Chapter and Verse

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
corn = grain
suburbs = plains or fields
brass = some metal alloy, I do not know exactly what it means without looking it up. My guess would be copper or bronze.

You mean to tell me that you knew these without looking it up in a concordance or commentary? There's nothing in the KJV that gives the proper context to these. Hence you must have looked them up. The definition for brass is interesting, though. Its usage is a clear error. The KJV authors meant it to be translated to "brass", because that was the common alloy of the 17th century (copper-zinc alloy). However, brass was not invented until well after the Biblical canon was compiled. The correct translation for the Hebrew word nchosheth is bronze (copper-tin alloy), and nchash, and related words is copper (or, anything made of copper, such as a coin or medallion).

For a little fairness, why don't you define these "modern" NIV words:

No need, because the issue you brought up was that "anyone" can understand 1611 King's English. The issue of whether or not anyone can understand any of the words listed, in any version, with the assistance of implied context, cross reference, or concordance is not something that is in disagreement.

 

[Michael Hobbs]

ScottEmerson wrote:
I could do that, but I imagine you would claim that I looked them up.

Well, unlike some on this board, I try not to assume too much and if you say you could do it without any assistance, I will believe you. When I said, "good for you", I was not being sarcastic. Wisdom and knowledge are a gift from God and I am glad that you have been blessed with them. Use them to the glory of God.

ScottEmerson wrote:
I also looked up the definition of lieutenant, just to see if we could find an accurate depiction, and all of the definitions relate to military people.

I relate the word to our current day lieutenant governors, which would not be a military leader position (at least under normal circumstances).

ScottEmerson wrote:
To also be fair, a good study Bible will also explain words such as satrap, for those who do not care to look it up.

I agree, whether someone was using NIV or KJV. So, the argument that the KJV needs updating is a mute point.

Scott J wrote:
You are playing semantics.

Probably so, but the whole premise of this thread was to try to trap someone into saying something that they should not say. The fact that I have attempted to turn the trap on them is minor in comparision.

Johnv wrote:
You mean to tell me that you knew these without looking it up in a concordance or commentary?

That is correct. I did not consult anything other than the KJV scripture using my electronic KJV Bible ( Usama's King James Electronic Bible v1.0.57, note: new version includes commentaries but the old version does not ); no references, footnotes, or commentary. I used it because it is very easy to search for keywords like the list I was asked to define.

Johnv wrote:
There's nothing in the KJV that gives the proper context to these.

I disagree. Let me show you one example. Take "suburbs", it is found 69 times. I scanned over the verses and noticed that "suburbs" is always referred to separate from "cities" (cf. Numbers 35:2,4). But notice verse 3 of that chapter:
And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.
Cattle need fields or plains to roam and feed in, thus I knew "suburbs" = fields or plains.
It might be difficult for someone who has never been around cattle or rural farmland to grasp, but for this rednecked Southern boy, the context clearly defines its meaning.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michael Hobbs: "Are you suggesting that
the Maccabees should be considered
writings inspired by the Holy Spirit?"

No. I am suggesting the two Maccabbees books
are in the real KJV1611 (and not in
the MV: KJV1769).

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Pastor Larry wrote:
Last I checked, I hadn't done anything to apologize for. Neither have I played dumb.

Your arrogance is truly amazing for a person holding the title of "pastor". Like many here, you have lumped me into a crowd that I would never be apart of. If you don't wish to apologize for that, fine, I won't ask you again.

I'm sure you are a very learned and intelligent man. You know and understand many of my points better than your posts have implied. Thus, you have played dumb.

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Ed Edwards wrote:
No. I am suggesting the two Maccabbees books
are in the real KJV1611 (and not in
the MV: KJV1769).

MV's said: KJV needs updated because language has changed over last 400 years.
I said: O.T. Hebrew didn't need updating after the 400 years of silence even though language most likely had changed as well.
You said: Maccabbees show there wasn't silence.
I asked: Do you consider Maccabbees inspired?
You answered: No

So, your reference to Maccabbees has ZERO relevance to the argument.

Thus, it was merely a way for you to play your shtick on the KJV. You are the man!

Here's a way to increase your repertoire: when someone mentions the NIV, start asking them if they mean the NIV(1973), NIV(1978) or NIV(1984)

 

[HankD]

Michael says to Bro Ed for asking which KJV? 1611/1769, etc…:

Thus, it was merely a way for you to play your shtick on the KJV. You are the man!

