Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[John146]

Apparently KJVOs can't understand Bible translation, either the sources or the methods. Here is the translator's note from the NET on that verse, "The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually suspect. The Chronicles text appears to have misread “Bethlehemite” (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (ʾet lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text appears to have misread the word for “brother” (אַח, ʾakh) as the accusative sign (אֵת, ʾet), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”

This should be ample information for anyone with open eyes and an open mind.

Lol, you can get this simple truth from reading the words of the KJV. You cannot get this truth from the new versions. They contradict themselves, thus, cannot be trusted for truth.

 

[John146]

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation

1) There is often not a one-to-one meaning between the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/koine Greek lexicon and modern English. The translator must decided "the closest fit", taking context into account.

2) The verb tenses in the ancient languages are different than those in English, so again, a judgement call must be made about how to translate the verbs into English.

3) The idioms most certainly have no parallel meaning. Even the idea can sometimes throw you for a loop, because often it's not from the horse's mouth, therefore it goes in one ear and out the other. Even during the flood it wasn't raining cats and dogs.

One must decide between a formal approach to translation -- as close to the original wording as possible, but never word-for-word -- and a functional translation, where the meaning of the texts is communicated, so that readers thousands of years later will understand Scripture the way the ancients understood it.

You should always remember that every translation is a compromise; there is never a 100% accurate translation.

I’m ok with the KJV not being word for word. My belief is that the KJV is the exact English words of God’s truth.

 

[KJV1611]

Apparently KJVOs can't understand Bible translation, either the sources or the methods. Here is the translator's note from the NET on that verse, "The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually suspect. The Chronicles text appears to have misread “Bethlehemite” (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (ʾet lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text appears to have misread the word for “brother” (אַח, ʾakh) as the accusative sign (אֵת, ʾet), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”

This should be ample information for anyone with open eyes and an open mind.

Yeah right, God is so inept that he couldn't prevent a HUMAN BEING from screwing up his word. Where do you people come up with this BS? Just because yall's pea brains can't understand the supposed discrepencies doesn't make it an error.

 

[John146]

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation

1) There is often not a one-to-one meaning between the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/koine Greek lexicon and modern English. The translator must decided "the closest fit", taking context into account.

2) The verb tenses in the ancient languages are different than those in English, so again, a judgement call must be made about how to translate the verbs into English.

3) The idioms most certainly have no parallel meaning. Even the idea can sometimes throw you for a loop, because often it's not from the horse's mouth, therefore it goes in one ear and out the other. Even during the flood it wasn't raining cats and dogs.

One must decide between a formal approach to translation -- as close to the original wording as possible, but never word-for-word -- and a functional translation, where the meaning of the texts is communicated, so that readers thousands of years later will understand Scripture the way the ancients understood it.

You should always remember that every translation is a compromise; there is never a 100% accurate translation.

You do understand that within the Bible itself are translations from one language to another and those translations are the inspired words of God...

 

[Micaiah-imla]

The KJV is not "the word of God", it is simply a 400+-year-old translation.

Any translation of God's word is the word of God.

This post of yours is very concerning.

 

[KJV1611]

Any translation of God's word is the word of God.

This post of yours is very concerning.

Any translation of God's word WITHOUT God inspiring the translation is man's OPINION of God's word, it has nothing to do with the mind of God.

 

[crossnote]

Lol, who killed Goliath? Elhanan or David? Funny how neither line up with the truth found in 1 Chronicles 20:5. Take a look at the esv...a contradiction? Absolutely!

5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Let me give you a hint. Just because there is a difference in readings between the KJV and other versions does not automatically mean the KJV is correct. Perhaps the KJV is the errant version or both.
Variations do not prove errancy.

 

[jaybo]

Lol, you can get this simple truth from reading the words of the KJV. You cannot get this truth from the new versions. They contradict themselves, thus, cannot be trusted for truth.

The King James is a translation only. If modern translations have a different interpretation of the ancient texts, that is to be expected of all English translations. When you say that modern translations "cannot be trusted for truth", implying that the KJV alone can be trusted, I feel sorry for you.

There is absolutely no basis for your dogmatic statement. If there is, prove it!

 

[KJV1611]

Let me give you a hint. Just because there is a difference in readings between the KJV and other versions does not automatically mean the KJV is correct. Perhaps the KJV is the errant version or both.
Variations do not prove errancy.

Where do you get the doctrine that scripture gets corrupted?

 

[crossnote]

Any translation of God's word WITHOUT God inspiring the translation is man's OPINION of God's word, it has nothing to do with the mind of God.

What determines a 'God inspired' translation. Does that take Messianic translators just as all the Apostles and Prophets were Jewish that gave us God's inspired written Word?

 

[John146]

Let me give you a hint. Just because there is a difference in readings between the KJV and other versions does not automatically mean the KJV is correct. Perhaps the KJV is the errant version or both.
Variations do not prove errancy.

Correct! They must be examined for errors. I already showed you an error in the ESV and NASB. A faithful witness will not lie.

 

[John146]

The King James is a translation only. If modern translations have a different interpretation of the ancient texts, that is to be expected of all English translations. When you say that modern translations "cannot be trusted for truth", implying that the KJV alone can be trusted, I feel sorry for you.

There is absolutely no basis for your dogmatic statement. If there is, prove it!

Either one is the word of God or none. They all contain different words and different truths. A “different interpretation” leads to different truths.

 

[crossnote]

Where do you get the doctrine that scripture gets corrupted?

I never said Scripture in it's original form is corrupted. People here are arguing only the KJV translation is uncorrupted. Ask them.

 

[jaybo]

Any translation of God's word is the word of God.

This post of yours is very concerning.

Are you serious? Your statement that any translation of God's word is the word of God is meaningless. A translation is by definition, not the original. In fact, there is no such thing as the original word of God that exists today. There are many fragments from various time periods that translators must put together to create a Bible. There are a slew of translations precisely because it's impossible to create an English Bible (and other languages) that is exactly like the originals.

 

[crossnote]

Correct! They must be examined for errors. I already showed you an error in the ESV and NASB. A faithful witness will not lie.

You showed a difference but proved no error from either side.

 

[KJV1611]

What determines a 'God inspired' translation. Does that take Messianic translators just as all the Apostles and Prophets were Jewish that gave us God's inspired written Word?

What determines "God inspired"? Sheer perfection from cover to cover. Unless of course you think God doesn't want us to have his inerrant word, in that case I would have no idea how to determine if it was inspired or not.

 

[KJV1611]

Either one is the word of God or none. They all contain different words and different truths. A “different interpretation” leads to different truths.

You use a KJV and you've got the most screwed up interpreations that I've ever seen. Nobody interprets the word of God, we just believe every word AS IT'S WRITTEN.

 

[crossnote]

There are a slew of translations precisely because it's impossible to create an English Bible (and other languages) that is exactly like the originals.

And yet the more early manuscripts we find the more we have to compare, and by comparing we can come closer to the originals.

 

[jaybo]

Either one is the word of God or none. They all contain different words and different truths. A “different interpretation” leads to different truths.

Correct. That is why there should not be a single translation that claims to be the word of God; it is impossible. People think that the King James is the word of God, but it isn't. All translations are different interpretations of the earliest and best texts available when the translation was done.

There will always be different interpretations of what the Bible text means.

 

[crossnote]

What determines "God inspired"? Sheer perfection from cover to cover. Unless of course you think God doesn't want us to have his inerrant word, in that case I would have no idea how to determine if it was inspired or not.

That puts us back to the false assumption that only English speakers have the advantage of 'sheer perfection from cover to cover' with the KJV.