• 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!

Genesis 12:18-19; The plagues were to stop Pharaoh from taking Sarah as his wife.

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Looks to me like this error is more egregious than some that have caused Bible and other book printings to be scrapped, so the text could be corrected, and a new edition printed.

Calling Sarah adulterous, so that she should be put away or stoned(?) is rough stuff.

Calling God inept for sending plagues for no reason or that were ineffectual is worse!

Are we going to say that the Modern Versions are "lying", or not?

This is an inexcusable error, at best, and actually a contextually impossible rendering.


See: Affected Teaching, below;

The Modern Bibles haven't exactly held to a 'jot and tittle' standard, of derived inspiration, by following a reliable original language text, approximating word for word.

...

from: KJV Comparison Page

"Genesis 12:18-19;

(KJV)
And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

(1611 KJV) {18} And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done vnto me? Why diddest thou not tell me, that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidest thou, Shee is my sister? so I might haue taken her to mee to wife: now therfore behold, thy wife, take her and goe thy way.

(1587 Geneva Bible) {18} Then Pharaoh called Abram, and saide, Why hast thou done this vnto me? Wherefore diddest thou not tell me, that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidest thou, She is my sister, that I should take her to be my wife? Nowe therefore beholde thy wife, take her and goe thy way.

(1568 Bishops Bible) {18} And Pharao callyng Abram, sayde: why hast thou done this vnto me? {19} Why diddest thou not tel me, that she was thy wyfe? why saydest thou, she is my sister? and so I might haue taken her to be my wyfe? Nowe therfore beholde, there is thy wyfe, take her, and go thy way.
...

Counterfeit Versions
(or whatever you want to call them, "error-ridden", "spurious", etc.)

(CSB) {18} So Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, “What have you done to me? Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, ‘She’s my sister,’ so that I took her as my wife? Now, here is your wife. Take her and go!”

(NIV) {18} So Pharaoh summoned Abram. "What have you done to me?" he said. "Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!"

(NASV) {18} Then Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19} "Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and go."

(ESV) {18} So Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19}Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go."

(1901 ASV) {18} And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? {19} why saidst thou, She is my sister, so that I took her to be my wife? now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

(CEV) {18} Finally, the king sent for Abram and said to him, "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me Sarai was your wife? {19} Why did you make me believe she was your sister? Now I've married her. Take her and go! She's your wife."

(HCSB) {18} So Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She's my sister,' so that I took her as my wife? Now, here's your wife. Take her and go!"

(RSV) [18] So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? [19] Why did you say, `She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone."

(NAB-Roman Catholic) {18} Then Pharaoh summoned Abram and said to him: "How could you do this to me! Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Here, then, is your wife. Take her and be gone!"

(Alan's note: And it never hurts to check the 'Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation.

Guess what? THEY did O.K. with it!(?)

18 "So Pharʹaoh called Aʹbram and said: “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I was about to take her as my wife? Here is your wife. Take her and go!”)
...

Affected Teaching

"This is one of the more subtle, yet major abominations in the modern versions.

"In the KJV we read the single word in verse 19, “might.”

"This means that Pharaoh did not yet take Sarah to be one of his wives.


"The modern versions omit the word “might” and teach that Pharaoh took Sarah to be his wife which would make Sarah an adulteress.

"This would also mean that the plagues which God sent on the house of Pharaoh would have been fruitless (verse 17).

"And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife."

(Alan's note: this is what makes "I took her for my wife", a contextually impossible rendering if you believe in a Sovereign God.)


"The reason that God sent those plagues was to prevent Pharaoh from taking her as his wife.

"According to the KJV, Pharaoh did not take Sarah as his wife and returned her to Abraham who was rebuked by Pharaoh for lying about Sarah.

"When one little qualifying word is omitted, it changes the entire meaning of the passage which also affects the teachings of other passages and the continuity of the flow of Scripture.

"All the modern versions above use the word “took” which means that the action of taking Sarah as a wife had already been completed, as the word “took“ is the past tense of the word “take.”

"The CEV states plainly that Pharaoh married her.

...

"A quick English lesson:

"I may take the one on sale - It means the possibility exists that I may take the item on sale.

"I took the one on sale - This means a definite action on my part has already taken place.

"This is the seriousness of the change in Genesis 12:19!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrW

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Curious...
I could find no other translation that uses the word "might" with the exception of the Douay–Rheims Bible.

Could you please supply the Hebrew word that the KJV translated as "might"?

Rob
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Curious...
I could find no other translation that uses the word "might" with the exception of the Douay–Rheims Bible.

Could you please supply the Hebrew word that the KJV translated as "might"?

