Untrue anti-KJVO-doctrine points

[robycop3]

We have spent a lotta time & effort proving many points brought up by KJVOs, usually from some pro-KJVO book, wrong, as well as actual booboos in the KJV. Let's look the OTHER way a little while...at some anti-KJVO thingies that are just as untrue.

Let's start with a fave of the Freedom Readers..."strain AT a gnat".

Sorry, fellow Freedom Readers...this'n's NOT VALID. The English usage is in the sense of "The dog frantically dug into the ground to GET AT the gopher" and is proper usage, both in 1611 and now, although not too common today. This usage was much more in vogue in the 1600s than it is now, "Have AT thee" was a common challenge in a fight. Technically, one must strain AT a gnat in order to strain OUT a gnat! "Strain AT" is NOT a booboo in the KJV.

"the voice of the TURTLE is heard in our land;..."(Song of Solomon 2:12)

In 1611, turtle DOVES were often called turtles, especially when the context indicated it was a bird and not a reptile being discussed. WE do no less when we call an automobile an 'auto'. Although the word auto has several meanings to us, we have no problem realizing when a car is meant by auto, from the context.

"Voice of the TURTLE" is no goof...it's merely now-archaic usage.

1 Samuel 17:6
And he(Goliath) had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a TARGET of brass between his shoulders.

Now, did Goliath wear something on his back to provide an aiming point for enemy missiles? Newp!

In the days of chivalry, especially in the British Isles, a large shield was called a TARGE. This shield was often unwieldy & limited the speed of the user, but it provided excellent protection from missiles. However, in a hand-to-hand fight, the targe was more a liability than an asset, so the warrior then employed a small, light shield on his non-sword-wielding arm which could be used to stop sword or club blows. This was called a "targette", later shortened to "target". many warriors decorated their targets with concentric circles, and often when the useful shield lide of such a target was over, the warrior used it for missile practice. Thus, 'target' slowly worked its way into the language as a mark to shoot at, goal to be reached, etc.

(Elite warriors such as Goliath often had "armor-bearers" to carry his targe, spear. & heavier articles of armor until needed, thus keeping the warrior fresh for battle.)

Again, this is just another example of17th C. usage of a word that has a different meaning for us today, and not a booboo.

YOUR comments, please?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think it is vital to point out that the vast majority of attacks on KJV translation choices are no more than a lock of understanding of the language of 1611.

Obviously "be careful for nothing" does not mean to be "careless" in the modern sense of the word. However, it is just what it sound like "don't be full of cares."

 

[EdSutton]

YOUR comments, please?

Uh - what was the question again?? I musta' been :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

[Pastor_Bob]

YOUR comments, please?

Although I rarely, if ever, agree with you on most points, I must applaud you for this effort. It shows a willingness to be fair while in no way compromising your position. My hat is off to you, sir.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[Logos1560]

1 Samuel 17:6
And he(Goliath) had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a TARGET of brass between his shoulders.

Now, did Goliath wear something on his back to provide an aiming point for enemy missiles? Newp!

In the days of chivalry, especially in the British Isles, a large shield was called a TARGE. This shield was often unwieldy & limited the speed of the user, but it provided excellent protection from missiles. However, in a hand-to-hand fight, the targe was more a liability than an asset, so the warrior then employed a small, light shield on his non-sword-wielding arm which could be used to stop sword or club blows. This was called a "targette", later shortened to "target". many warriors decorated their targets with concentric circles, and often when the useful shield lide of such a target was over, the warrior used it for missile practice. Thus, 'target' slowly worked its way into the language as a mark to shoot at, goal to be reached, etc.

(Elite warriors such as Goliath often had "armor-bearers" to carry his targe, spear. & heavier articles of armor until needed, thus keeping the warrior fresh for battle.)

Again, this is just another example of17th C. usage of a word that has a different meaning for us today, and not a booboo.

YOUR comments, please?

It is true that the word "target" in the 1611 KJV and some of the pre-1611 English Bibles was used to refer to a "shield." At 1 Samuel 17:6, the rendering of the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1539 Taverner's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops' Bible was "shield" where the KJV has "target."

