Does this belong in our Bibles?

I'm sure that over the years, several verses that we're aware of have probably been dropped from the Bible we know today.

As objectionable as a verse like this may be, if it's part of the original OT text, it should be included.

 

The short paragraph explaining the likely practice of Nahash is considered by virtually all commentaries as a gloss, a teaching note added above, below, or to the side of the canonical text to establish an historic context and clarification of the verse it is appended to. There is no reason, when looking at the Hebrew canon, to assume to gloss is canonical.

 

I'm not as concerned about whether or not it was approved by the canonical council or not. I'm nore concerned with: was it in the text when Jesus was practicing Judaism? If it was, we should include it, unaltered. If not, then it should be left out.

I haven't done much research on this subjust, but I'm inclined to believe that it was included during Jesus' time.

 

No, it shouldn't be included. We have the English Bible as God delivered it to us. Nothing is gained by inserting the aforementioned "verse," nor is anything lost by leaving it out.

 

Call me a newbie at this, but I can't see why this passage needs to be in the Bible. It provides only a small intro to a historic event, and from what I see, (albeit, just now), I can't see it tying into any other part of the Bible, (metaphore wise or other). It could be in our Bible, but I see no need.

This is just my personal opinion however.

Jonny
^_^

[ June 20, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Moss ]

 

AAAARRRRGGHHH!!! God didn't give us an English Bible. God inspired the Bible to people who wrote in Hebrew and Greek.

There are inhierent problems with translating text from its original language to another. Not just in wording, but in getting inflection, context, and cultural scope correctly.

On top of that, the usage of words and phrases has evolved over time. This isn't God's fault, it's our fault. We're the ones who modify language definitions and syntax, not Him.

We err in our English understanding of the Bible all the time. That's why it's always important to do indepth study on a verse of chapter before making conclusions.

 

He didn't?????

You mean John Wyclife, William Tyndale and their disciples were hounded by the state and burned at the stake (well...Wyclife was burned posthumously), all for the work of man?

You know little of the history of our English translation to say God did not give us an English Bible.

[ June 21, 2002, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

If God didn't give us an English Bible who did?

Have we no bible in the English language to guide us into all truth? Alas we are hopelessly at the mercy of men then, not God for we must go to learned men not God's Word for answers.

Hog wash!!!!! God gave us an English speaking Bible that has served fine in revealing God's plan for mankind. It needs no improvement or revision.. It just needs to be read prayerfully and accepted!!

Ernie

 

In my copy of the NRSV, the insertion is at 1 Sam 10:27.

But the best mss and versions do not include it. Therefore, leave it out.

No. Why should it be? Just because there are differences doesn't mean that God still didn't inspire the original.

Too many are jumping on the first sentence without taking the context of the second.

 

BW Smith said:

I guess you haven't been reading Ernies post he is KJV just like me! If its not in the KJV then I don't even consider it. Is there a standing rule in translation that if the scripture offends someone that it shouldn't be included? Let me present the thinest and we mean thinest bible on earth... Brethren get your copy hot off the press of the newest bible to hit the market in ages for every taste... The NOB... The Non-Offensive Bible!... Brother Glen

[ June 24, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]