The "original" Autographs

[timothy 1769]

Notice above where Timothy1969 says it is referring to Jesus the Messiah. It isn't. That is to make the text stand on its head and that is the problem with the translation in the KJV. It is misleading IMO.

no problem with the kjv, just a problem with my brain. i simply goofed, as i know perfectly well what 'jesus' refers to there, as well as y'shua ha'moshiach.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I would disagree with your assessment of my position. I haven't used "my philosophy of translation" as the standard...What I am saying is that Stephen's intent was for the reader of whatever langauge to know that he was referring to Joshua...BTW, I never said that readers "cannot understand who 'Jesus' is in Acts 7:45." My point is that is makes it ambiguous when the context is not ambiguous...

Pastor Larry, I could be unfairly assessing your "philosophy" or "position." Nevertheless, I think I understand that you are arguing for the Old and New Testament names and spellings to be exactly the same. I don't have a problem with that. Yet I find it hard to see that you are not pre-determining the answer you wish to find and then finding it. "Jesus" is not ambiguous in Acts 7:45. A person who doesn't study the Bible will not know who "Joshua" is in Acts 7:45.

[ March 12, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Ransom:
I could argue that a translational choice that could lead to an easily avoided misunderstanding is an error.

If you are reading "Joshua" in Acts 7:45 in whatever Bible you are using, how do you know who "Joshua" is? Is it Joshua the son of Josedech, Joshua the governor, Joshua the Bethshemite, Joshua the son of Nun, or someone else?

 

[AV Defender]

seemingly for no other reason than a superficial similarity and because the KJV allegedly says so: I rest my case.

That is what us "KJVO's" call being a "Bible beleiver"(Romans 3:4).

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> seemingly for no other reason than a superficial similarity and because the KJV allegedly says so: I rest my case.

That is what us "KJVO's" call being a "Bible beleiver"(Romans 3:4). </font>[/QUOTE]That may be what you "call" being a Bible believer... but since there is no scripture to back up your beliefs about the KJV, even that label is falsely applied.

The words of the KJV are words chosen by fallible 17th century Church of England scholars, not the words of God Himself.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> seemingly for no other reason than a superficial similarity and because the KJV allegedly says so: I rest my case.

That is what us "KJVO's" call being a "Bible beleiver"(Romans 3:4). </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

 

[Ransom]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:

If you are reading "Joshua" in Acts 7:45 in whatever Bible you are using, how do you know who "Joshua" is?

The context of Stephen's defense makes it clear that he is speaking of Joshua son of Nun, the successor of Moses, who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land "possessed by the Gentiles."

The point is, the translators made the dubious choice to take the only instance of this individual being mentioned in the NT, and to use the Greek form of his name, which just happens to be the same name as the principal character of the NT, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

It could be confusing, and it could have been avoided by simply carrying the Hebraic form of the name from the Old Testament into the New. Strictly speaking it is not an error of translation, but of judgment, and it isn't the best they could have done.

 

[Ransom]

JYD says:

That is what us "KJVO's" call being a "Bible beleiver"(Romans 3:4).

Being a "Bible believer" means you believe false things about taxonomy?

Tell me, do you also believe hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)?

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by Ransom:
JYD says:

That is what us "KJVO's" call being a "Bible beleiver"(Romans 3:4).

Being a "Bible believer" means you believe false things about taxonomy?

Tell me, do you also believe hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)?

Maybe you need to chew your words some more??? Say, when are you going to provide the rest of the English speaking world with a viable translation?

KJV Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Leviticus 11:6 (Tyn) And the hare, for he likewise cheweth the cud, but deuydeth not the hoffe in to two clawes, he is therfore vnclene to you.

Leviticus 11:6 (Wyc) for also he chewith code, but departith not the clee;

GNV Leviticus 11:6 Also the hare, because he cheweth the cud, and deuideth not the hoofe, he shalbe vncleane to you.

Leviticus 11:6 (KJ2000) And the hare, because it chews the cud, but divides not the hoof; it is unclean unto you.

