• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

2 Samuel 5:21 - burnt them or take them away?

KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Dear community,



Another change the New versions did that was rejected by the kings men.



This is in 'The Second Booke of Samuel, otherwise, called The second Booke of the Kings' V:21.



The issue is the last part where it saith 'burnt them with fire.' Which new versions change to 'took them away.'



The exact phrase 'took them away' is in the Cloverdale Bible with 'his men carried the awaye.'



Others before Geneva had 'toke them vp.'



Starting from Geneva had 'burnt them.'



Its also, in the marginal note in the 1611.



Its not of ignorance the kings men didn't have the other option, they rejected it.



The image is too big to send, kindly check the online pdf or website of a 1611 scan.



Shawn
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Consider an example at 2 Samuel 5:21 where D. A. Waite claimed that the NKJV "changes verb" and where this type change is called "not faithfulness in translation," "not accuracy in translation," and "not reliability in translation" (Waite, NKJV Compared to KJV, p. 32).

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles has the same rendering as the NKJV at 2 Samuel 5:21 ["David and his men carried them away"]. Is this rendering "carried away" actually unfaithful and inaccurate when compared to the Massoretic Text? This NKJV rendering is a literal translation of the Hebrew and is not a dynamic equilvancy.
The KJV itself literally translated this same Hebrew word as "carried away" at 2 Chronicles 14:13 and 16:16. It is the KJV that does not have a strictly literal rendering of what the Hebrew says at 2 Samuel 5:21.

James D. Price maintained: "The KJV followed the Targum, emending the MT to harmonize with a parallel passage [1 Chron. 14:12] unnecessarily" (Textual Emendations, pp. 16, 61; see also King James Onlyism, p. 291). The 1560 Geneva Bible also had made this rendering and had as a note its reason for it--"1 Chronicles 14:12." In his Jewish commentary on Samuel, S. Goldman claimed: “The Chronicler supplies the gloss (adopted by the Targum and Kimchi) and they were burned with fire” (p. 218). Doug Stauffer implied that the NIV's rendering ["carried them off"] at 2 Samuel 5:21 "elevates idol worship" (One Book Stands, pp. 209-210).



The 1611 edition of the KJV had this note that gave the literal meaning of the Hebrew as an acceptable alternative rendering: "Or, took them away." The 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1540 Great Bible, and the 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible have this rendering: "David and his men took them up." In agreement with Matthew's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV had the 1611's marginal note in the text "took them away." Thomas Newberry (1811-1901) in his KJV Study Bible has this note for this verse: "took them up" (p. 388).

Does the evidence show that KJV-only advocates apply the same exact measures, standards, and principles to the KJV as they do to other translations or do they use unrighteous divers measures and make unrighteous judgments in their claims concerning other translations? Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV translators elevated idol worship in their marginal note at this verse? Would Doug Stauffer claim that for the KJV to be authoritative at this verse "a strict adherence to a word-for-word translation must be followed" (One Book Stands, p. 253)? Does the KJV actually have the most literal translation of the Hebrew word at 2 Samuel 5:21?
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Logos1560 said:
Consider an example at 2 Samuel 5:21 where D. A. Waite claimed that the NKJV "changes verb" and where this type change is called "not faithfulness in translation," "not accuracy in translation," and "not reliability in translation" (Waite, NKJV Compared to KJV, p. 32).

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles has the same rendering as the NKJV at 2 Samuel 5:21 ["David and his men carried them away"]. Is this rendering "carried away" actually unfaithful and inaccurate when compared to the Massoretic Text? This NKJV rendering is a literal translation of the Hebrew and is not a dynamic equilvancy.
The KJV itself literally translated this same Hebrew word as "carried away" at 2 Chronicles 14:13 and 16:16. It is the KJV that does not have a strictly literal rendering of what the Hebrew says at 2 Samuel 5:21.

James D. Price maintained: "The KJV followed the Targum, emending the MT to harmonize with a parallel passage [1 Chron. 14:12] unnecessarily" (Textual Emendations, pp. 16, 61; see also King James Onlyism, p. 291). The 1560 Geneva Bible also had made this rendering and had as a note its reason for it--"1 Chronicles 14:12." In his Jewish commentary on Samuel, S. Goldman claimed: “The Chronicler supplies the gloss (adopted by the Targum and Kimchi) and they were burned with fire” (p. 218). Doug Stauffer implied that the NIV's rendering ["carried them off"] at 2 Samuel 5:21 "elevates idol worship" (One Book Stands, pp. 209-210).



