) focus off the world 2nd Corinthians 2:17 KJV ( For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ) to make impure NKJ (For we are not as so many peddling the word of God) sell it. Bob there be hundreds of these differences that change the entire meaning of what is being said. I just give a few here . And again state the very reason why I say the New King James is not a King James Bible it be a new translation.

 

[bobinfaith]

Bob how can they be the same the new King James Bible incorporates new words that have different meaning. The king James has undergone a number of revisions mainly to update into modern English or to fix printing errors from centuries gone by. But it still it remained the King James Bible and wasn’t called the New King James for good reason. If what you say is true we would have all traded our King James Bibles for the New James back late 70’s when the new King James came into being much before my time. But a lot of people didn’t and for good reason. Became the new King James is not a King James Bible it’s a whole new translation . And the very reason why the King James Bible remains a top seller. Examples. Proverbs 11:16 KJV Strong men retain riches. Positive NkJ ruthless men retain riches. Negative. Eccl 3:11 KJV ( God hath set the world in their heart ). The focus be on the world. NkJ ( God has put eternity in their hearts ) focus off the world 2nd Corinthians 2:17 KJV ( For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ) to make impure NKJ (For we are not as so many peddling the word of God) sell it. Bob there be hundreds of these differences that change the entire meaning of what is being said. I just give a few here . And again state the very reason why I say the New King James is not a King James Bible it be a new translation.

Hello Prim90;
The KJV and NKJV are both literal, or formal equivalence which means that these translations remain as close to the Hebrew and Greek. The "transitional Bible" in this case the NKJV basically eliminates thee, thine, thou and thy are replaced with the current pronouns used today. The discussion and commentaries will find other constructive reasons and arguments why the NKJV transition from the original King James, the same with all translations.

As far as the Greek Sinaiticus I don't know the significance why this would eliminate this discussion, however, the rest that you reference is good commentary. God bless you, sister.



Hello netchaplain;

I'm still not clear. Are you referring to the incorrect reading in 2 Samuel 21:19 being the KJV, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 being correct but from what translation?

It's ironic that you pointed to the imperfections of the KJV (added words) because most KJV students do not critique their preferred translation while the NIV was commended for correcting errors in Scripture. The NIV has been long criticised for it's English version of the original Hebrew and Greek. One pastor I knew suggested the NIV was demonic. Another Christian woman said the NIV omitted Scripture in support of accepted same gender relationships.

Your constructive reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 contrasting 1 Chronicles 20:5 and the italicized phrase of "the brother of" is what we call a minor note in the historical context of the Old and New Testaments.

For example, if Genesis 1:1 read, In the beginning "a God" created the heavens and earth would be considered an erroneous (major note) because there is only one God, not a God. In the argument of 1 Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19 the issue of the brother being italicized is a minor note.

Every translation has it's human critics and many students will dismiss other Bible translations over minor notes.

I agree the Bible will have it's errors and this is one of the important reasons translations are revised.

God bless you, Bob.

Hello Prim90;

I didn't say the KJV and NKJV is the same. Please go back and re-read my post to you that I blue-lighted. The latter translation consists of today’s more closely second-person pronouns. I remember when the NKJV was released in the late 1970s and mid 1980s. Many readers found the newer version easier to read.

There remain other argument and constructive reasons through the years, and as you suggested, why the NKJV transitioned from the original KJV.

God bless you, Prim90.

 

[Prim90]

Bob when thinking upon the thee, thine and thou’s. Those words you mention are very important. And have significance. That is often lost when changed. Perhaps check the full scope of those words in a old biblical dictionary to fully comprehend why those words are left as so .

 

[crossnote]

The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out.

Now I see why I got confused, normally MT stands for Majority Text (not modern translations) and is pretty much the same as the Traditional Text (TT) also TR or Textus Receptus.

 

[bobinfaith]

Bob when thinking upon the thee, thine and thou’s. Those words you mention are very important. And have significance. That is often lost when changed. Perhaps check the full scope of those words in a old biblical dictionary to fully comprehend why those words are left as so .

Hello Prim90;

Yes, that was my point. Though God's words always have significance, we must learn why revisions, transitions of the translations and it's continued work in progress.

Let's always encourage others as well as ourselves to revisit and review all sources available in order to stay abreast in our continued Biblical studies.

I'm also praying for your continued discipled growth and studies as well, sister.

God bless you always.

 

[Prim90]

Then why call it a new King James Bible at all when it’s not based on a King James Bible . That’s my point. There be enough new translations around for those who seek a easier path. Some even call it false advertising for it he a different translation and maybe they should call it by another name

 

[bobinfaith]

Then why call it a new King James Bible at all when it’s not based a King James Bible . That’s my point. There be enough new translations around for those seek a easier path. Some even call it false advertising for it he a different translation and maybe they should call it by another name

And I respect your views, sister, and your point and comments are well received. That is what is KEY here.

