The King James Bible

[kohelet]

God is in control and He most certainly will take care of all that. As far as the English goes the King James Bible is the word of God.

You might be right, James37, but where we are told that your arithmetic is the evidence that a certain translation is the only word of God? Why wouldn't earlier and therefore more reliable manuscripts than those that form the basis of the KJV be a better yardstick? Makes more sense than numbers adding up to 37, right?

 

[posthuman]

Such a simple thing...they caught 153 fish.....end of story...no subliminal messages, grand meaning, spiritually deep significance...........that was just the number that that caught.....this whole concept of proving the king jimmy is the only English bible bearing the work of God by some random numbering expirement as at best nothing more than a whim.......it contains copied verses, transliterated words, gramatically errors and words mistranslated....GOD would not inspire a work with the amount of rigmarole seen in the above..

I disagree with you there bro. They took the time to count the fish and the Spirit has John remember and write the number - i don't think it's insignificant. Counting words in King Jimmy may not get us anywhere but it's 153 in every language here, and we're not in some census in the book of Numbers. I think there's something potentially profound here if we can find it, something that fits with John's whole purpose in writing.

 

[James37]

You might be right, James37, but where we are told that your arithmetic is the evidence that a certain translation is the only word of God? Why wouldn't earlier and therefore more reliable manuscripts than those that form the basis of the KJV be a better yardstick? Makes more sense than numbers adding up to 37, right?

Actually it really isn't my arithmetic but a computers. There are patterns related to the numbers 7, 37 and 73 in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Others have researched this and they are not pro King James Bible as far as I know. I only speak English so I am in no position to comment or analyze translations in other languages. What I assert is that they are in the KJB just as they are present in Hebrew and Greek texts. If there are patterns in the Hebrew, Greek and English scriptures, then there are 3 witnesses and 3 witnesses are biblical. 1 John 5:7; Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; and 2 Corinthians 13:1

 

[James37]

I can be very direct and tactless, sorry. I'm not calling you nuts or saying there are no patterns in scripture though - i've been saying that it's in the Hebrew and Greek that we should be looking if we're looking for those, that they're not useful if they can't be interpreted and understood, and that to comprehend them in a useful way we should find and apply analytical, deliberate methods and justify all those methods starting from first principles. Im pushing you towards what I think is a better way. Sorry if I'm blunt just assume I'm an ordinary mathematician - you know, abstract, systematic personality with 0 or < 0 people skills

No problem, perhaps I need to grown thicker skin

 

[James37]

[h=1]"Numeric patterns of 37 and 73 in the Bible"[/h]

I recommend this youtube video if anyone is interested in numerical patterns of 37 and 73 in the Greek and Hebrew texts.

 

[posthuman]

No problem, perhaps I need to grown thicker skin

Well you've come to the right place haha

CC BDF is definitely a place to thicken hides

 

[SovereignGrace]

No problem, perhaps I need to grown thicker skin

Well, Saul of Tarsus had a thick skin covering his eyes until Ananias prayed and they fell off and he could see. I am hoping there is an Ananias on here who can remove the skin covering your eyes, too.

 

[Sagart]

Numerical patterns should never take precedent over what is written in God's word but this thread was started by me in order to talk about these patterns in the King James Bible. Not one person has denied or proven thus far that they do not exist. If they exist then the obvious questions to me are who put them there and why? They do exist and I assert that God has placed them in the King James Bible. Why? Well I believe them to be a sort of seal of authenticity.

Numerical patterns can be found in all literature, and the greater the number of morphemes and lexemes in that literature, the greater the number of numerical patterns that can be found. Moreover, the smaller the vocabulary of the literature, the greater the number of numerical patterns that can be found. As the number of repetitions of the morphemes and lexemes increases, the number of numerical patterns that can be found increases. Consequently, a very large number of numerical patters can be found in of the Bible, and in translations of it.

James has failed to demonstrate that more numerical patterns can be found in his particular edition of the King James translation of the Bible than in the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version. There may be more—or there may be fewer. Finding them accomplishes nothing at all except for wasting ones time. We would expect to find, however, for mathematical reasons, if one was to waste his time looking for them, fewer numerical patterns in the New International Version than in modern editions of the King James Version (such as James is using), or in the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version.

