Bible "versions"?

[fredoheaven]

The problem I have with this interpretation is...

1. There is nothing to indicate in the Hebrew that the commas belong in those specific places. Where one chooses to place the commas makes a big difference in how a verse reads.

Yep, you have to remember that this is not the main trouble you are getting into. It’s not the Hebrew text, just leave it there. it is the English KJV as you seemed. And the English KJV has the correct translation from the Hebrew text and not according to some English versions that contradict themselves.

2. The verb "was" is not in the Hebrew. This is why it is written in italics in the verse.

That would be very flimsy for you to say it was not there because of the italics. The italics were placed to clear the reading. So, your italics have no weight to destroy the KJV. Without the “was” and the comma (,) the KJB would look like this

40Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years.

And you have the KJV contradicted itself but it didn’t happen that way on the text of the KJV so that your inference is entirely in error. The KJV translators knew too full well, understand, read Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic + many oriental languages than you do, I even myself is being doubtful if you really can read and write the Hebrew language.

With the comma and the "was" the last half of the verse reads:

...who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

...who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

This means to say, the Bible KJV does not contradict itself at all. I totally agree with Will Kenney as he stated:

The KJB says "the sojourning of the children of Israel was 430 years". The phrase "who dwelt in Egypt" is placed within commas and merely modifies the children of Israel, who at this time were in Egypt, as part of their whole sojourning history. The KJB does NOT say that they sojourned IN Egypt FOR 430 years, as some of the modern versions do.

So simply, you have to take your case, to those English versions that contradict themselves. But not with the KJV. It does not. The whole sojourning does not stop at Egypt, that is not what God promised to them. It was this time when Abraham left Haran to enter Canaan until the exodus from Egypt.

Without those it reads:

...who dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years.

And you have all the dilemmas.

 

[MalikB]

And the English KJV has the correct translation from the Hebrew text and not according to some English versions that contradict themselves.

Just because it makes sense in English does not make it a "correct translation"... What makes a translation more or less correct is whether or not it is staying true to the original language.

That would be very flimsy for you to say it was not there because of the italics. The italics were placed to clear the reading. So, your italics have no weight to destroy the KJV. Without the “was” and the comma (,) the KJB would look like this

40Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years.

And you have the KJV contradicted itself but it didn’t happen that way on the text of the KJV so that your inference is entirely in error. The KJV translators knew too full well, understand, read Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic + many oriental languages than you do, I even myself is being doubtful if you really can read and write the Hebrew language.

Anyone can look up the verse in Hebrew and with a little research know that there is nothing to indicate that the commas should be there, or that the word "was" should be there. Are you arguing that the KJV didn't use italics to represent words that they added to the text and wasn't actually in the Hebrew?

Any translation from one language to another requires some assumptions.... And there will always be words in one language that don't quite have a match in other languages. Its illogical to think any translation is God's perfection.

 

[fredoheaven]

Just because it makes sense in English does not make it a "correct translation"... What makes a translation more or less correct is whether or not it is staying true to the original language.




Anyone can look up the verse in Hebrew and with a little research know that there is nothing to indicate that the commas should be there, or that the word "was" should be there. Are you arguing that the KJV didn't use italics to represent words that they added to the text and wasn't actually in the Hebrew?

Any translation from one language to another requires some assumptions.... And there will always be words in one language that don't quite have a match in other languages. Its illogical to think any translation is God's perfection.

We are narrowing down your concerns, the KJV stays true to the original language! i.e. the Hebrew language and not the Greek LXX who later adds not missing from the originally known tongue of the OT scriptures.. While the Masoretic text was completed by 10th Ce., nevertheless, the Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible and the KJV completely a correct translation of the Hebrew original language. Obviously, the original language Hebrew has no commas (,) or italics but it doesn’t mean they are in errors of the KJV especially it has the exact sense.

What you are now proposing is that just because there was no comma in the Hebrew, there will be also no gap or space in between the words and the translation of the word is in their original order. This might be accurate, but it is difficult to read and often does not make sense! This looks to be a literal translation but the KJV is not a literal translation.

You are talking now about assumptions that the translators of the KJV did, the KJV translators didn’t assume. I think you are the one assuming they have not it correct. The results speak in volume. KJV translators did not alter the Hebrew language. I have to say, the land of Chanaan is added later perhaps a commentary of the scripture. LXX is known for altering or changing what is in the original language, these editorial changes were made with the object correct what was considered as an “error” in the original Hebrew text. The fallacious nature of the Greek innovation has been proved over and over and that the original language has been retained in the Hebrew Masoretic text and not in the LXX and yet you have to prove you are worthy enough to be a translator in its highest degree to correct who really can read and understand Biblical languages like the KJV translators. See that in many fields of many modern scholars have failed in this given text problem but not in the KJV.

