Gen 24:48 The KJV get's it wrong?

[tinytim]

Have you considered the possibility that the translation is not in error at all. Perhaps the verse is talking about Rebekah being the "daughter" of Abraham's nephew. After all, it was common to refer to one's nephew as their brother.

Gen 14:12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Yes see my last post.. but that leads to the question as to why the KJV translates this word as brother, when it should just be relative, or kindred... As אָח means both "brother" "relative" or "kindred"
Why not translate it the way it is?
The KJV again misleads the reader into thinking that Lot's tad was taken captive...

Why can't translators translate clearly?...
Did "brother" mean "nephew" in 1611...

If so, all of this makes sense.. if not the KJV translators should have picked the right word to relate the proper context...

 

[AntennaFarmer]

It appears to me that since the passage is a direct quote it is proper to render it literally.

 

[Deacon]

A proper translation supplies the meaning of the original message to the person reading the translation.

If the translation fails at that, it is faulty.

In other words, if the meaning is lost, the translation has failed.

Rob

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Well said Deacon!

In this passage Abraham's servant is relating what he actually said. He is quoting himself when he says "... master's brother's daughter ...."

The intent of the verse is to quote exactly what Abraham's servant said (or said that he said).

The exact family relationship is given in vs 24. There is no point of confusion.

If the translator adds something to a direct quotation then he is not doing his job (IMO). Maybe there is sometime a need to clarify an idiom. I don't see that happening here though.

Furthermore, IMO the reader fails in his job when he doesn't consider the context.

 

[Deacon]

Ah.....no....

Just as the Hebrew word for “son” can be translated as son, grandson, heir, or relative, so the word "daughter" can have multiple translations.
These "other" meaning would have been the original intent of the statement.

The translator needs to pick and choose correctly in order to transfer its proper meaning.

It’s not a matter of looking at how many times something was translated a certain way.
Sure the Hebrew word, "bat" in most instances is simply translated as daughter
…but there are shades of meaning that are just as meaningful and proper.

Since some of us know a bit of the history behind the word, we can make the proper transfer.

But if our goal as Christians is outreach, we need to realize that others may not be equipped deal with these traditions.

Some might expect them to struggle with a new language form and meanings as they begin their walk with God
I don't believe that's necessary.

Rob

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I know that this is said to never happen, when it reality, it happens all the time. I guess the KJVO have been too silent of late so the attention has been turned to the KJV itself as a translation. So, now maybe we can finally put to rest the claim that says, "No one is attacking the KJV."

 

[Pastor_Bob]

But if our goal as Christians is outreach, we need to realize that others may not be equipped deal with these traditions.

Some might expect them to struggle with a new language form and meanings as they begin their walk with God
I don't believe that's necessary.

That kind of takes the Holy Spirit out of the equation, doesn't it? I guess God is mighty enough to preserve His Word to all generations, but then is unable to illuminate the hearts and minds of the reader to understand those words. Sounds like a pretty weak view of God, IMHO.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I agree, Pastor Bob. God's Word was revealed to the men on the road to Emmaeus by the Lord Himself.

Certainly the Lord is able to do the same today and reveal His Word as we read without our having to change words.

If the translators change the words, it takes away from the need to study.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree, Pastor Bob. God's Word was revealed to the men on the road to Emmaeus by the Lord Himself.

Certainly the Lord is able to do the same today and reveal His Word as we read without our having to change words.

If the translators change the words, it takes away from the need to study.

We are back to the same old argument. If this is the case why did the KJV translators change words?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I know that this is said to never happen, when it reality, it happens all the time. I guess the KJVO have been too silent of late so the attention has been turned to the KJV itself as a translation. So, now maybe we can finally put to rest the claim that says, "No one is attacking the KJV."

It is hardly an attack to point out a possible translation error. This kind of "attack" is constantly directed at other versions and their perceived errors.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

We are back to the same old argument. If this is the case why did the KJV translators change words?

Good question, Roger. Why?

 

[tinytim]

And why translate at all, surely the Holy Spirit can illuminate what the Greek and Hebrew mean also...

And notice that this is not an attack on the KJV... read the OP.. other versions are like this as well.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Good question, Roger. Why?