 

[kohelet]

Actually it really isn't my arithmetic but a computers. There are patterns related to the numbers 7, 37 and 73 in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Others have researched this and they are not pro King James Bible as far as I know. I only speak English so I am in no position to comment or analyze translations in other languages. What I assert is that they are in the KJB just as they are present in Hebrew and Greek texts. If there are patterns in the Hebrew, Greek and English scriptures, then there are 3 witnesses and 3 witnesses are biblical. 1 John 5:7; Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; and 2 Corinthians 13:1

I'm inclined to think, James37, that the Lord can speak to us through any translation of his word (but I'd steer clear of translations like the NWT, of course). I started with the KJV when I was young, so I like that translation. But then came the RSV and God continued to speak to me through that one. More recently it's been the NIV, NASB and the ESV, all good translations for various reasons. But if you like the KJV - even if you think it's the only valid word of God, which I think perhaps a bit extreme - that's fine and you're entitled to your view, though I feel more comfortable reading versions based on more ancient and therefore more reliable manuscripts and then checking the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic when I need to.

 

[wolfwint]

[FONT=&quot]“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)

There are 47 words here when God creates man and women in this verse. God speaks at total of 343 (7 x 7 x 7) word in Genesis chapter 1

[/FONT]

Yes, but only in english. Should it if you are right not in all languages 47 words and specific in hebrew and greek, if this should have a meaning for us?

 

[dcontroversal]

I can be very direct and tactless, sorry. I'm not calling you nuts or saying there are no patterns in scripture though - i've been saying that it's in the Hebrew and Greek that we should be looking if we're looking for those, that they're not useful if they can't be interpreted and understood, and that to comprehend them in a useful way we should find and apply analytical, deliberate methods and justify all those methods starting from first principles. Im pushing you towards what I think is a better way. Sorry if I'm blunt just assume I'm an ordinary mathematician - you know, abstract, systematic personality with 0 or < 0 people skills

Exactly......if one wants to make a big hoopla over numbers go to the origimal languages....and if you really want to get ticky....each and every word has numerical value because each letter has numerical value.....there is a saying....do not get wrapped around the axle....Humanity on a whole cannot comprehend the very words of the bible...saved men can barely comprehend the bible much less agree on every jot and tittle....it seems rather foolish to jump off the cliff on some wild goose chase of numbers to try and prove that the King James is something other than just another translation made by men.....and men who were nothing like the men that were actually inspired by God to boot!

 

[dcontroversal]

I disagree with you there bro. They took the time to count the fish and the Spirit has John remember and write the number - i don't think it's insignificant. Counting words in King Jimmy may not get us anywhere but it's 153 in every language here, and we're not in some census in the book of Numbers. I think there's something potentially profound here if we can find it, something that fits with John's whole purpose in writing.

Ok....so....men have been studying it for how many years now? And the whole point of this thread is to prove what exactly? That the King James is more than just another translation which is foolish because it is exactly that...a translation/transliteration....nothing more nothing less...so grand poobah of numbers...What does it mean? Why has no one found the special meaning? Who does not count the number of fish they catch? I am interested in knowing this profound truth...........

 

[dcontroversal]

As D. A. Carson observes,1

"Large quantities of ink have gone into explaining why there should be 153 fish. At the purely historical level, it is unsurprising that someone counted them, either as part of dividing them up amongst the fishermen in preparation for sale, or because one of the men was so dumbfounded by the size of the catch that he said something like this: ‘Can you believe it? I wonder how many there are?'"
I agree: this event made such a lasting impression on John, that he remembered the exact number of fish they picked up. Just as he remembered the name of Malchus, whose ear Peter severed. I read no more into 153 fish, than I do into the 2000 donkeys in 1 Chr 5:21

 

[SovereignGrace]

Exactly......if one wants to make a big hoopla over numbers go to the origimal languages....and if you really want to get ticky....each and every word has numerical value because each letter has numerical value.....there is a saying....do not get wrapped around the axle....Humanity on a whole cannot comprehend the very words of the bible...saved men can barely comprehend the bible much less agree on every jot and tittle....it seems rather foolish to jump off the cliff on some wild goose chase of numbers to try and prove that the King James is something other than just another translation made by men.....and men who were nothing like the men that were actually inspired by God to boot!

