1. 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!

Inconsistency in the AV Translation?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Dec 21, 2003.

Top Posters
  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Prophecy of the coming Messiah in Psalm 2:9 KJV1769 revision
    Same verse in the NIV
    We'd all agree that "break them" (harm, destroy, punish like what happens when I try to do dishes!) is quite different than "rule them".

    Now here's the interesting thought: Twice this verse is quoted in the NT by the Apostle John. And both times he uses the word "RULE" not "break".

    Rev 2:27 KJV1769revision
    And Rev 12:5 give another quotation of Psalm 2
    Thoughts? Seems like the NT supports the translation of the NIV, not the AV.
     
    #1 Dr. Bob, Dec 21, 2003
  2. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it´s good enough for John, it´s... [​IMG]
     
    #2 Jesus is Lord, Dec 21, 2003
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Break: To train to obey; tame, as to break a horse. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
     
    #3 skanwmatos, Dec 21, 2003
  4. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV contradicts the Hebrew masoretic text, while the ambiguity of the KJV translation allows the inspired (in this instance) message of the conflicting Masoretic vs. LXX and Syriac texts to shine through. Pure genius!

    It's sure nice having the Word of God in my hands.
     
    #4 timothy 1769, Dec 21, 2003
  5. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Hebrew verb in Psa. 2:9 in the MT is "break." The Greek verb in Psa. 2:9 in the LXX is "rule." John used the Greek LXX rather than the Hebrew MT. So here we have yet another example of the divinely sanctioned use of a different version in the inspired Holy Scriptures themselves.

    You're right... if it's good enough for John... [​IMG]
     
    #5 Archangel7, Dec 21, 2003
  6. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree! I fully accept this particular LXX verse inasmuch it fully agrees with John.
     
    #6 timothy 1769, Dec 21, 2003
  7. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    19
    [​IMG]
    I do too: I have several different Translations of God's Holy Word, so I can only hold two or three in my hands simultaneously.

    <taking discussion off topic briefly>
    By the way, someone asked about the Septuagint in another thread, and if anyone is interested, go to either the Books-A-Million or Barnes and Noble website, and do a search on the title. There is a very-reasonably-priced English Translation of the Septuagint that will usually be the first match on your search. You can get a copy of the Scriptures that was used when Jesus was on the Earth.

    BTW, this edition includes the Apocrypha, so this will allow everyone using the 1769 Revision the opportunity to see what you're missing!!!
    <resume topic of discussion>
     
    #7 Baptist in Richmond, Dec 21, 2003
  8. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you certain John quotes from the LXX? Could he be quoting from the Vorsage Hebrew text as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
     
    #8 skanwmatos, Dec 21, 2003
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Probably just a simple error in the Massoretic Hebrew because of a later (AD1000) decision.

    Most know Hebrew is just a string of consonants. There were/are no vowel pointing in any Hebrew until that era.

    So the three-letter TRM can be "pointed" with tiny vowel points (to help us non-Jews to read the Hebrew language better!!) in two distinct ways.

    Massoretic = Te'Ro-eM which means "smash" (not "break" like a horse, btw, but "break into pieces")

    ALL other = TiR-eM which means "rule".

    The LXX in 200 BCE understood TRM to be "rule".
    John in AD90 writing Revelation understood TRM or the LXX to be "rule".
    The Syriac chose TRM to be "rule".
    The Vulgate realized TRM was "rule".

    So we open a NEW CAN OF WORMS - are the vowel pointing, added by Jewish scribes about AD1000, "inspired"?

    No. No more than Scofield's notes or the Marginal notes in the Geneva, etc are part of the Bible.
     
    #9 Dr. Bob, Dec 21, 2003
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen.

    HankD
     
    #10 HankD, Dec 21, 2003
  11. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's a good example Dr Bob!

    The roots are ra'ah (rule) and ra'a (break). The "T" on the front and the "M" (TIR'EM and TRO'EM) at the end of those words are tense markers and pronoun suffixes. In Hebrew both of these verbs have "weak consonants" so they have not-normal endings - it's easy to mix up TRO'EM and TIR'EM! Just a few little dots different!

    Interestingly the root concept of ra'ah here is that of a shepherd. He rules in a benevolent caring way.

    Also the root concept of ra'a is something bad or evil! The verb literally means to be bad! This is not a word that describes God at all! The closely related Aramaic form re'a'a usually means to actually break something. This may explain why it was translated "break" since the next line does deal with breaking a pot into pieces! [​IMG]
     
    #11 Charles Meadows, Dec 21, 2003
  12. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try Matthew 21:44 for the dual sense here - "broken" one way or the other - compare Daniel's stone which will "break in pieces and consume" all earthly kingdoms - not the same Hebrew, but part of the same idea in Psalm 2. "If we would judge ourselves (breaking the old rebellious nature), we would not be judged (broken)."???

    Happy New Year - R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28
     
    #12 R. Charles Blair, Dec 25, 2003
  13. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you certain John quotes from the LXX? Could he be quoting from the Vorsage Hebrew text as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? </font>[/QUOTE]I based my observation on the fact that the wording of Psa. 2:9 LXX and Rev. 2:27 is identical except for John's adaptation of the verb to his context.
     
    #13 Archangel7, Dec 26, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...