Rob

Masoretic Text 1524:

ואקח.
Interlinear Bible: Genesis 12:19 - Textus Receptus Bibles

ואקח - Translation into English - examples Hebrew | Reverso Context

Englishman's: Hebrew Concordance: wā·’eq·qaḥ -- 13 Occurrences

Dunno why we have waeqqah then laqach.

They come up the same:
waeqqah hebrew - Google Search

Strong's: Strong's Hebrew: 3947. לָקַח (laqach) -- 965 Occurrences

or Strong's Hebrew: 3947 לקח (laqach) - take, receive, take away, fetch, bring, get, take out, carry away, married, buy, misc 2

Chapter Int: Hebrew Text: Westminster Leningrad Codex:
Genesis 12:19 Interlinear: Why hast thou said, She is my sister, and I take her to myself for a wife? and now, lo, thy wife, take and go.'

Parallel Hebrew:
Genesis 12:19 Parallel Hebrew Texts

Geneva has 'might': (year?)
Genesis 12 Geneva Study Bible

Bishop's 1568 has 'might':
Bishops Bible 1568 Textus Receptus Bibles

12:19 Why diddest thou not tel me, that she was thy wyfe? why saydest thou, she is my sister? and so I might haue taken her to be my wyfe? Nowe therfore beholde, there is thy wyfe, take her, and go thy way

and Webster's Bible 1833 has 'might':
Interlinear Bible: Genesis 12:19 - Textus Receptus Bibles
 
Last edited:

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The reason the word "might" is not in modern versions is that the word "might" is not in the Hebrew text.

The word was added to make things appear orderly and proper but in truth the text of Genesis 12 does not explicitly say whether or not, the Pharaoh had relations with Sarai.

Compare this to the second episode in Genesis 20; the question is clearly answered (in this case to insure that readers know that Isaac is Abraham's legitimate son).

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
Genesis 20:3-7 AV1873​

Now here is a topic for discussion!
Lord, like Abimelech, please prevent me from sinning against you!


Rob

 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Talking of 'jot and tittle' , @Alan Gross , what happened with the KJV translators in Isaiah 14:12 when they translated "day star" or "morning star" as the Latin proper name "Lucifer"? If every 'jot and tittle' matters then "morning star" would be appropriate even if confusing to the King James readers.

Also, how did the "sea of reeds" magically become "Red sea"? Even if it was the Red sea, doesn't every 'jot and tittle' matter?
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
The reason the word "might" is not in modern versions is that the word "might" is not in the Hebrew text.

למה אמרת אחתי הוא ואקח אתה לי לאשׁה ועתה הנה אשׁתך קח ולך׃

Masoretic Text 1524 Textus Receptus Bibles

Genesis 12:19
wā·’eq·qaḥ

HEB: אֲחֹ֣תִי הִ֔וא וָאֶקַּ֥ח אֹתָ֛הּ לִ֖י
NAS: She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife?
KJV: She [is] my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife:
INT: other he take is your wife then

In order for a translating effort to be valid, the number one rule is that it must make sense, right?

I don't know of any evidence that wā·’eq·qaḥ is a Hebrew word expressing 'so that I took' or 'Now I've married her' and not ever able to be employed in the past tense, 'MIGHT have taken' and I don't believe any evidence exists.

To use two or more English words to express a Hebrew word is as common as a housefly.

(CSB) {18} So Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, “What have you done to me? Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, ‘She’s my sister,’ so that I took her as my wife? Now, here is your wife. Take her and go!”

(NIV) {18} So Pharaoh summoned Abram. "What have you done to me?" he said. "Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!"

(NASV) {18} Then Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19} "Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and go."

(ESV) {18} So Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19}Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go."

(1901 ASV) {18} And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? {19} why saidst thou, She is my sister, so that I took her to be my wife? now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

(CEV) {18} Finally, the king sent for Abram and said to him, "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me Sarai was your wife? {19} Why did you make me believe she was your sister? Now I've married her. Take her and go! She's your wife."

Those that translated wā·’eq·qaḥ, 'so that I took', created two irreconcilable contradictions within the passage. They recorded wording that is completely opposite of the narrative you quoted from chapter 20.

That doesn't make sense.

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. But Abimelech had not come near her

Including God's Activity in stating He sent plagues, for their intended purpose.

Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Correct translations that make sense explicitly say Pharaoh was prevented from having relations with Sarai, by God.

"In the KJV, and in other translations, we read the single word in verse 19, “might.”

"This means that Pharaoh did not yet take Sarah to be one of his wives.