 

[Anthony55]

We are narrowing down your concerns, the KJV stays true to the original language! i.e. the Hebrew language and not the Greek LXX who later adds not missing from the originally known tongue of the OT scriptures.. While the Masoretic text was completed by 10th Ce., nevertheless, the Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible and the KJV completely a correct translation of the Hebrew original language. Obviously, the original language Hebrew has no commas (,) or italics but it doesn’t mean they are in errors of the KJV especially it has the exact sense.

What you are now proposing is that just because there was no comma in the Hebrew, there will be also no gap or space in between the words and the translation of the word is in their original order. This might be accurate, but it is difficult to read and often does not make sense! This looks to be a literal translation but the KJV is not a literal translation.

You are talking now about assumptions that the translators of the KJV did, the KJV translators didn’t assume. I think you are the one assuming they have not it correct. The results speak in volume. KJV translators did not alter the Hebrew language. I have to say, the land of Chanaan is added later perhaps a commentary of the scripture. LXX is known for altering or changing what is in the original language, these editorial changes were made with the object correct what was considered as an “error” in the original Hebrew text. The fallacious nature of the Greek innovation has been proved over and over and that the original language has been retained in the Hebrew Masoretic text and not in the LXX and yet you have to prove you are worthy enough to be a translator in its highest degree to correct who really can read and understand Biblical languages like the KJV translators. See that in many fields of many modern scholars have failed in this given text problem but not in the KJV.

Correct me if I am wrong. KJV is what is called word for word. NIV is what is called thought for thought. Meaning that the KJV was translated word for word from the original text. As the NIV translation changed scripture to what the translators thought the definitions should be from past scholars and authors. Also taking away words from the original text Such as the word pestilence in Matt: 24:07

 

[Dino246]

Correct me if I am wrong. KJV is what is called word for word. NIV is what is called thought for thought. Meaning that the KJV was translated word for word from the original text. As the NIV translation changed scripture to what the translators thought the definitions should be from past scholars and authors. Also taking away words from the original text Such as the word pestilence in Matt: 24:07

Respectfully, you are wrong.

Both the KJV and the NIV are a combination of word-for-word and thought-for-thought. While the KJV tends to be a little more towards the word-for-word end of the spectrum, it is not at the extreme end by a long way. That's why you have the italicized words; they are added to the "word for word" version to make it flow properly in English. Further, the source-language materials are different. The KJV was translated from very late Hebrew manuscripts and a very small handful of Greek manuscripts (actually, about third-hand), while the NIV was translated from much earlier Hebrew texts and compilations of nearly 6,000 Greek texts.

In other words, you can't make a valid comparison on such simple terms.

 

[Anthony55]

Respectfully, you are wrong.

Both the KJV and the NIV are a combination of word-for-word and thought-for-thought. While the KJV tends to be a little more towards the word-for-word end of the spectrum, it is not at the extreme end by a long way. That's why you have the italicized words; they are added to the "word for word" version to make it flow properly in English. Further, the source-language materials are different. The KJV was translated from very late Hebrew manuscripts and a very small handful of Greek manuscripts (actually, about third-hand), while the NIV was translated from much earlier Hebrew texts and compilations of nearly 6,000 Greek texts.

In other words, you can't make a valid comparison on such simple terms.

Thank you for your clarification. Much appreciated. Ask and you shall receive.

 

[MalikB]

Obviously, the original language Hebrew has no commas (,) or italics but it doesn’t mean they are in errors of the KJV especially it has the exact sense.

You are assuming that it has this "exact sense"... only because it makes sense to u in English and because of your pre existing beliefs and attachments to the KJV. Again, adding commas where u like and little words here and there to make it make sense in English is not evidence that the original language was meant to be interpreted that way.

You are talking now about assumptions that the translators of the KJV did, the KJV translators didn’t assume.

You are assuming that the translators didn't have to assume. There was errors in the copied Hebrew text before the KJV translators even got their hands on it. The traditions and culture of the time always affect a translation. Its simply naive to believe that a large collection of writings by different authors, at different times, from different cultures and a revived language, can be translated perfectly into a new language. I totally believe in having faith... but that faith should be supported by Truth and evidence, not tradition and emotional attachment.

