1. 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!

Featured Heb 4:8 bad translation in the KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by evangelist6589, Dec 11, 2016.

Top Posters
  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,285
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Anyone compare the KJV use of the word Jesus to the modern version use of Joshua to the original languages? I am curious to hear the opinions of KJVO on this translation.
     
    #1 evangelist6589, Dec 11, 2016
  2. JonShaff

    JonShaff Fellow Servant
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,954
    Likes Received:
    425
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's the same name isn't it ?
     
    #2 JonShaff, Dec 11, 2016
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. Greek ιησους = Jesus throughout the New Testament.

    The word "Joshua" never occurs in the NT (KJV).

    In the Old Testament: יהושׁוּע, yehōshūa‛, or יהושׁע, yehōshua‛, “Yahweh is deliverance” or "Jehovah Saves."

    The LXX renders it Ιησους or Ιησου.

    It is neither a mistake nor a bad translation. It is exactly what the Greek says.

    It is the same name translated from two very different languages.

    My father's name was William if you asked my grandmother but Guillermo if you asked my grandfather. Both are correct. Same name, different languages.
     
    #3 TCassidy, Dec 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is. One is a Hebrew translation (Joshua), the other is Greek(Jesus).

    One could defend the KJV postion as interperting the same word from the Greek consistently. However it can cause confusion.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    #4 McCree79, Dec 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  5. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This weird. When I replied your post wasnt showing....now it shows you beat me by 5 minutes....

    I would like your post, but Tapatalk still wont let me.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    #5 McCree79, Dec 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  6. GenevanBaptist

    GenevanBaptist Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    13
    What about Jose in Luke 3:29?
     
    #6 GenevanBaptist, Feb 9, 2017
  7. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is obviously the Spanish rendering.....haha

    Based on the underlying text, it should read Joseph. The NA transaltions have a different underlying Greek word. Ioseph vs lesou. I lack the Greek alphabet on my phone....so did the best i could.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    #7 McCree79, Feb 9, 2017
  8. Baptist Brother

    Baptist Brother Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    27
    An opinion on the KJV providing a straightforward translation, unlike modern translations? Oh dear, I don't know how I can defend that.
     
    #8 Baptist Brother, Feb 9, 2017
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You can't.
     
    #9 TCassidy, Feb 9, 2017
  10. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My rule of thumb is, for the most part, there are no bad translations there good and better.
     
    #10 Squire Robertsson, Feb 10, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Baptist Brother

    Baptist Brother Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    27
    Even going with your rule of thumb, why settle for good, when there's better?

    My rule of thumb is that most translations are bad. Those "good" translations serve to displace better translations. Those "good" translations serve to divide the church. Those "good" translations have use sources ignored or rejected by the church for most of the last 2000 years. Those "good" translations impose interpretations contrary to all previous church history.
     
    #11 Baptist Brother, Feb 10, 2017
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You mean..."there are no bad translations, there are good ones and better ones."
     
    #12 Rippon, Feb 10, 2017
  13. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't be shy BB, get specific.
     
    #13 Rippon, Feb 10, 2017
  14. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeup, and any given translation will have both. I also avoid "best" as a descriptor.
     
    #14 Squire Robertsson, Feb 10, 2017
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would say that is true for real versions, not for the Message, nor watchtower version...
     
    #15 Yeshua1, Feb 10, 2017
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The truth is that the Nasb/Esv/NKJV are all superior to the Kjv version for serious biblical studies, and there are NO major doctrines that have bee "corrupted" watered down in any of them....
     
    #16 Yeshua1, Feb 10, 2017
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV translators stated in the margin of the 1611 concerning their reading "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua". Many present KJV editions do not have this marginal note.

    A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun."

    At Hebrews 4:8, several pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1538 Coverdale's Duoglott, 1539 Great, 1539 Taverner's, and 1557 Whittingham's] have "Joshua" in their English text
     
    #17 Logos1560, Feb 11, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...