"The modern versions omit the word “might”, as a clarification to create harmony within the narrative and teach that Pharaoh took Sarah to be his wife, which would make Sarah an adulteress.

..."so that I took her to be my wife" indicates a carnal knowledge,
while, "so I might have taken her to me to wife" lets us know what didn't happen,

...then where the expression,
"for the woman which thou hast taken" in Genesis 20:3, is already reasonably understood when using a form of the primitive root, "laqach" 3947, for "thou hast taken";

lā·qaḥ·tā,
לָקַ֔חְתָּ
you have taken
V‑Qal‑Perf‑2ms


"I took her for my wife" would also mean that the plagues which God sent on the house of Pharaoh would have been fruitless (verse 17).

"And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife."

(Alan's note: this is what makes "I took her for my wife", a contextually impossible rendering if you believe in a Sovereign God.)


"The reason that God sent those plagues was to prevent Pharaoh from taking her as his wife.

And he did not.

And it is an error and a lie to say, he 'took' her for his wife.

The word was added to make things appear orderly and proper but in truth the text of Genesis 12 does not explicitly say whether or not, the Pharaoh had relations with Sarai.

Rather than say, 'The word was added'
'to make things appear'
'orderly and proper'

or that 'in truth' the 'text of Genesis 12
does not explicitly say whether or not,
the Pharaoh had relations with Sarai',

I will go with them being fundamentally inept in translation, as evidenced by their hundreds of other similar errors documented and using a corrupted text authored by slovenly haphazard infidels that had an outspoken hatred for The King James Version.

There is no excuse for creating these abominable discrepancies between two parallel passages.

the second episode in Genesis 20
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrW

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
The Modern Bibles haven't exactly held to a 'jot and tittle' standard, of derived inspiration, by following a reliable original language text, approximating word for word.

what happened with the KJV translators in Isaiah 14:12 when they translated "day star" or "morning star" as the Latin proper name "Lucifer"?

Yeah, what happened? What are you asking or talking about?

šā·ḥar; שָׁ֑חַר, of the morning, N‑ms


1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
hê·lêl, הֵילֵ֣ל, Lucifer, N‑ms

1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
ben-, בֶּן־, son, N‑msc


If every 'jot and tittle' matters then "morning star" would be appropriate even if confusing to the King James readers.

"would be appropriate" or "would be inappropriate"?

"morning star" "would be appropriate" or "would be inappropriate", for what?, in what way? What are you talking about?

Also, how did the "sea of reeds" magically become "Red sea"?

"How did the "sea of reeds" magically become "Red sea"?

When, where, how, and What are you talking about?

sūp̄, סֽוּף׃, Red, N‑ms

ḇə·yam-, בְיַם־, in the Sea, Prep‑b | N‑msc

Even if it was the Red sea, doesn't every 'jot and tittle' matter?

What do you mean, "magically become"? What are you talking about?

...

Every 'jot and tittle' matters when it comes to weightier matters.

Not like completely flubbing up and face-planting Pharaoh saying, {19} "Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife?",

...instead of, "{19} "Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife"

And, in doing so, calling Sarah adulterous, so that she should be put away or stoned(?)


And Calling God inept for sending plagues for no reason or that were ineffectual is worse!,

...as some Klondyke mistake.


We JUST NEED TO go ahead and say that the Modern Versions are "lying".

They do it all the time. Something to be concerned about.

Not imaginary 'reeds'
or worry about a 'morning star'/ "son of the morning"(?)


...

If you're going to ask me about every insignificant alleged discrepancy in the Bible, you might buy a book.

An examination of the alleged discrepancies of the Bible
by John William Hayley
Publication date 1875

https://ia802801.us.archive.org/4/items/anexaminational01haylgoog/anexaminational01haylgoog.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrW

MrW

Well-Known Member
Looks to me like this error is more egregious than some that have caused Bible and other book printings to be scrapped, so the text could be corrected, and a new edition printed.

Calling Sarah adulterous, so that she should be put away or stoned(?) is rough stuff.

Calling God inept for sending plagues for no reason or that were ineffectual is worse!

Are we going to say that the Modern Versions are "lying", or not?

This is an inexcusable error, at best, and actually a contextually impossible rendering.


See: Affected Teaching, below;

The Modern Bibles haven't exactly held to a 'jot and tittle' standard, of derived inspiration, by following a reliable original language text, approximating word for word.

...

from: KJV Comparison Page

"Genesis 12:18-19;

(KJV)
And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

(1611 KJV) {18} And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done vnto me? Why diddest thou not tell me, that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidest thou, Shee is my sister? so I might haue taken her to mee to wife: now therfore behold, thy wife, take her and goe thy way.

