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

[KJB1611reader]

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

 

[Logos1560]

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]

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?

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

 

[Logos1560]

The KJB is right on every translation choice.

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?

 

[KJB1611reader]

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?

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