Leviticus 11:6 (WEB) The hare, because she chews the cud but doesn't part the hoof, she is unclean to you.

ASV Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.

DBY Leviticus 11:6 and the hare, for it cheweth the cud, but hath not cloven hoofs -- it shall be unclean unto you;

DRA Leviticus 11:6 The hare also: for that too cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof.

ESV Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.


JPS Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.

NAB Leviticus 11:6 the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig,

NAS Leviticus 11:6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;

NAU Leviticus 11:6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;

NIB Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

NIV Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

NJB Leviticus 11:6 you will regard the hare as unclean, because though it is ruminant, it does not have a cloven hoof;

NKJ Leviticus 11:6 'the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;

NRS Leviticus 11:6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.

RSV Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

RWB Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean to you.

TNK Leviticus 11:6 the hare -- although it chews the cud, it has no true hoofs: it is unclean for you;

WEB Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof: he {is} unclean to you.

YLT Leviticus 11:6 and the hare, though it is bringing up the cud, yet the hoof hath not divided -- unclean it is to you;

The KJV takes a licking, but it keeps on ticking. tick tick tick

 

[Ransom]

Bob, I did not ask what every Bible under the sun said at that verse.

I asked JYD whether he believed hares chew the cud.

Is there any empirical biological evidence that hares actually chew their cud, or is it a "whales are fish" thing that he (and apparently you) simply believe because the "King James Bible says so" when read in a simplistic fashion?

 

[Johnv]

The digestive system of a hare does not parallel that of cud-chewers, like the cow. They do not have a chambered stomach, and they do not regurgitate their food.

Interestingly, they do perform a function called "cecotropy". Rabbits eat their own feces, redigesting it and absorbing nutrients in the process. I've heard some inerrancy apologists say that this is what was meant by referring to hares as cud-chewers. However, other animals that are cecotrophers are not listed, and are not forbidden, so I would conclude that the description given in Leviticus is inaccurate.

 

[Ransom]

It would also be interesting to know when cecotropy was discovered. If it is a relatively recent discovery, then that is not what Leviticus has in mind, because good hermeneutics demands that the Bible must be interpreted in a way that it makes sense not only to us, but its original audience.

I would not conclude that Leviticus is "inaccurate." Again, good hermeneutics demands that it be interpreted in a way that its original readers would understand. And that means we cannot read it through a grid of modern biology or taxonomy.

Rabbits may not chew the cud, but they certainly look like they are constantly ruminating. Hence Moses points out that rabbits do not have cloven hoofs and are still unclean. Technically inaccurate as it may be to a modern zoologist, I am sure it is a perfectly satisfactory statement to make to a 3rd-millennium-BC Jew.

The same could be said of the fish/whale thing. Cetaceans are mammals - they are warm-blooded vertebrates; their young are born alive; the mother supplies milk to the young (in fact the word "mammal" has the same root as "mammary"); their skins have hair. Cetaceans are not fish - although they have fins and a streamlined body, they do not breathe with gills; they have skins, not scales; they are warm-blooded, not cold. But that is a fact of modern taxonomy developed only in the 18th century by Linnaeus. To the ancient Hebrew mind, I'm sure things were different.

We could say the same about the apparent identification of the bat as a bird (Lev. 11:19).

Understood correctly, the Bible, not even the KJV, is in error on this point. Unfortunately, our "creation science" apologist and KJV-only types are not understanding the Bible correctly.

[ March 13, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Johnv]

I'm curious, btw, about the verse that reads: All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you.. (Lev 11:20)
I find this curious, because birds don't have four legs. ("fowl" is used in place of the Hebrew word owph, which translates "bird" or "winged and feathered animal".

 

[Ransom]

"Fowls" is either a mistranslation or an archaism - the NASB and NKJV both say "winged insect." The KJV even tells you what kind of "fowls" it means: the locust, bald locust, grasshopper, and beetle (cricket) (v. 22) are exceptions to the rule because their legs are jointed so they can jump.