There is some question about whether "target" or "shield" is the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew word used at 1 Samuel 17:6.
The Hebrew word kidon that is translated "target" at (1 Sam. 17:6) was also translated the following ways in the KJV: "shield" (1 Sam. 17:45), "spear" (Jer. 6:23), and "lance" (Jer. 50:42). Thus, the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated this Hebrew word differently. The Hebrew word at 1 Samuel 17:6 is a different Hebrew word than that the KJV usually translated "target" or "targets."

Some [perhaps even the majority] Bible scholars and Bible translators maintain that the better or more accurate rendering of this Hebrew word is closer to the way that the KJV translators translated it in Jeremiah 6:23 and 50:42. Instead of being a second smaller "shield," this Hebrew word is thought to refer to a second smaller "spear"; that is a small spear or javelin that could be thrown as opposed to a large spear held on to and used to thrust at near-by objects. Thus, a number of English translations have "javelin" at 1 Samuel 17:6 where the KJV has "target." Even a KJV-only source [David Cloud's Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible] listed as the second definition for target [actually the definition of the Hebrew word used at this verse] the following: "(2) small spear; javelin (1 Sam. 17:6)" (p. 432).

 

[robycop3]

I would think 'shield' would be correct here, as Goliath's spear was heavy, (shaft like a weaver's beam, about 2.5" in diameter; its head weighed 600 shekels of iron, that is,about 15 lb.) and carrying it on his back for some time would even tire out a giant. An elite warrior as he was mighta had more than one 'armor-bearer', as a man strong enough to lug a giant's equipment all over a battlefield shoulda made quite a warrior himself.(Scripture mentions one.)

And the shield on his back would help protect him from ambushes from behind, as well as be quickly available in case of surprise attack.

But then, we can't rule out 'spear' entirely, as the Hebrew makes that reading possible.

 

[robycop3]

Uh - what was the question again?? I musta' been :sleeping_2:

Ed

I was pointing out a few incorrect anti-KJVO points that Freedom Readers sometimes use, and asked for the comments of other readers on this subject.

While we're at it, lemme comment about "unicorns". Some people believe this was a booboo in the KJV, but I disagree. Why? because the exact meaning of the hebrew 're'em', sometimes translated 'unicorn' in the KJV, is not known. All that is known for ssure is that it's a large, powerful beast.

The British royal coat-of-arms, designed by King James 1, features a lion for England and a unicorn for Scotland, as KJ was king of both nations. The AV men had no reason to not believe unicorns existed. (For all that matter, it's unlikely that any of them, had ever seen a LION.) And all the stories about unicorns describe it as among the most powerful and dangerous of the beasts. And we know that the boss of the AV men, Archbishop Bancroft, was a toadie to KJ, so it's only natural that he would retain the definition 'unicorn' for 're'em', to flatter the king.

I believe the best thing we can do when it comes to the 'correct' naming of many animals and birds in scripture is to simply accept what is in the version we happen to be reading at the time, as the exact meanings of many of these Hebrew names are not known to the most eminent translators and Hebrew experts on earth. just because one version says 'pelican' in a certain verse in Isaiah & another says 'cormorant' in the same verse doesn't mean one or the other is wrong. Although we, and the ancient israelis could easily tell a pelican and cormorant apart by sight, we cannot substitute our discretion for that of Isaiah, who was making a prophecy & may have known only that the place would become a habitat for wild birds without knowing exactly what species they would be.

Yes, I AM trying to be fair. There are enough genuine booboos in the KJV that we don't have to invent any that don't really exist. And one of the worst Freedom Reader goofs is to criticize the KJV's namings of certain animals or birds mentioned in the Hebrew.

 

[Logos1560]

I would think 'shield' would be correct here, as Goliath's spear was heavy, (shaft like a weaver's beam, about 2.5" in diameter; its head weighed 600 shekels of iron, that is,about 15 lb.) and carrying it on his back for some time would even tire out a giant.

But then, we can't rule out 'spear' entirely, as the Hebrew makes that reading possible.

Perhaps you did not read my post carefully enough. Those who think that the Hebrew word kidon refers to a javelin or second much smaller spear for throwing do not claim that it was the same large spear described in 1 Samuel 17:7. Just like those who think it refers to a "target" or "shield" consider it a second smaller shield, others consider it a second much smaller spear or javelin. Goliath was already wearing a heavy "coat of mail" (1 Sam. 17:5) that should have protected his back.