Thanks, Prim90.

 

[Prim90]

we

And I respect your views, sister, and your point and comments are well received. That is what is KEY here.

Thanks, Prim90.

Bob thank you. Yes we must always evaluate. More so when it comes to the bible for it be a book soaked in the blood of the Saints and there also be those who wilfully go out to corrupt the word of the God.

 

[TransformedinChrist]

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine.

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC

I use alot of translations. I recently downloaded the New American Standard Bible - NASB 2020 [Longman]. People have to understand not everyone can understand the KJV and NKJV. It's like saying everyone has to learn Hebrew and Greek inorder to fully in context understand scriptures [better yet the Torah]. I have been studying alot of Jewish roots of the Bible by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I am drawn back to Matthew 18:6. If someone causes someone to stumble over a translation - the Holy Spirit is evident and contiunes to be our teacher, helper and teaches us. John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. That's just me. God knows when we are seeking with all of our hearts ​

 

[crossnote]

It is not always advantageous to take the Bible literally. A particular dislike of mine is when people say the earth was created in six days of 24 hours duration measured by earth time, without knowing the word day or yome in the Hebrew means any period of time according to context. We are living in the seventh day now, and it is far longer than twenty-four hours.

The Bible evidently defines what a day is in the context of the creation account...

Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 NIV
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
[8] God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
[13] And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
[19] And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
[23] And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
[31] God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

So unless one wants to redefine 'evening and morning', six days still stand in my Book, the Bible

 

[Prim90]

There is a copyright issue. If someone wants to copyright their labour of love, it must be different, and I can see this causing all sorts of problems vis-à-vis the true meaning.
.

Robin you speak of the copyright issue . Yes that’s right that be part of the problem with some. In order for someone or some organisation or business to claim a book or bible as their own or a new translation a certain percentage of the wording must be different. The bible industry is a big business. And the love of money and profit being commonly known as the root of evil is always lurking within the heart of humanity. Even when it comes to the bible. But it not be the only reason as we have evidence of those who would tamper with the word of God going back to early church times until the present day. One can point to the NWT where John 1:I is butchered along with many other verses in that bible

 

[netchaplain]

Hello netchaplain;

I'm still not clear. Are you referring to the incorrect reading in 2 Samuel 21:19 being the KJV, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 being correct but from what translation?

The correct rendering is, "Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath," which the correct rending of 1Chron agrees, and even gives his name--Lahmi.

 

[netchaplain]

is what i use and many churches will not allow any thing but kjv

The King James is the best, except for a lot of the archaisms which can be difficult, but that's why the NKJV. There are a few others that use the same manuscripts as the KJV, like the Webster Translation, Young's Literal Translation and a few others. King James was based of three thousand plus manuscript copies (is say "copies because there are no known extant original autographs, or they might be worshipped); as opposed to the errant translations that are based on only a few (Sianiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus).

 

[netchaplain]

Now I see why I got confused, normally MT stands for Majority Text (not modern translations) and is pretty much the same as the Traditional Text (TT) also TR or Textus Receptus.

Yes, I was wondering if that might confuse some, but sometimes you have to designate like that to get the point across. Thanks for the reply and God bless!

 

[bobinfaith]

The correct rendering is, "Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath," which the correct rending of 1Chron agrees, and even gives his name--Lahmi.

Hello, netchaplain;

I don't mean to beat this to the ground. But what Bible translation are you referring as the incorrect rendering in 1 Samuel 21:19?

You already made clear of 1 Chronicles 20:5 the correct rendering in the KJV.

God bless you, brother.

 

[netchaplain]

Hello, netchaplain;

I don't mean to beat this to the ground. But what Bible translation are you referring as the incorrect rendering in 1 Samuel 21:19?

You already made clear of 1 Chronicles 20:5 the correct rendering in the KJV.

God bless you, brother.

That's ok, it can be difficult with this issue. Nearly all modern translations, except KJV and a few others (paraphrases in my opinion), contain the incorrect reading, that "Elhanan killed Goliath" 2Sam 21:19, not 1Sam. There are no known extant manuscripts contain the phrase "the brother of" in this passage; and the copyists just attribute it to scribal error. I still can't understand why any scholar would let this omission remain to read incorrectly. Probably to discredit the Bible. We can notice that the reiteration of this story in 1Chron 20:5 is not italicized, showing Greek authority.

 

[netchaplain]

I agree. This is from the King James and they both agree it was the brother of Goliath who was killed by Elhanan.

2Sa 21:19 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.

1Ch 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

Some translations have what you might call a printer's error.

Adam Clarke explains it thus:

2 Samuel 21:19
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 1Ch_20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath
.

Hi, and appreciate your replies! There are no extant manuscripts that contain the phrase "the brother of" in the 2Sam issue. The copyists just attribute it to scribal error. But it is insane that the detractors left it as found in the corrupted manuscripts. God bless!!