"All fours" is easily understood idiomatically for crawling or creeping.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Here's the actual passage, taken from NASU:

Lev 11:20-23

20 "All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.

21 "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.

22 "These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.

23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU

The passage that says "which walk on all fours" can easily be understood as an idiomatic phrase describing how they walk, torso parrallel to the ground, all the limbs involved. But verse 23 is not so lightly dismissed. It remains a minor blemish in the accuracy of scripture, since there are no creatures that could possibly fit that description. Nothing that flies with wings has other than two (birds and bats) or six (insects) wings.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Ransom:
The context of Stephen's defense makes it clear that he is speaking of Joshua son of Nun, the successor of Moses, who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land "possessed by the Gentiles."

Agreed, and that same context in the KJV makes it clear that this one with the Greek name "Iesous" English name "Jesus" is that Joshua the son of Nun. If Luke wrote this in Greek (which I assume we both think) he did not take time to explain the difference in the Hebraic & Greek form of the name, but relied on the context to clarify it. Did he make a mistake?

The point is, the translators made the dubious choice to take the only instance of this individual being mentioned in the NT

Whether this is dubious I would say remains to be proved, but Jesus/Joshua is mentioned in Hebrews 4:8 in the N.T. - "For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day." [HCSB]

Strictly speaking it is not an error of translation, but of judgment, and it isn't the best they could have done.

We could continue on whether this was an error in judgment, and this and other things can be valid points of discussion. But really all I have been looking for is a statement that translating "Iesou" or "Iesous" as Jesus is not a mistranslation. Could it have been translated better?, differently?, etc., IMO, is another topic.

 

[AV Defender]

I asked JYD whether he believed hares chew the cud.

If God said they chew cud,then bet the farm on it;that is what we call being a Bible believer.

Is there any empirical biological evidence that hares actually chew their cud, or is it a "whales are fish" thing that he (and apparently you) simply believe because the "King James Bible says so" when read in a simplistic fashion?

I don't know how this thread came to discussing a rabbit's digestive tract, but they do in fact chew on partialy digested food(grass) like a cow.They chew the cud;God is never wrong.

 

[Bartholomew]

1. If "Jesus" is a mistranslation in Acts, then it is so throughout the NT. "Jesus" was probably not known by that exact rendering of that name.

2. Who are any of you to define "fish" by the modern Western definition? Was the whale a "mammal" in 1611??? If, in 50 years' time, the word "Lord" comes to mean "homosexual", will you say the NIV got it wrong when it called Jesus "Lord"???

These arguments are so stupid that nobody should be wasting time asnwering them. Honestly, the lengths some will go to attack the KJV... (and YES, it's an attack on the KJV, NOT just KJVOnlyism).

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Bob, I did not ask what every Bible under the sun said at that verse.

I asked JYD whether he believed hares chew the cud.

Is there any empirical biological evidence that hares actually chew their cud, or is it a "whales are fish" thing that he (and apparently you) simply believe because the "King James Bible says so" when read in a simplistic fashion?

Ransom, perhaps you did not ask to see the other translations, but I think they were worth posting. They are helpful to see when considering your claim of error. You were making mock of believing the KJV, because your storehouse of information said it was wrong. Well, ransom, all the English translations from 1382 (Wyc) to the present are wrong too, according to what you are saying. That is 621 years worth of English translations. All those folks must not have had access to your mind. You have really done something to find what you presented as an error. That is very enlightening.. When are you going to provide a viable English translation?

~~~~~
The Scriptures are like the ocean, boundless and unfathomable. No man can ever exhaust the stores of knowledge treasured in the ocean. It may be studied for a life–time under different aspects.
Hodge, C.; Sermon Outlines : Taken from Princeton Sermons.
~~~~~

 

[Bartholomew]

I was just reading the beginning of this thread, and looking at the "errors in the KJV" that Johnv quoted. Then I saw this (emphasis added):

Originally posted by Johnv:
Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

And Johnv had the audacity (in the "church version" thread) to call me heretical...

[ March 14, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]