Here's a way to increase your repertoire: when someone mentions the NIV, start asking them if they mean the NIV(1973), NIV(1978) or NIV(1984)

But Michael, on October 6 you criticized Bro Ed with the following:

Which NIV are we to comment on?
The Holy Bible: New International Version. The New Testament. 1973
The Holy Bible, New International Version: Containing the Old Testament and the New Testament. 1978
The Holy Bible: NIrV: New International Reader's Version: New Testament 1995
The Holy Bible: New International Version. Inclusive Language Edition. 1996
The New Testament: Today's New International Version. 2002

So he was only following through using your own tactic of "play your shtick".

Another matter:
Oops, going through the thread I see a “scribal error” in one of my posts:

A further issue:
The Latin Vulgate held sway over the Church for over 1000 years and the Church of Rome taught that the Latin was the "official" or "authorized" version/language of the Scriptures.

It was from this version (not the Greek and Hebrew) that Tyndale (imprisoned for translating the Bible into the "vulgar" tongue of the people) used to translated the Scripture into 14th century English.

(above should be Wyclif not Tyndale)imprisoned...

Tyndale made reference to the Vulgate in his English translation. He was martyred for his work.

The Vulgate was the basis of several early attempts at an English translation, many KJV readings (1 John 5:7) are from the Vulgate.

Some of the English of the KJV is from these earlier translations of the Vulgate.

Would you say that God did a mighty deed through Jerome when (~400AD) he translated the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate Version?

Would you say that God used Jerome in the preservation of His Word?

Which leads me to ask again Michael RE: Jerome and the last two questions in the corrected post above.

HankD

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:

Let me show you one example. Take "suburbs", it is found 69 times. I scanned over the verses and noticed that "suburbs" is always referred to separate from "cities" (cf. Numbers 35:2,4). But notice verse 3 of that chapter:
And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.
Cattle need fields or plains to roam and feed in, thus I knew "suburbs" = fields or plains.
It might be difficult for someone who has never been around cattle or rural farmland to grasp, but for this rednecked Southern boy, the context clearly defines its meaning.

If "suburbs" in these verses really means "fields" or "plains," then why not translate it as "fields" or "plains?" Why use an obscure or confusing word when there's a better alternative?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
]Your arrogance is truly amazing for a person holding the title of "pastor". Like many here, you have lumped me into a crowd that I would never be apart of. If you don't wish to apologize for that, fine, I won't ask you again.

I don't know when I did this; I certainly don't keep track of what is posted. There is simply too much of it to keep track of it and it comes from too many different people. If I mischaracterized your position, then I apologize. It was certainly not intentional. I hate it when people do that to me, and I certainly do not intentionally do it to others. As I say, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I'm sure you are a very learned and intelligent man. You know and understand many of my points better than your posts have implied. Thus, you have played dumb.

ON what?? Again, I don't know what you are talking about. I do ask questions about stuff I know to find out if other people actually know what they are talking about. (Many times they don't.) Other times, I ask questions to make implications explicit. If that is playing dumb, then so be it. If you have particular issues here, let me know.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
thus I knew "suburbs" = fields or plains.
It might be difficult for someone who has never been around cattle or rural farmland to grasp, but for this rednecked Southern boy, the context clearly defines its meaning.

i agree w Archangel: don't redneck rebels know the diff between a SUBURB n a FIELD/PLAIN?



i've been to the South--consider myself having lived there before even--but i don't recall cows in the suburbs or any rebel boys mistaking a field for a suburb.

have things changed that much in the last 20 yrs?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Johnv wrote:
There's nothing in the KJV that gives the proper context to these.

I disagree. Let me show you one example. Take "suburbs", it is found 69 times. I scanned over the verses and noticed that "suburbs" is always referred to separate from "cities" (cf. Numbers 35:2,4). But notice verse 3 of that chapter:
And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.
Cattle need fields or plains to roam and feed in, thus I knew "suburbs" = fields or plains. </font>[/QUOTE] There is nothing in the context to necessitate your interpretation though. You are simply stretching to make the facts conform to your opinion. Suburbs in that context could have just as easily meant small lots or barns like a livery, feed lot, or corral.

It might be difficult for someone who has never been around cattle or rural farmland to grasp, but for this rednecked Southern boy, the context clearly defines its meaning.

There are far more cattle in the county where I live than people... and the context does not clearly define the meaning of suburb in this passage.