 

[robycop3]

Yeah, either, I suppose, IS possible, but, far back in time as I have been able to read the history of warfare, "elite" warriors had sets of both light and heavy weapons & protection, and someone to carry some of them, in many civilizations. G could well have carried a light spear upon his back, but mosta the descriptions I have read here & there of ancient warriors describe them as carrying a shield, or shield & sword upon their bax.

But that DOES bring us to another term worth discussing, found in the KJV...BRASS. From what I can find, the first brass was produced by melting copper together with calamine, an ore that contains zinc, and this was most likely first done in what is now Germany. OTOH, bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, has been made almost from the beginning of man's history in many parts of the world. I am wondering if the ancient Israelis & Philistines had brass, or was it bronze? (Keeping in mind that many brasses are called bronze & vice versa, depending upon who's looking at it!)

 

[Salamander]

Perhaps you did not read my post carefully enough. Those who think that the Hebrew word kidon refers to a javelin or second much smaller spear for throwing do not claim that it was the same large spear described in 1 Samuel 17:7. Just like those who think it refers to a "target" or "shield" consider it a second smaller shield, others consider it a second much smaller spear or javelin. Goliath was already wearing a heavy "coat of mail" (1 Sam. 17:5) that should have protected his back.

The truth is that the frontal shield was much larger than the aft shield, or shields.

The center of the back between the shoulders is considered a "weak point" as well as the kidney region which also had small shields.

The frontal shield was much larger due to the frontal attacks most often occured there and were most likely to debilitate the warrior and also being his back was rarely ever turned to his attackers.

Much attention was made to protect the head and applied to the making of the helmets, thus "targeting" the shield to weaken its protective power is where we get the word "target".

We may have heard the phrase "chipping away at the target": meaning a weakening of the target as an effort to hit the vital areas to defeat an opponent in a joust.

We also must consider the shape of the cross as being a "t", the center of a man is the cross where the lines intersect making a "target": the "targe" being the protection shielding the "T".

The "t" was then added to the targe to represent what was being referenced as it being on a man thus forming the word "target".

Our English language incorporates many nuances as described above and always should be taken into consideration the sounds emitted and the appearances relative to their coinciding points is where we get most of our words.

Linguistics, I believe.:wavey:

 

[Salamander]

Yeah, either, I suppose, IS possible, but, far back in time as I have been able to read the history of warfare, "elite" warriors had sets of both light and heavy weapons & protection, and someone to carry some of them, in many civilizations. G could well have carried a light spear upon his back, but mosta the descriptions I have read here & there of ancient warriors describe them as carrying a shield, or shield & sword upon their bax.

But that DOES bring us to another term worth discussing, found in the KJV...BRASS. From what I can find, the first brass was produced by melting copper together with calamine, an ore that contains zinc, and this was most likely first done in what is now Germany. OTOH, bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, has been made almost from the beginning of man's history in many parts of the world. I am wondering if the ancient Israelis & Philistines had brass, or was it bronze? (Keeping in mind that many brasses are called bronze & vice versa, depending upon who's looking at it!)

:laugh: This is what makes for a real "arguement"!

Talk about straining at a gnat!

 

[robycop3]

The truth is that the frontal shield was much larger than the aft shield, or shields.

The center of the back between the shoulders is considered a "weak point" as well as the kidney region which also had small shields.

The frontal shield was much larger due to the frontal attacks most often occured there and were most likely to debilitate the warrior and also being his back was rarely ever turned to his attackers.

Much attention was made to protect the head and applied to the making of the helmets, thus "targeting" the shield to weaken its protective power is where we get the word "target".

We may have heard the phrase "chipping away at the target": meaning a weakening of the target as an effort to hit the vital areas to defeat an opponent in a joust.

We also must consider the shape of the cross as being a "t", the center of a man is the cross where the lines intersect making a "target": the "targe" being the protection shielding the "T".

The "t" was then added to the targe to represent what was being referenced as it being on a man thus forming the word "target".

Our English language incorporates many nuances as described above and always should be taken into consideration the sounds emitted and the appearances relative to their coinciding points is where we get most of our words.