Because although God's word does not change, the English language does. Even the KJV translators expressed the need for a translation that was in the common and current tongue.

No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

(From the translators to the readers)

I don't think this was a KJV error, simply that "daughter" had a broader meaning in 1611.

 

[Rippon]

I know that this is said to never happen, when it reality, it happens all the time. I guess the KJVO have been too silent of late so the attention has been turned to the KJV itself as a translation. So, now maybe we can finally put to rest the claim that says, "No one is attacking the KJV."

You lost credibility with me long ago when you flatly stated that no other English version but the KJV is really the Word of God .You are being hypocritical when you say that the KJV is under attack yet you demean the Word of God in other forms than the KJV . If you want to be taken seriously than revise your previous stance --- your current double-standard is quite obvious to all .

 

[Pastor_Bob]

It is hardly an attack to point out a possible translation error. This kind of "attack" is constantly directed at other versions and their perceived errors.

The difference, Roger, is that we do not hide the fact that we are attacking the other versions. We believe they are products of a corrupt textual basis. I just wish the "other side" would be honest enough to admit that they believe the KJV is translated from an inferior text and admit that they are indeed attacking the translation itself.

 

[Rippon]

The difference, Roger, is that we do not hide the fact that we are attacking the other versions. We believe they are products of a corrupt textual basis. I just wish the "other side" would be honest enough to admit that they believe the KJV is translated from an inferior text and admit that they are indeed attacking the translation itself.

I have never shied away from stating that the KJV is based on inferior texts ( the TR was not monolithic ) . But I have never attacked the KJV in that I ever stated or even gave a hint that it is not the Word of God -- it certainly is -- as much as the TNIV and NLTse are !

Please define "corrupt textual basis" . You may be at odds with Dean Burgon .

 

[Pastor_Bob]

You lost credibility with me long ago when you flatly stated that no other English version but the KJV is really the Word of God .

Did I say that? I do not believe that I did. If you will provide me with a quote, verifying that I said that, I will gladly retract that statement.

You are being hypocritical when you say that the KJV is under attack yet you demean the Word of God in other forms than the KJV .

I do not demean the Word of God in any form. The other versions that you are alluding to are perfectly good translations. They are good translations of a corrupt text, IMO.

If you want to be taken seriously than revise your previous stance --- your current double-standard is quite obvious to all .

It is more than a man's position that is important; it is also his disposition. If my position causes you to think less of me - so be it. If my disposition causes you to think less of me - I humbly apologize and ask for your forgiveness.

 

[Logos1560]

If the translators change the words, it takes away from the need to study.

Would you claim that when the translators of the KJV changed and updated many words in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision that it took away the need to study?

 

[Logos1560]

Did "brother" mean "nephew" in 1611....

"Nephew" in that day was used with a different meaning that today. "Nephew" was used to refer to grandchildren/descendants

The Geneva Bible has “nephews” at 1 Chronicles 8:40 where the KJV has “sons’ sons.” The Geneva Bible has “nephews” at Isaiah 22:24 where the KJV has “offspring.“ The 1568 Bishops’ Bible has “sons’ son” at Isaiah 14:22 where the KJV has “nephew.“ The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary gave as a second definition for nephew the following: “a grandson; also, a descendant.“ Waite’s Defined KJB has this same meaning for nephew at Job 18:19: “descendant, grandson” (p. 744). Mayhew and Skeat’s Concise Dictionary of Middle English indicated that neueu or nephew was used to mean “grandson” (p. 183). Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary indicated that the use of nephew with the meaning of “grandson” is obsolete (p. 1205). Vincent’s Word Studies noted that nephews at 1 Timothy 5:4 was used “in the now obsolete sense of grandsons or other lineal descendants” (IV, p. 258).

 

[franklinmonroe]

The difference, Roger, is that we do not hide the fact that we are attacking the other versions...

There has been no hiding; the difference is bound within the philosophies themselves: KJV-Onlyism is exclusive and, by definition, it is against all others; 'Multi-versionism' is comprehensive and, by definition, it does not expel any of its kind. It is not a characteristic of 'MVism' to indiscriminately debase an earnest translation.