Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!

[Craigbythesea]

Flavius Josephus (37 A.D. - circa 100 A.D.) was a Jewish historian. Four of his works are known and are available in English editions:

The Jewish War
The history of the Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire in the years 66-74 A.D., as experienced by Josephus himself.

Antiquities of the Jews
The history of the Jews prior to the revolt, based on the Bible, other Jewish writings, and the works of previous historians.

Against Apion
A defense of Judaism, answering an attack by a Roman author.

The Life
Josephus' autobiography.

Collectively, his writings are commonly known as "The Writings of Josephus."

 

[HankD]

Uh, Hank? Did I just see you quote we are not to strive but I see you striving?

IMO there's nothing wrong with a lively debate.

You have a sharp wit and tongue QS and have ruffled some feathers (mine included) but your not mean-spirited.

Sometimes things get out of hand when newbies show up wanting to prove their spiritual superiority.

It was my turn to "yell at the kids".

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Craig, See how easily you are "catapulted" off topic? Maybe you should not be so gullible the next time.

I was asked "Why did the "1611" contain the apocrypha?"

I suppose one might clarify what they are saying before asking such a vague question, it just might avoid such a "vague" answer. I told yall the "apocrypha" and "forgotten books of the Bible" and "the lost books of Eden" have been compiled together into a collection and into one book.

The real Apocrypha is only for historical reference and it is much proven by the "Writings of Flavius Josephus", who also just so happens to "prove" the Bible as accurate in the historical catagory also.

Man, yal all are so gullible some tines.

 

[Precepts]

You have a sharp wit and tongue QS and have ruffled some feathers (mine included) but your not mean-spirited.

Ah, yes. I must admit I do need to commend myself more often, but as long as there are people like Hank, I don't have to.

Now, if you could just teach Cranston that!

(The second

is for Cranston, I wouldn't want Hank to think I was a respector of persons.)

Though I do know some respect is due, I just have a real hard time dredging any up for orvie.

 

[HankD]

Ah, yes. I must admit I do need to commend myself more often, but as long as there are people like Hank, I don't have to.

Yes, that way you can be humble as well.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

This post was composed late yesterday
afternoon before the "lion"
got disposed during the night.

Say, you liberals, SBs, and liberal SBs,
and fellow travellers -- please pray for me.
I enjoy way to much the discomfort
of a poor innocent Lion stepping
into a den of Daniels

I could have warned this poor lion (not
that he would listen). If only the lion
had known of and adhereed to
the Bulletin Board Prime Directive:
Read Before You Post

He this lion read any Topic here in
this Forum over three pages in length
he could have seen what was coming.

Yes, pray for me,
I enjoy taking candy from a baby
WAY TOO MUCH

 

[Precepts]

Hank, humility and squimish have two opposing definitions. Or is that squeemish? squeamish, squ"oui"mish?, could be squymish?

Maybe Ed can help us out? Hey, Ed,.....?

 

[robycop3]

A little aside- The Book of Enoch shows itself to NOT be the writings of the Enoch of Genesis, as it alludes to the length of the year being the present length of 365 1/4 days. For a LONG time, the year was only 360 days long, as affirmed by Scripture and secular history from other parts of the world, such as the Incan Empire. In Enoch's day, it might've been as short as 354 days, according to Velikovsky and some other sources.

 

[Precepts]

Uh, Cranston, When did a year not become a year in any amount of days? I know what you're saying, and it does account for the difference in the years attributed ny other cultures.

I can hardly believe what I'm about to say, but thanks, Cranston, for the info concerning the Book of Enoch, that will help me to deal with a long-time friend of ine who happens to nearly idolize it.

See, your posts can be of some use.

Ummmph! I just couldn't help myself!

 

[Craigbythesea]

QuickeningSpirit wrote,

Craig, See how easily you are "catapulted" off topic? Maybe you should not be so gullible the next time.

I was trying (in vain, perhaps) to give you the benefit of the doubt. But we do need to get back on topic, so I will ask you again, what English tense is represented by the verb that we find four different renderings of in the last phrase in Matt. 4:2 in the KJV?

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

And this time please don’t try to circumvent the question, but give a direct answer like you so very often ask other people to do.

 

[HankD]

Um, what are we trying to determine?

He fasted for 40 days and afterward He was hungry.
Are we asking why the Bible is stating the obvious?

If that's the question then its an easy one (for me anyway). It was one more scriptural proof that He was fully human.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Hank, humility and squimish have two opposing definitions. Or is that squeemish? squeamish, squ"oui"mish?, could be squymish?

Maybe Ed can help us out? Hey, Ed,.....?