 

[Michael Hobbs]

HankD wrote:
So he was only following through using your own tactic of "play your shtick".

hahaha, that has got to be the funniest statement I have read on this board.

Careful though, you may get accused of playing "dumb".

I think I had posted it one other time (for a total of 3), so I think everyone knows whose shtick it is.

HankD wrote:
Would you say that God did a mighty deed through Jerome when (~400AD) he translated the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate Version?

Would you say that God used Jerome in the preservation of His Word?

I honestly don't know enough about the history of Jerome and the Latin Vulgate to answer. I know the RCC said the Vulgate was better than the original Greek and Hebrew and wanted the Vulgate to be the only bible used by anyone. I believe it had to be revised several times due to errors.

Archangel7 wrote:
If "suburbs" in these verses really means "fields" or "plains," then why not translate it as "fields" or "plains?" Why use an obscure or confusing word when there's a better alternative?

I do not know why the KJV translators used the words they used. Can you tell me why the NIV translators used the "modern" words in the list I gave when better alternatives were available?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
I do not know why the KJV translators used the words they used. Can you tell me why the NIV translators used the "modern" words in the list I gave when better alternatives were available?

I can answer for both groups. They were scholarly yet fallible men. Neither of which worked from a word for word perfect facsimile of the originals nor were supernaturally guided in their word choices.

Neither set of translators used a perfectly preserved/reconstructed text and they did not produce translations that were perfect in the sense of being beyond improvement.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Archangel7 wrote:

If "suburbs" in these verses really means "fields" or "plains," then why not translate it as "fields" or "plains?" Why use an obscure or confusing word when there's a better alternative?

I do not know why the KJV translators used the words they used. Can you tell me why the NIV translators used the "modern" words in the list I gave when better alternatives were available? </font>[/QUOTE]No, I really can't. Nevertheless, consistency demands that all translations be held to the same standard, so my questions must be asked of *any* English version. There are difficult words in both the KJV and the NIV that could be better translated. Would you agree with this? If not, why not?

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Scott J wrote:
Suburbs in that context could have just as easily meant small lots or barns like a livery, feed lot, or corral.

Perhaps you're correct, if that was the only usage of the word. But as I said, the word occurs 69 times in the KJV. I gave verse 3 of Numbers 35 but also referenced verses 2 and 4. I didn't realize I needed to walk you thru each verse.

Verse 2: suburbs surround the cities
Verse 3: suburbs are for the cattle and other beasts
Verse 4: suburbs extend out 1000 cubits.

If my math is correct, 1000 cubits would be 1800 feet or the equivalent length of 6 football fields. Does this sound like a barn or corral to you?

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Archangel7 wrote:
There are difficult words in both the KJV and the NIV that could be better translated. Would you agree with this?

Absolutely! Language is not constant.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:

If my math is correct, 1000 cubits would be 1800 feet or the equivalent length of 6 football fields. Does this sound like a barn or corral to you?

How many people today know what a "cubit" is? Having known many KJVO's personally, most could not start to tell you.

Additionally, most people aren't going to look up all 69 verses if they think they already know what a suburb is.

The simple answer is to update the Bible to the language spoken today.

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Scott J wrote:
The simple answer is to update the Bible to the language spoken today.

Yes, that would be the simple solution. However, we have a biblical solution:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Scott J wrote:
The simple answer is to update the Bible to the language spoken today.

Yes, that would be the simple solution. However, we have a biblical solution:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

</font>[/QUOTE]That verse has nothing to do with understanding a language that is not your own. There is more than enough to study in the Bible without having to try to figure out whether familiar words have changed meanings or not.

 

[HankD]

I honestly don't know enough about the history of Jerome and the Latin Vulgate to answer. I know the RCC said the Vulgate was better than the original Greek and Hebrew and wanted the Vulgate to be the only bible used by anyone. I believe it had to be revised several times due to errors.

Thanks for your honesty Michael.

Jerome probably had original language mss from before the 4th century. The Church of Rome had just started to drift into the wedding of Church and State. The vulgate (imo) is a good translation (apart from the Apocrypha).

As much as I like the Old Itala (Vulgate predecessor), some of the mss seem to contain commentary notes in the body of the text.

The Vulgate did hail back to the original language mss.

some of the Vulgate weaknesses have influenced the KJV as well as its strengths.

HankD

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
However, we have a biblical solution:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

which doesn't explain why KJBOs don't read their bibles in the original Gk or Hebrew or even the hard-to-read NIV.

or do other people have to study n not themselves?