 

[trofimus]

According to your logic why bother memorizing the 10 commandments at all! Just "google" them.

Actually, you mix memorizing the content with memorizing location of the content based on numerical operations, which is wrong.

Second, why do you need to memorize 10 commandments, they are pretty simple. Are you able to forget that you should not kill anybody? Do you really need to have 7, 37 etc to remember that?

 

[Sagart]

Hi Saggart,

Of course, there is much a big difference because Japanese is still Japanese and the English is still the English and how clear is that when your probability makes unsure. You may not have not studied well. The cut and paste does no well for your soul.

The same through with this grandmother does not know anything about the preservation of God’s Holy word in English.


No, the text is not “…being an hungered” but “…he was afterward an hungred” which the Cambridge literally does so well in preserving the 1611 text of the KJV. It seems the cut and paste of yours is a bit shoddy researched and I am not impressed. Perhaps, you have to look for a good dictionary to end this folly. “Hungred” is still a legitimate English word!

HUN'GRED, adjective Hungry; pinched by want of food.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster&#39;s Dictionary 1828 - hungred

Again, God did preserve Matthew 4:2 in English so well not only in the Greek. In fact, the Greek is not very plain and easy to read for me and your cut and paste stands obscure and confusing. In fact, the earlier post has not presented any Greek letters or words, not a bit. The dictionary which failed to be posted for a sort of study that the English word “hungred” is no different for the English word “hungry” and looked at the very footnote of the 1995 NASB stating it as “afterward became hungry.” The KJV is still precise in its text that Jesus when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he was hungry. This is a direct declaration knowing that “hungred” is the same as “hungry”. You tend to favor the Greek yet there is no found Greek for the word “became” in the NASB that was cited.

Nasb 1995 Matt. 4:2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He [SUP][a][/SUP]then became hungry.
Footnote:
1. Matthew 4:2 Lit later became; or afterward became

Text Analysis
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Strong's[/TD]
[TD]Transliteration[/TD]
[TD]Greek[/TD]
[TD]English[/TD]
[TD]Morphology[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2532 [e][/TD]
[TD]kai[/TD]
[TD]καὶ[/TD]
[TD]And[/TD]
[TD]Conj[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3522 [e][/TD]
[TD]nēsteusas[/TD]
[TD]νηστεύσας[/TD]
[TD]having fasted[/TD]
[TD]V-APA-NMS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2250 [e][/TD]
[TD]hēmeras[/TD]
[TD]ἡμέρας[/TD]
[TD]days[/TD]
[TD]N-AFP[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5062 [e][/TD]
[TD]tesserakonta[/TD]
[TD]τεσσεράκοντα[/TD]
[TD]forty[/TD]
[TD]Adj-AFP[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2532 [e][/TD]
[TD]kai[/TD]
[TD]καὶ[/TD]
[TD]and[/TD]
[TD]Conj[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5062 [e][/TD]
[TD]tesserakonta[/TD]
[TD]τεσσεράκοντα ⇔[/TD]
[TD]forty,[/TD]
[TD]Adj-AFP[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3571 [e][/TD]
[TD]nyktas[/TD]
[TD]νύκτας[/TD]
[TD]nights[/TD]
[TD]N-AFP[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5305 [e][/TD]
[TD]hysteron[/TD]
[TD]ὕστερον[/TD]
[TD]afterward[/TD]
[TD]Adv[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3983 [e][/TD]
[TD]epeinasen[/TD]
[TD]ἐπείνασεν.[/TD]
[TD]he was hungry.[/TD]
[TD]V-AIA-3S[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Greek Texts

Matthew 4:2 Greek Text Analysis

Modern Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV do not say of Jesus, “he was afterward hungred; they say, “he was afterward an hungred.” It is the English construction “an hungred” that is especially obscure, and the meaning of the English particle “an” in this context is what is debated. Furthermore, neither Merriam-Webster nor Oxford University recognizes the lexeme “hungred” as a word. The KJV uses it to translate a Greek verb as is correctly shown in the Text Analysis, but in the English sentence, “hungred” necessarily functions as an adjective modifying the pronoun “he.”