The answers to your questions are:
1. squeamish
2. KJV1873
3. the lion is back,
but so are all the Daniels like
(list not incusive):

Craigbythesea
QuickeningSpirit
HankD
robycop3
ScottJ
gb93433
Charles Meadows
Will
Orvie
Ed

 

[Precepts]

And this time please don’t try to circumvent the question, but give a direct answer like you so very often ask other people to do

O.K., I'll try, but you know this is really gonna be hard for me. I'll have to fight temptation real hard, so you pray.

The verbal phrase is "was an hungered". The differences in spelling are attributed to the time they were printed and are only limited by the typesetter's spelling preference. No harm is done to the passage. The right term for what we call "hungry" in this day was then called "an hungered", or as it is simply understood "was hungry".

The state of a man can be called "hungry", or in the Olde English terminology the man is in a state which hunger is in control of his actions and seems to indicate a desparate condition only to be satisfied by getting something to eat. "An hungered" also seems to indicate the level of being hungry, especially in this case with Jesus who had nothing to eat for 40 days and nights. The custom of the Jews in fasting for this long of a period, the meals in the day were the only ones avoided and they did eat a meal at night. Now the result wasn't what most would expect, they did not gorge themselves due to thier being "an hungered" all day, instead they didn't eat a regular portion due to their stomachs had shrunk and not desiring a larger content than what it took to satisfy and quench their hunger.

Now if I understood your question to be about the verbal phrase "was...an hungered", that should satisfy you. If not, well....

Wow! you must be able to get a prayer thru, I..., well, I guess I just did.

 

[Craigbythesea]

QuickeningSpirit,

I’m proud of you!

You gave me a direct answer!

You must have fasted and prayed for fourtie dayes, and fourtie nights!

However, you gave me a direct answer to a question that I didn’t ask. So I will ask you yet another time, WHAT ENGLISH TENSE is represented by the verb that we find four different renderings of in the last phrase in Matt. 4:2 in the KJV?

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

Another hint: The Geneva Bible reads here:

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted fourtie dayes, and fourtie nights, he was afterward hungrie.

Some more related question:

Why did the translators of the KJV use a different tense of this verb in this verse than did the translators of the Geneva Bible? In other words, what are the translators of the KJV telling us that the translators of the Geneva Bible failed to mention? And why does the Geneva Bible use the expression “an hungred” nine times in the New Testament, but not in Matt. 4:2?

P.S. You might have to fast and pray for another fourtie dayes, and fourtie nights!

 

[HankD]

OK, I went back to the original question.

But that is not all! How about the readability. What English tense is being rendered here? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question? And what is the difference between being "an hungered" (etc.) and being "hungry."? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question?

Well, I'm not a KJVO but KJVp because the TR IMO is the better text.

I think the underlying question is whether the Greek word husteron is an abverb or adjective of comparison. There is a difference of opinion in translation here and it could go either way.

Personally, I believe the NIV says it best:

NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

IMO, The point of this passage is the hunger in and of itself not the manner and the timing in which He became hungry. He was fully human, He experienced hunger.

The dynamics of hunger associated with fasting are different for different folk. For one thing it depends on the amount of body fat one has and one's rate of metabolism.

In this case I prefer the NIV translation over the KJV since it gives the better overall picture (IMV).

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Uh, Craig, the verb "was" is , uh, PAST TENSE.

The KJB best relates what the Spirit is telling us. Jesus in His humanity "was hungry", o.k.? But He is God and in relation to His having power over all flesh, it's temptations, control, He is said to be "an hungered". Hankd got it when he said the term is nearly an adjective but with action, that makes it an adverb, uh, in the PAST TENSE. But then he went off into outspace again with the niv.

Jesus never had to rely on natural food to sustain His body,that is proven in His fast for forty days and nights, uh, humanly impossible, but not for God.

Now, let's see what your ranting about?

 

[HankD]

Jesus never had to rely on natural food to sustain His body,that is proven in His fast for forty days and nights, uh, humanly impossible, but not for God.

I can agree with that analysis if of course this is a possibility for any human being such as Moses. The fact that Jesus was mortal and subject to death as any other human being was proven by the fact that He actually died and was buried.

Others have fasted 40 days and 40 nights.
Exodus 34:28 And he (Moses) was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

I don't know that we can say that Jesus did not need food to sustain Himself while here in the days of His flesh. What do others think and what Scripture speaks to this directly ot otherwise?

I hope this doesn't turn into the usual dunnybrook and name-calling contest.

HankD

 

[rsr]

I hope this doesn't turn into the usual dunnybrook and name-calling contest.

What makes you think this will be different?

 

[HankD]

We can hope

HankD

 

[robycop3]

I believe Moses was supernaturally sustained by God, as no human, by strictly human power, can live but a few days,4 to 7 days, w/o water. There are rare instances where people have lived a little longer w/o water, but that was nowhere near 40 days.