(1587 Geneva Bible) {18} Then Pharaoh called Abram, and saide, Why hast thou done this vnto me? Wherefore diddest thou not tell me, that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidest thou, She is my sister, that I should take her to be my wife? Nowe therefore beholde thy wife, take her and goe thy way.

(1568 Bishops Bible) {18} And Pharao callyng Abram, sayde: why hast thou done this vnto me? {19} Why diddest thou not tel me, that she was thy wyfe? why saydest thou, she is my sister? and so I might haue taken her to be my wyfe? Nowe therfore beholde, there is thy wyfe, take her, and go thy way.
...

Counterfeit Versions
(or whatever you want to call them, "error-ridden", "spurious", etc.)

(CSB) {18} So Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, “What have you done to me? Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, ‘She’s my sister,’ so that I took her as my wife? Now, here is your wife. Take her and go!”

(NIV) {18} So Pharaoh summoned Abram. "What have you done to me?" he said. "Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!"

(NASV) {18} Then Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19} "Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and go."

(ESV) {18} So Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19}Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go."

(1901 ASV) {18} And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? {19} why saidst thou, She is my sister, so that I took her to be my wife? now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

(CEV) {18} Finally, the king sent for Abram and said to him, "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me Sarai was your wife? {19} Why did you make me believe she was your sister? Now I've married her. Take her and go! She's your wife."

(HCSB) {18} So Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She's my sister,' so that I took her as my wife? Now, here's your wife. Take her and go!"

(RSV) [18] So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? [19] Why did you say, `She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone."

(NAB-Roman Catholic) {18} Then Pharaoh summoned Abram and said to him: "How could you do this to me! Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Here, then, is your wife. Take her and be gone!"

(Alan's note: And it never hurts to check the 'Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation.

Guess what? THEY did O.K. with it!(?)

18 "So Pharʹaoh called Aʹbram and said: “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I was about to take her as my wife? Here is your wife. Take her and go!”)
...

Affected Teaching

"This is one of the more subtle, yet major abominations in the modern versions.

"In the KJV we read the single word in verse 19, “might.”

"This means that Pharaoh did not yet take Sarah to be one of his wives.


"The modern versions omit the word “might” and teach that Pharaoh took Sarah to be his wife which would make Sarah an adulteress.

"This would also mean that the plagues which God sent on the house of Pharaoh would have been fruitless (verse 17).

"And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife."

(Alan's note: this is what makes "I took her for my wife", a contextually impossible rendering if you believe in a Sovereign God.)


"The reason that God sent those plagues was to prevent Pharaoh from taking her as his wife.

"According to the KJV, Pharaoh did not take Sarah as his wife and returned her to Abraham who was rebuked by Pharaoh for lying about Sarah.

"When one little qualifying word is omitted, it changes the entire meaning of the passage which also affects the teachings of other passages and the continuity of the flow of Scripture.

"All the modern versions above use the word “took” which means that the action of taking Sarah as a wife had already been completed, as the word “took“ is the past tense of the word “take.”

"The CEV states plainly that Pharaoh married her.

...

"A quick English lesson:

"I may take the one on sale - It means the possibility exists that I may take the item on sale.

"I took the one on sale - This means a definite action on my part has already taken place.

"This is the seriousness of the change in Genesis 12:19!"


Amen! Things that are different are not the same.

The living God saved my wretched soul through His Word in the KJB. I trust it’s correct and I have lived and will die with it, believing God kept His promise to preserve His Word.
 

MrW

Well-Known Member
The modern versions create a problem where none exists. To my English language mind, “took her to be my wife”, is the same as “selected her” and “to be” is future, meaning someday.

Esther was in preparation a year before she became the the wife to Ahasuerus.

The KJB keeps it clear.

And isn’t it obvious the modern versions progressively tear down God’s Word? First they say he took her to be his wife, then one version says, I married her. It reminds me of how at least one version, I should say, perversion, has Mary telling Gabriel “I don’t have a husband”, as though the Holy Spirit of God that inspired Scripture doesn’t know a woman can get pregnant without a husband. Not having a husband and being a virgin are two different things, and Christ had to be born of a virgin, so that he would not have the spirit from Adam.

The devil has plenty of money and he will spend millions on a new perversion to cast doubt on God’s Word. That’s what he did when he asked Eve, “Hath God said…?”

He hasn’t changed. He is still in the business of casting doubt on God’s Word.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Re: Genesis 12:18-19.

Looks to be an interesting problem.

Looks to me like this error is more egregious than some that have caused Bible and other book printings to be scrapped, so the text could be corrected, and a new edition printed.