The NASB translated the phrase as, “He then became hungry” because, as is correctly shown in the Text Analysis, the Greek verb ἐπείνασεν is in the indicative mood and the aorist tense indicating punctiliar action in past time. The concept “became” is expressed in the aorist tense of the Greek verb used in the indicative mood.

KJV: “he was afterward an hungred.” = unintelligible babble
NASB: “He then became hungry” = a statement that is so easy to understand that a three-year-old child could understand it; and a very accurate translation of the original

Translations of the Bible are poor substitutes for the word of God given to us in the ancient languages—and the poorness of the substitute is greatly increased by the use of an inaccurate translation in archaic English! Moreover, no translation of the Bible is a really good one unless the user of it understands the guiding principles and practices that the translators followed—and that is why it is so very important to very carefully read and understand the information provided in the preface.

 

[kohelet]

Yes, but only in english. Should it if you are right not in all languages 47 words and specific in hebrew and greek, if this should have a meaning for us?

Da haste aber recht, Wolfie.

 

[posthuman]

Wonderful topic

153 happens to be the the 17th triangular number.

1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17 = 153

In the King James Bible (perhaps in other translations also, I have not checked) both the names of Peter and Paul are found in 153 verses each.

what does a triangular number mean in the context of scripture?

in the Greek, 156 instances of the name Peter - not counting Cephas - and 158 of the name Paul.

 

[tanakh]

Oh for those far off days when the only choice we had was the KJV, the Revised version and the Douay version if you were of the Catholic persuasion. Then there were no endless arguments about what Bible to use. People just got on with studying it and left these matters to obscure Bible Scholars.

 

[preacher4truth]

I disagree with you there bro. They took the time to count the fish and the Spirit has John remember and write the number - i don't think it's insignificant. Counting words in King Jimmy may not get us anywhere but it's 153 in every language here, and we're not in some census in the book of Numbers. I think there's something potentially profound here if we can find it, something that fits with John's whole purpose in writing.

I don't believe there to be any symbolical significance, nor there to be a sign, but that it was recorded for historical purposes. Fisherman have their tales, the fish were numbered before Christ likely due to the fact of such a vast amount and the net did not break. No fish tales were forthcoming, but I believe this great catch did portend the vast amount of elect that the apostles would bring into the kingdom.

The Biblical Illustrator sheds some light on this:

"Joh_21:11. An hundred and fifty and three [ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν].—The Evangelist’s primary intention in reporting the number of the whole mass of great fishes was, manifestly, to render prominent the miraculousness of the fact that the net was nevertheless untorn. The trait that the number (153), as a number, is not symbolical, speaks very decidedly in favor of the historic truthfulness of the narrative in opposition to the assumption of its being a tradition (Strauss), or the work of an apocryphal narrator.

The attempt has indeed been made to construe the number materially as a symbolical one. Ammonius: The number 100=the Gentiles, 50=the Jews, 3=the Trinity. 10 Jerome and Köstlin: Oppian counted 153 species of fish, ergo the universality of species=the universality of the nations entering the net of the Gospel. “Which statement, as far as Oppian is concerned rests upon a mistake.”

Recently, some one has even, conceived it to be his duty to work out the name: of Simon [son of] Jonas, by means of numerical allegory (Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 135).

We do not consider the number as symbolical, but the numbering does appear to us in that light. The elect, who form the main element of the Church, are’ great and numbered fishes. And great and numerous as the elect of the congregated mass may be, they are not the ones who break the net Of the Church. It is the maxim of all the elect: first Christ, then the Church. John is moreover always fond of stating numbers; for instance, the 200 cubits, Joh_21:8; Joh_6:10, etc."

- end -

​

It appears in the above we have always had those who are superstitiously minded attempt to make more out of the number than what is intended. The historical narrative was confirmed in the amount of fishes taken. The amount of fishes pulled in by Peter must have been an unbelievable amount captured in one net, hard for others to accept as an accurate account. The catch itself was, I believe, miraculous.

I do not believe Christ wants any of us to be superstitiously chasing numbers, counting chapters, verses &c, coming up with mathematical equations thereby which prove absolutely nothing. One whose mind is preoccupied with these things is wasting valuable time that could be spent on examining and understanding the Gospel, Christ, God's attributes &c and glorying in these things, expounding Scripture, not in searching for signs.