Linguistics, I believe.:wavey:

Sorry, Sal, butcha better check yer dictionary. "Target" indeed was the diminutive of "targe", which was from Middle English, which took it from Old French, which took it from Norse. it was originally "targette" in French.

This begs for the definition of the suffix "-ette", so here ya are, from Ole Man Webster!

1. Small; diminutive: kitchenette.
2. Female: usherette, dudette.
3. An imitation or inferior kind of cloth: leatherette.
(From French)

And indeed, many bold British Isles and French soldiers who wished to show contempt for their foes by making themselves highly visible, decorated their targettes with red-n-white concentric circles, & used old targettes for archery practice. From this, our modern 'target' developed.

And Goliath mighta worn the first Volkswagen for a helm, but apparently his forehead was exposed. And it's strange that an experienced warrior as he was, was not wary of David's sling. Israeli slingers, especially among the Jews and Benjaminites, had a formidable reputation throughout the area, even into Ethiopia and Elam. G mighta been so angry that a teenager was coming against him that he threw caution to the wind & thus got rocked to sleep.

About BRASS.....

 

[Salamander]

Sorry, Sal, butcha better check yer dictionary. "Target" indeed was the diminutive of "targe", which was from Middle English, which took it from Old French, which took it from Norse. it was originally "targette" in French.

This begs for the definition of the suffix "-ette", so here ya are, from Ole Man Webster!

1. Small; diminutive: kitchenette.
2. Female: usherette, dudette.
3. An imitation or inferior kind of cloth: leatherette.
(From French)

And indeed, many bold British Isles and French soldiers who wished to show contempt for their foes by making themselves highly visible, decorated their targettes with red-n-white concentric circles, & used old targettes for archery practice. From this, our modern 'target' developed.

And Goliath mighta worn the first Volkswagen for a helm, but apparently his forehead was exposed. And it's strange that an experienced warrior as he was, was not wary of David's sling. Israeli slingers, especially among the Jews and Benjaminites, had a formidable reputation throughout the area, even into Ethiopia and Elam. G mighta been so angry that a teenager was coming against him that he threw caution to the wind & thus got rocked to sleep.

About BRASS.....

Nope, better check a little deeper.

Where does it say in the Bible that Goliath had his head exposed with his helmet on?

I believe you're trying to validate your conjecture with robyology.

 

[robycop3]

Nope, better check a little deeper.

Where does it say in the Bible that Goliath had his head exposed with his helmet on?

I believe you're trying to validate your conjecture with robyology.

Samuel 12:49(KJV)And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

I hardly think that even DAVID coulda slung a stone that woulda penetrated a helm designed to deflect a sword blow so the stone sank into the forehead. and the forehead woulda had to have been visible for anyone to have seen that the stone sank into it. COMMON SENSE, not any "robyology", something you often ignore when trying to justify KJVO.

I believe you're thinking about the full-face garbage cans worn by medieval knights, and not something worn in C. 1000BC.

But hey, folx, we're getting away from the subject here.

Another untruism is the amount of liquid held by the large basin in the Tabernacle.

1 Kings 7:26
And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

Chronicles 4:5
And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

The verse in Chronicles gives its CAPACITY; the verse in Kings tella roughly how much was in it when the writer mighta observed it. it could hold 3K baths, but when the writer of Kings saw it, it was only 2/3 full. Simple.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... And Goliath mighta worn the first Volkswagen for a helm, but apparently his forehead was exposed. And it's strange that an experienced warrior as he was, was not wary of David's sling ...

With all this talk of Goliath, I wondered if you were familar with this news story --

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1131367063187

 

[Trotter]

Target = shield, and was the common usage. Shields were often furnished with an extra strap of leather or cord so that it could be worn across the back with the strap crossing the chest. This kept the shield handy for use, and offered some protection from a blow from behind.

Many targets in later years were small enough to used by one hand and was not slung across the forearm. This afforded to bearer a better chance to stop a blow by giving him a better range of movement. Some targets even had a raised boss or spike so that it could be used as a weapon (but I am pretty sure this innovation was not around during King david's day).

The shield carried by the shield bearer was usually much larger than a shield that would be defined as a target.

Sorry. Ancient weaponry used to be a hobby of mine.