I think you are the one assuming they have not it correct. The results speak in volume. KJV translators did not alter the Hebrew language. I have to say, the land of Chanaan is added later perhaps a commentary of the scripture. LXX is known for altering or changing what is in the original language, these editorial changes were made with the object correct what was considered as an “error” in the original Hebrew text. The fallacious nature of the Greek innovation has been proved over and over and that the original language has been retained in the Hebrew Masoretic text and not in the LXX and yet you have to prove you are worthy enough to be a translator in its highest degree to correct who really can read and understand Biblical languages like the KJV translators. See that in many fields of many modern scholars have failed in this given text problem but not in the KJV.

You can believe the phrase "and the land of Canaan" was added... but the LXX, The Samaritan Pentateuch and Josephus are all in agreement... and they are taking from a Hebrew source that far predates the source text that the KJV used. But for the sake of argument, lets say that phrase doesn't belong there. That would mean the LXX is not a perfect translation... I would agree with that. That still does not make the KJV perfect at all...

There was errors in the copied Hebrew text before the KJV translators even got their hands on it. The language itself was a dead language and "revived". There was also traditions involved that affect a translation... like not using the name of God. So to accommodate that tradition, many work arounds with the translation had to take place. Of course using the word "Lord" instead of the name... which lead to also having to use "GOD" in all caps for the name when the actual word for "lord" was used (Jdg 16:28, 2Sa 7:28, Psa 69:6, etc.). There is also verses where "God" in the Hebrew was removed altogether... I mentioned Due 32:8 earlier, but Gen 23:6 and Exo 9:28 actually have the word for "Gods" in the Hebrew... but the KJV translates them as "mighty". Just a theory... but there seems to be a pattern of them trying to remove any trace of certain people being referred to as gods or sons of gods. Anyway, its not just the word "god"... there are hundreds of examples of the translators using one word in English to represent a Hebrew word in one place of the bible, and a different English word for the same Hebrew word in another place. Some of these translation decisions may be close in English, but others clearly have different English meanings (I can give you some examples of these if you like).

Also, like I mentioned in my other post... When it comes to cross referencing The Messiah's and other NT quotes to the OT, the Septuagint lines up with these quotes far more often then the KJV. I gave the example of how in Luke 4:18 The Messiah says one of the things he was sent to do was recover the sight to the blind. That is supposed to be a reference to Isaiah 61:1.... but that phrase in Isaiah is completely missing from the KJV. I didn't want to have to go look all of these up again... but if u need me to supply more examples of this, there are plenty of them. Whether you believe this is evidence of one translation being better than the other is for you to decide, but if the KJV doesn't match the quotes in the NT, Its clear that the Messiah and other people in the NT weren't using the source text that the KJV was translated from.

All throughout the NT The Messiah battles with and warns about the scribes... but you put complete trust in them to deliver the perfect Word of God to us?

The real and original "Word of God" has been altered to fit Satan's agenda for a long time. Hence why we have:



Revelation 22:18-19

King James Version


18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

The fact that there are penalties associated with changing these words means that it is possible for them to be changed.

FYI: That was the KJV translation.. the word "book" makes it appear that the verse is speaking about the bible as we have it today. The "book" didn't exist at the time... The word should have been translated as "scroll".


In Jeremiah it also says that the scribes changed some things:


Jeremiah 8:8

King James Version

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.


The phrase "in vain" here is also a bad translation.. it should read "falsehood" or "lying" (which the KJV correctly translated in other verses). Even Jerimiah lets us know that the scribes were changing things very early on. This is why the Messiah said... "It hath been said..... But I say". He had to rightly divide the law that The Father gave, from the false law that the scribes and Pharisees were teaching. We are supposed to be doing the same... but we cant do that if we are holding on to the belief that God's Word has been given to us in writing completely infallible and wrapped up in a bow.

 

[fredoheaven]

You are assuming that it has this "exact sense"... only because it makes sense to u in English and because of your pre existing beliefs and attachments to the KJV. Again, adding commas where u like and little words here and there to make it make sense in English is not evidence that the original language was meant to be interpreted that way.

Hmm, the point is if you can read and write Hebrew then we will consider your judgment. But how can we consider anyone's judgment if one cannot even read or write the Hebrew language? O how well do you understand the Hebrew language? How well you can know what is meant to be translated that way. You have yet to prove to me your ability before you can judge someone, they are wrong. And yet, I see those modern scholars who also have been given the ability to read, write and understand but failed to translate Exo. 12:40 correctly. So, you are pointing in the wrong direction. Give to whom what is due and actually, you are looking into some English versions that have the contradiction and in this case, there must be an exception to the rule.