The reason the word "might" is not in modern versions is that the word "might" is not in the Hebrew text.

לקח

The KJV translates the Hebrew word ". . . so I might have taken . . . ." The added assist in translation words "so I might have."

Tvndale, ". . . and causedest me to take . . . ." His added assist in translation words, "causedest me to."

וָאֶקַּ֥ח

ASV, ". . . so that I took . . . ." Here the added assist in translation words are, "so that I."

Only Tyndale translated the Hebrew word prefix for "and" as "and." That I know of.

There are other Hebrew prefixs that I have not studied.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yeah, what happened? What are you asking or talking about?

šā·ḥar; שָׁ֑חַר, of the morning, N‑ms


1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
hê·lêl, הֵילֵ֣ל, Lucifer, N‑ms

1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
ben-, בֶּן־, son, N‑msc




"would be appropriate" or "would be inappropriate"?

"morning star" "would be appropriate" or "would be inappropriate", for what?, in what way? What are you talking about?



"How did the "sea of reeds" magically become "Red sea"?

When, where, how, and What are you talking about?

sūp̄, סֽוּף׃, Red, N‑ms

ḇə·yam-, בְיַם־, in the Sea, Prep‑b | N‑msc



What do you mean, "magically become"? What are you talking about?

...

Every 'jot and tittle' matters when it comes to weightier matters.

Not like completely flubbing up and face-planting Pharaoh saying, {19} "Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife?",

...instead of, "{19} "Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife"

And, in doing so, calling Sarah adulterous, so that she should be put away or stoned(?)


And Calling God inept for sending plagues for no reason or that were ineffectual is worse!,

...as some Klondyke mistake.


We JUST NEED TO go ahead and say that the Modern Versions are "lying".

They do it all the time. Something to be concerned about.

Not imaginary 'reeds'
or worry about a 'morning star'/ "son of the morning"(?)


...

If you're going to ask me about every insignificant alleged discrepancy in the Bible, you might buy a book.

An examination of the alleged discrepancies of the Bible
by John William Hayley
Publication date 1875

https://ia802801.us.archive.org/4/items/anexaminational01haylgoog/anexaminational01haylgoog.pdf
I'm not talking about modern versions. I'm talking about the KJV. "Lucifer" is not a direct translation of the Hebrew into English (it was a carry over from Jerome).

I love the KJV. It is beautifully translated. But it is not the most accurate translation of Scripture into the English language.

They did great with what they had. But they borrowed from past translations, translated from Latin into Hebrew into English (in places), and had a mandate by the Church of England (which was mostly Catholic in doctrine).
 

MrW

Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about modern versions. I'm talking about the KJV. "Lucifer" is not a dire t translation of the Hebrew into English (it was a carry over from Jerome).

I love the KJV. It is beautifully translated. But it is not the most accurate translation of Scripture into the English language.

They did great with what they had. But they borrowed from past translations, translated from Latin into Hebrew into English (in places), and had a mandate by the Church of England (which was mostly Catholic in doctrine).

What do you consider the "most accurate" translation into English?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What do you consider the "most accurate" translation into English?
I don't.

English translations are translations and we have to treat them as such.

The NASB does a great job translating words from their source (they use a different manuscript). But it loses some literary devises and is cumbersome at times. The NIV provides a good balance, but missed in translating some words literally. The KJV is beautiful and maintains a lot of the literary qualities, but it relied on other translations heavily and missed the mark in places (and is no longer in the contemporary vernacular).

In reading Scripture (and any translated ancient text of importance) it is necessary to treat the copy we hold as a translation. It requires study and a mentality that we are reading words translated from another language.
 

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The plagues were meant to show the Lords authority over the Nile River, Crops, night (Ammon Ra), over children etc.


each plague was a refutation of a specific pagan god of Egypt.

It was meant to demonstrate that the Lord God of the Hebrews is the True God of Heaven and Earth.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
????

Every 'jot and tittle' maters when it comes to weigher matters?????

What verse is that?

Alan Gross, chapter 1.

Every 'jot and tittle' of every imagined reed and Minutia doesn't matter to me (that much to run rabbits all day).

The color of the door hinges is important but not enough to occupy my entire life.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Alan Gross, chapter 1.

Every 'jot and tittle' of every imagined reed and Minutia doesn't matter to me (that much to run rabbits all day).

The color of the door hinges is important but not enough to occupy my entire life.
But then you miss the point of every jot and tittle.

It seems they matter to you if it is every English word of the KJV, and doesn't matter to you when the KJV translators made a poor choice.
 
Top