The 1611 edition of the KJV had this note that gave the literal meaning of the Hebrew as an acceptable alternative rendering: "Or, took them away." The 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1540 Great Bible, and the 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible have this rendering: "David and his men took them up." In agreement with Matthew's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV had the 1611's marginal note in the text "took them away." Thomas Newberry (1811-1901) in his KJV Study Bible has this note for this verse: "took them up" (p. 388).

Does the evidence show that KJV-only advocates apply the same exact measures, standards, and principles to the KJV as they do to other translations or do they use unrighteous divers measures and make unrighteous judgments in their claims concerning other translations? Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV translators elevated idol worship in their marginal note at this verse? Would Doug Stauffer claim that for the KJV to be authoritative at this verse "a strict adherence to a word-for-word translation must be followed" (One Book Stands, p. 253)? Does the KJV actually have the most literal translation of the Hebrew word at 2 Samuel 5:21?
Click to expand...
They knew they could put 'took away.'

Both this verse and the cross-refrence have burnt.

Hebrew word's don't need to be translated be same way each time.

The KJB is right on every translation choice.

Shawn
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Logos1560 said:
That is your subjective, inconsistent, biased opinion. You do not prove your opinion to be true.
Do you make your human opinions superior to the preserved original-language words of Scripture?
Click to expand...

Sir, language translation dosen't permit same words in the translated language.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
The KJB is right on every translation choice.
Click to expand...
If the KJV was right in its translation of the Hebrew word at 2 Chronicles 14:13 and 16:16, does that suggest that its very different translation of this word at 2 Samuel 5:21 is wrong?

The KJV itself literally translated this same Hebrew word as "carried away" at 2 Chronicles 14:13 and 16:16. It is the KJV that does not have a strictly literal rendering of what the Hebrew says at 2 Samuel 5:21.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Logos1560 said:
If the KJV was right in its translation of the Hebrew word at 2 Chronicles 14:13 and 16:16, does that suggest that its very different translation of this word at 2 Samuel 5:21 is wrong?

The KJV itself literally translated this same Hebrew word as "carried away" at 2 Chronicles 14:13 and 16:16. It is the KJV that does not have a strictly literal rendering of what the Hebrew says at 2 Samuel 5:21.
Click to expand...
Hello,

Hebrew words don't need to be translated same way everytime and its also based on context.

Language translation dosen't permit single words for each word.

Shawn
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
Hebrew words don't need to be translated same way everytime and its also based on context.

Language translation dosen't permit single words for each word.
Click to expand...
You fail to prove that the context at 2 Samuel 5:21 supposedly requires a non-literal, dynamic equivalent rendering such as the one in the KJV.
Perhaps you merely assume the KJV's rendering is right by use of the fallacy of begging the question.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Logos1560 said:
You fail to prove that the context at 2 Samuel 5:21 supposedly requires a non-literal, dynamic equivalent rendering such as the one in the KJV.
Perhaps you merely assume the KJV's rendering is right by use of the fallacy of begging the question.
Click to expand...
The KJB is right in every word choice.

By adding Saul will break any numerics on Saul.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
By adding Saul will break any numerics on Saul.
Click to expand...
You seem to be referring to a different verse since the difference here does not add the name Saul.

Claims concerning supposed numerics in KJV editions would be an unscriptural claim of advanced revelation in the KJV that contradicts the Bible doctrine of the completeness and sufficiency of all Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. After the completion of the New Testament, the Scriptures do not suggest that any more direct scriptural revelation would be given.

In suggesting that numeric patterns are a supernatural miracle of direct additional revelation from God, is it implied that God spoke through some form of numeric divination something that God does not reveal and state in His revealed, complete words of Scripture? Is it implied that divinely instituted numeric patterns are a way besides or beyond the inspired words of Scripture to gain additional direct knowledge and revelation from God? Is suggesting that believers can find “some sort of deeper meaning” in numeric patterns a form of divination, Gnosticism, or mysticism? Did God intentionally kept hidden many of the deeper meanings from numeric patterns until the invention of computers? Are the claimed divinely instituted numeric patterns indicated to be a superior revelation to what is in the text of Scripture?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top