You are assuming that the translators didn't have to assume. There was errors in the copied Hebrew text before the KJV translators even got their hands on it. The traditions and culture of the time always affect a translation. Its simply naive to believe that a large collection of writings by different authors, at different times, from different cultures and a revived language, can be translated perfectly into a new language. I totally believe in having faith... but that faith should be supported by Truth and evidence, not tradition and emotional attachment.

Well, you haven’t proved it yet. Here is an error about your traditions. While the Hebrew text was written traditionally as the name Masora speaks of but the tradition is well kept by them. It is said that the Jews were keepers of the O.T. scripture as a matter of fact per Romans 3:1-2 and that they come from the priestly tribe of Levi to copy the scriptures-Deut. 17:18; 31:25,26; 33:10 1 Chron. 16:4; Ezra 7:1-6; Malachi 2:7. The Scribes began with Ezra who returned to Palestine. It is reasonable to expect the scribal tradition was to continue in Palestine and not in any other place like Alexandria Egypt or Samaria. God had ruled out any Egyptian translation of the O.T in Jeremiah 44:26. And no evidence shows that there was a biblical mandate for them to copy the Hebrew scriptures.

Regarding the “tradition” the scriptures say can either be good or not. What you are sensing is not the good one like Jesus said to the Pharisees by transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition. Matthew 15:3 yet I am seeing a good tradition so as Apostle Paul stated, and then again you are going into another wrong direction. Paul tells us:

2 Thess. 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

You can believe the phrase "and the land of Canaan" was added... but the LXX, The Samaritan Pentateuch and Josephus are all in agreement... and they are taking from a Hebrew source that far predates the source text that the KJV used. But for the sake of argument, lets say that phrase doesn't belong there. That would mean the LXX is not a perfect translation... I would agree with that. That still does not make the KJV perfect at all...

So you have at least have the other witnesses that seem to agree with the added “and the land of Canaan” and let’s see them, first of Josephus. Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-100?) is often cited here:

Jewish Antiquities 4.15.2

They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he had charged his sons to do.

So in saying the Israelites made an exodus after a period that was 215 years for a total sojourning into the land of Canaan of 430 years. The commentary of Josephus is treated very well and accepted but is never said to be as scripture. And you are trying to assume the phrase that it came from the original Hebrew text but this is good for an educational guess as well. By tradition the Masoretic text in Exo. 12:40 even without the phrase “and the land of Canaan” is quite correct and translated in English KJV correctly. Josephus is worth like John Gill and other commentaries. Put it simply commentaries are but mere opinions and never to be equated with the scripture.

Now, we come to the Samaritan Penta..

Samaritan Pentateuch in English

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and fathers of them, who dwelt in Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

The Samaritans had long been believed to have some disputes with the Jews. They hated each other. Yes,
Samaritans accept the Torah—the first five books of the Hebrew Bible also called the Pentateuch—as authoritative, but reject the writings of the prophets and the other writings which are part of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.

The Samaritan Pentateuch had seemed to no further evidence to say they were based on the original Hebrew Text as I said the scribe Ezra needs to return to Palestine to copy the scriptures. The true keepers are those Palestine Jews and where the original Hebrew text is to be found. Aside from that, the Samaritan Penta was written in the Samaritan alphabet, and yes it is more closely related to the LXX. So from there, it can be possibly said it is not faithful to the original Hebrew text. Hebrew is still Hebrew and who says Samaritan Penta is correct when the fact is the keeper of the oracles of God belongs to the Palestine Jews.

 

[Gideon300]

If you truly believed you had God's pure and holy preserved words, wouldn't you be obsessed with telling people too? I hope so. The KJV was written with the most correct form of English words.

If you lived in 1611, maybe. Are you that old?

 

[Anthony55]

Hmm, the point is if you can read and write Hebrew then we will consider your judgment. But how can we consider anyone's judgment if one cannot even read or write the Hebrew language? O how well do you understand the Hebrew language? How well you can know what is meant to be translated that way. You have yet to prove to me your ability before you can judge someone, they are wrong. And yet, I see those modern scholars who also have been given the ability to read, write and understand but failed to translate Exo. 12:40 correctly. So, you are pointing in the wrong direction. Give to whom what is due and actually, you are looking into some English versions that have the contradiction and in this case, there must be an exception to the rule.



