is preservation of god's word a new idea?

Preservation -- not a new idea.

Verbal-plenary-perfect-jot&tittle preservation -- that is a new idea.


Andy

 

I would say I agree with that confession of faith.

Jason

 

Have you ever considered the situation in 1 Sam. 13:1?

1 Samuel 13:1 ESV
1Saul was . . .[1] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two[2] years over Israel.

Footnotes

[1]The number is lacking in Hebrew and Septuagint
[2]Two may not be the entire number; something may have dropped out.

 

yes, for those whose concern for absolute certainty in areas beyond that authorized by God's Word outweighs their concern for textual n intellectual honesty n their faith in God's providential preservation.

 

"Saul was a son of age upon his becoming king, and having reigned two years over Israel"

Does this rendering of 1Sam. 13:1 militate against the context or the overall data as to Saul and his life and reign?

Harald

 

That didn't make it as far as DE, much less FE. That has not even rendered the text. THe KJV translation does not make much sense. There is no reason to say that he reigned one year and the reigned two years. It is a most difficult rendering, even too difficult.

The one is missing by the way ... the KJV translators added to God's word here, apparently in violation of Rev 22; Prov 30; Deut 4 ... etc. (you know the typical list of verses the KJVOs throw out here). And the KJV doesn't even put it in italics ... how dishonest ... at least that is what the KJVOs charge the MVs with ...

This does show a place where DE is absolutely necessary. Ages in the Hebrew are given in the form of "son of X years." That does not translate well into English. That is why every translation uses a dynamic equivalent and says "X years old." Those of you who are against DE must throw out your KJV ... either that or realize that DE is an absolute necessity in translation. Here is a place where the words of the text are gladly sacrificed for clarity of meaning.

 

Larry. I did not even aim for DE, but rather for FE. As for the KJV rendering it seems like it makes no real sense. And you are right in that the translators added words without italicizing. They do it quite often in the NT. It seems to me that this verse is a quite difficult verse to translate into English so as for it to make the least sense. I say that from having checked different versions. The most hilarious must have been the Douay Rheims Bible, which said Saul was one year when he became king. You are right that "one" is not in the original. Then the word for "year" is in the singular, not "yearS". At least that was what I could obtain from the reference material I have. I guess you who are much more familiar with the Hebrew can verify this.

But if I labour a bit more upon this wording. Kohlenberger in his interlinear gives the following literal reading...

"son-of year Saul when-to-become-king-him and-two-of years he-reigned over Israel"

As you know the hyphenated words correspond to one word in the Hebrew. The simple words likewise translate one word. Now, the above is strictly FE as far as I can ascertain. As that reads it does not make much sense to the average reader. But if you look at my rendering again you see it is built on the above. To me it makes sense as I rendered it. The only question is whether the word for "year" may be rendered "age" like I did?

Look at it again

"Saul (was) a son of age upon his becoming king, and having reigned two years over Israel"

The above can be interpreted to be saying that Saul was a youth or a young man "of age", meaning "of ripe age", not a kid anymore at the time of his being made king of Israel. And that two years onward from his coronation - the things of verse 2 taking place. Or, if I "go DE":

"Saul was a young man of ripe age when he became king. And after he had reigned over Israel for two years Saul chose three thousand men from Israel..."

Now, in the above I omit some inspired information, and did not italicize what should have been. But at least the rendering makes good sense, if that is what is missing otherwise. Another question is whether it violates the original words underlying, or the context.

Harald

 

Poking around on BibleWorks, I've found that "year" in the singular is part of the normal construction, regardless of the number of years (e.g., 2Kings 16:2).

I think if you are going to try to make sense of the Hebrew as written, your attempt is as good as any. At best, though, it's speculation and if we're speculating, why not just render the verse as the ESV has it and go on. You can speculate just as easy (maybe easier) w/o the words.

I am not a Hebrew scholar, though. You can take what I say with a grain of salt.

Andy

 

My point is that you did not reach FE, you did not even reach DE. Whatever you did, it was not a translation. A translation aims for communication and all that does is confuse. A "son of age" to my knowledge is never used in the OT in that fashion. That is what renders your translation not really a translation.

In ages, the plural is not used. I don't have my Hebrew reference works here but it is probably an idiom that uses the singular, even though it is plural in effect. For instance, when Gen 37:2 says that Joseph is the "son of seventeen years" it uses the singular just as here.

The most reasonable explanation is that somewhere along the way, the number got dropped off. The only other place this phrase is used is in Exo 12:5 where it speaks of a lamb that is a year old (again a reference to age). I do not know of any place this idiom is used that is not referring to age so there is no reason to think that this refers to a length of reign or anything else. It is referring to his age. So we must assume that this idiom is referring to age and that it does not mean that Saul was a year old.

Interlinear are not good for determining translations because of their nature. They are good illustrations of the fallacy of an FE only approach to translation however. An interlinear is what you get with a strictly FE approach.

I know of no evidence that it can be. There is nothing in the Hebrew language that I know of that supports you here. There may be, but I certainly don't know of it, and the Hebrew scholars who translated this passage seemed not to know of it.

I think we have to assume some number is missing. It is customary in Scripture at the beginning of a reign to give the age of the king. I cannot think of an exception to this ...except for Saul and this very difficult passage.