 

[Salamander]

Samuel 12:49(KJV)And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

I hardly think that even DAVID coulda slung a stone that woulda penetrated a helm designed to deflect a sword blow so the stone sank into the forehead. and the forehead woulda had to have been visible for anyone to have seen that the stone sank into it. COMMON SENSE, not any "robyology", something you often ignore when trying to justify KJVO.

And you still haven't shown that Goliath was actually wearing his helmet.

I believe you're thinking about the full-face garbage cans worn by medieval knights, and not something worn in C. 1000BC.

Not exactly, but you would think something different from what I said.:laugh:

folx, we're getting away from the subject here.

Another untruism is the amount of liquid held by the large basin in the Tabernacle.

1 Kings 7:26
And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

Chronicles 4:5
And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

The verse in Chronicles gives its CAPACITY; the verse in Kings tella roughly how much was in it when the writer mighta observed it. it could hold 3K baths, but when the writer of Kings saw it, it was only 2/3 full. Simple.

So? I don't get your objection.

 

[kubel]

Let's start with a fave of the Freedom Readers..."strain AT a gnat".

Sorry, fellow Freedom Readers...this'n's NOT VALID. The English usage is in the sense of "The dog frantically dug into the ground to GET AT the gopher" and is proper usage, both in 1611 and now, although not too common today. This usage was much more in vogue in the 1600s than it is now, "Have AT thee" was a common challenge in a fight. Technically, one must strain AT a gnat in order to strain OUT a gnat! "Strain AT" is NOT a booboo in the KJV.

"AT" in "strain AT a gnat" is old English for OUT (stemming from the useage of the word "ut" meaning "out").

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=904531&postcount=13

I'm with the "UT" theory, but I still agree with you that it's not an error since translations are made for a certain culture, that speak a certain language, during a certain time. If it was not an error in 1611, I don't think we can count it as one today.

I think the same can be said of the usage of the word Easter in Acts 12:4. While it's not accurate as far as we are concerned, I think the English in the 1600's used the word "Easter" as word with a wider scope, to mean many things (including the time of Resurrection Sunday and Passover).

For example, they (just as many of us do today) use Easter to mean Resurrection Sunday. So it's not irrational for us to assume that the word Easter could have had a wider definition back in the day, to also mean the period of Passover. This can be seen in the resources included with the 1611, where they very clearly used the word Easter to mean a religious holiday they celebrated, and I doubt it was pagan:

http://www.minihost.org/1611/1611_easter.jpg
http://www.minihost.org/1611/1611_holydays.jpg

So I think the translators chose Easter correctly, knowing full well what Pascha was and how it can be translated.

But while I defend the KJV translation here, I also reject the KJVO argument that suggests that there was advanced revelation here. Many KJVO's say that the translators used the word Easter with the intent to express to the English readers that Easter was pagan. This is nonsense- an attempt to defend the KJV to the point of siding with something that is completely not true. It just exposes how some people are bound by this sort of thinking.

There's an easier and more logical defense, KJVOs, and that is:

Easter = Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar (which includes the time of Christs death, burial, resurrection, and also Passover, and also pagan celebration).

So I think there are many examples of how words may not be technically correct today, but I think English of the 1600's was a very nontechnical and still evolving language (there were very few standards, and many changes were made between then and now). So I think it's fair that we at least give the KJV (and other older translations) the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:And you still haven't shown that Goliath was actually wearing his helmet.

1 Samuel 17:4And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

5And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

6And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders. (KJV)



Not exactly, but you would think something different from what I said.:laugh:

Helmets are almost as old as warfare. The first known ones were worn by the ancient Mycenaenians(Greeks). And many a helmet, even modern ones, leaves the forehead exposed. (Look at the hubcaps{Brodie helmets} worn by British & American WW1 troops) And at any rate, Scripture sez Dave's stone sank into G's forehead.

So? I don't get your objection.

I'm not objecting; I an adding it to the list of untrue alleged goofs in the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

Don't wanna get another "Easter/Passover" thingie going, Kubel, but lemme just say that the older GENEVA BIBLE has PASSOUER in Acts 12:4, the AV translators clearly knew Easter & Passover apart, as they placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV1611, & whenever Luke referred to Passover he wrote 'pascha', & whenever he referred to resurrection, he wrote 'anastasis'.