Well, you haven’t proved it yet. Here is an error about your traditions. While the Hebrew text was written traditionally as the name Masora speaks of but the tradition is well kept by them. It is said that the Jews were keepers of the O.T. scripture as a matter of fact per Romans 3:1-2 and that they come from the priestly tribe of Levi to copy the scriptures-Deut. 17:18; 31:25,26; 33:10 1 Chron. 16:4; Ezra 7:1-6; Malachi 2:7. The Scribes began with Ezra who returned to Palestine. It is reasonable to expect the scribal tradition was to continue in Palestine and not in any other place like Alexandria Egypt or Samaria. God had ruled out any Egyptian translation of the O.T in Jeremiah 44:26. And no evidence shows that there was a biblical mandate for them to copy the Hebrew scriptures.

Regarding the “tradition” the scriptures say can either be good or not. What you are sensing is not the good one like Jesus said to the Pharisees by transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition. Matthew 15:3 yet I am seeing a good tradition so as Apostle Paul stated, and then again you are going into another wrong direction. Paul tells us:

2 Thess. 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.




So you have at least have the other witnesses that seem to agree with the added “and the land of Canaan” and let’s see them, first of Josephus. Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-100?) is often cited here:

Jewish Antiquities 4.15.2

They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he had charged his sons to do.

So in saying the Israelites made an exodus after a period that was 215 years for a total sojourning into the land of Canaan of 430 years. The commentary of Josephus is treated very well and accepted but is never said to be as scripture. And you are trying to assume the phrase that it came from the original Hebrew text but this is good for an educational guess as well. By tradition the Masoretic text in Exo. 12:40 even without the phrase “and the land of Canaan” is quite correct and translated in English KJV correctly. Josephus is worth like John Gill and other commentaries. Put it simply commentaries are but mere opinions and never to be equated with the scripture.

Now, we come to the Samaritan Penta..

Samaritan Pentateuch in English

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and fathers of them, who dwelt in Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

The Samaritans had long been believed to have some disputes with the Jews. They hated each other. Yes,
Samaritans accept the Torah—the first five books of the Hebrew Bible also called the Pentateuch—as authoritative, but reject the writings of the prophets and the other writings which are part of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.

The Samaritan Pentateuch had seemed to no further evidence to say they were based on the original Hebrew Text as I said the scribe Ezra needs to return to Palestine to copy the scriptures. The true keepers are those Palestine Jews and where the original Hebrew text is to be found. Aside from that, the Samaritan Penta was written in the Samaritan alphabet, and yes it is more closely related to the LXX. So from there, it can be possibly said it is not faithful to the original Hebrew text. Hebrew is still Hebrew and who says Samaritan Penta is correct when the fact is the keeper of the oracles of God belongs to the Palestine Jews.

I know the Scribes had a tedious job. They could be on the last word and if they made a mistake they would have to start the book from the beginning.

 

[fredoheaven]

Jeremiah 8:8

King James Version

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.


The phrase "in vain" here is also a bad translation.. it should read "falsehood" or "lying" (which the KJV correctly translated in other verses). Even Jerimiah lets us know that the scribes were changing things very early on. This is why the Messiah said... "It hath been said..... But I say". He had to rightly divide the law that The Father gave, from the false law that the scribes and Pharisees were teaching. We are supposed to be doing the same... but we cant do that if we are holding on to the belief that God's Word has been given to us in writing completely infallible and wrapped up in a bow.

Will the pen lies or tell a falsehood? Who do you think is lying the pen which is a thing or the scribe who writes with his pen? Your accusation that there are errors in the KJV has been proven false so there is no way to stop. False accusation bears another false accusation. The fruit speaks well. But I have the word of God that is perfect and preserves in the English KJV.

You might be joking as well in the particular verse and why they are wrong in the KJV, you should substantiate your claim not just point and leave it there. That’s a baby cry, but to give you the benefit of doubt, would you mind why the KJV as you are saying is a bad translation here? By the way, Malikb, are you saved? Do you know for sure when you die you are going to heaven? Thanks

 

[MalikB]

Hmm, the point is if you can read and write Hebrew then we will consider your judgment. But how can we consider anyone's judgment if one cannot even read or write the Hebrew language? O how well do you understand the Hebrew language? How well you can know what is meant to be translated that way. You have yet to prove to me your ability before you can judge someone, they are wrong. And yet, I see those modern scholars who also have been given the ability to read, write and understand but failed to translate Exo. 12:40 correctly. So, you are pointing in the wrong direction. Give to whom what is due and actually, you are looking into some English versions that have the contradiction and in this case, there must be an exception to the rule.

First you ask appeal to authority questions as if you need to be fluent in Hebrew to know that commas and italicized text is not in the Hebrew.... but then you say modern scholars "failed to translate it correctly." You make it clear that the knowledge of the language is irrelevant. It is not "correct" to you if doesn't support your ideology... hence why you so quickly latched on the interpretation posted by another user here.

Well, you haven’t proved it yet. Here is an error about your traditions. While the Hebrew text was written traditionally as the name Masora speaks of but the tradition is well kept by them. It is said that the Jews were keepers of the O.T. scripture as a matter of fact per Romans 3:1-2 and that they come from the priestly tribe of Levi to copy the scriptures-Deut. 17:18; 31:25,26; 33:10 1 Chron. 16:4; Ezra 7:1-6; Malachi 2:7. The Scribes began with Ezra who returned to Palestine. It is reasonable to expect the scribal tradition was to continue in Palestine and not in any other place like Alexandria Egypt or Samaria. God had ruled out any Egyptian translation of the O.T in Jeremiah 44:26. And no evidence shows that there was a biblical mandate for them to copy the Hebrew scriptures.

Again, All throughout the NT The Messiah contends with and talks about the scribes in a negative way.... and what scribes changed the law mentioned in Jer 8:8? There is multiple historians that talk about the original scriptures being changed under Ezra. With the verse in Jerimiah and the writings from The Messiah, I don't see why u would put any scribe on such a high pedestal. Here is a link that goes into more details on Ezra...

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Qu...ritan-Mt-Gerizim-Ebal-Joshuas-Altar-458BC.htm

Regarding the “tradition” the scriptures say can either be good or not. What you are sensing is not the good one like Jesus said to the Pharisees by transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition. Matthew 15:3 yet I am seeing a good tradition so as Apostle Paul stated, and then again you are going into another wrong direction. Paul tells us:

2 Thess. 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

If we are following the "tradition" of the Messiah... We will be rightly dividing the Word. Eating the fruit, spitting out the seeds. He never excepted a prepackaged ideology. He separated Truth from fiction and pointed out the wrong of the scribes.

So you have at least have the other witnesses that seem to agree with the added “and the land of Canaan” and let’s see them, first of Josephus. Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-100?) is often cited here:

Jewish Antiquities 4.15.2

They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he had charged his sons to do.

So in saying the Israelites made an exodus after a period that was 215 years for a total sojourning into the land of Canaan of 430 years. The commentary of Josephus is treated very well and accepted but is never said to be as scripture. And you are trying to assume the phrase that it came from the original Hebrew text but this is good for an educational guess as well. By tradition the Masoretic text in Exo. 12:40 even without the phrase “and the land of Canaan” is quite correct and translated in English KJV correctly. Josephus is worth like John Gill and other commentaries. Put it simply commentaries are but mere opinions and never to be equated with the scripture.

Josephus was from the first century, way before the Masoretic text was copied.... The Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek Septuagint even older (over 1000 years before The Masoretic text). This means they were taking from an older source. What one considers "scripture" is highly debated. If you grew up many places in the East... your belief of what "scripture" is would be very different. Its arrogant to think that what we have is 100% "correct" and the rest of the world has the problem.

Now, we come to the Samaritan Penta..

Samaritan Pentateuch in English

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and fathers of them, who dwelt in Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

The Samaritans had long been believed to have some disputes with the Jews. They hated each other. Yes,
Samaritans accept the Torah—the first five books of the Hebrew Bible also called the Pentateuch—as authoritative, but reject the writings of the prophets and the other writings which are part of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.

The Samaritan Pentateuch had seemed to no further evidence to say they were based on the original Hebrew Text as I said the scribe Ezra needs to return to Palestine to copy the scriptures. The true keepers are those Palestine Jews and where the original Hebrew text is to be found. Aside from that, the Samaritan Penta was written in the Samaritan alphabet, and yes it is more closely related to the LXX. So from there, it can be possibly said it is not faithful to the original Hebrew text. Hebrew is still Hebrew and who says Samaritan Penta is correct when the fact is the keeper of the oracles of God belongs to the Palestine Jews.

I mentioned Ezra earlier and left a link. The original Hebrew is the Paleo. That is long gone. Everything after that (vowel point system, translation, etc.) is going to contain error... some accidental, and some with hidden motives. Just because we call it "Hebrew", does not make it the same language. The original "Hebrew" language is dead. Reviving a dead language creates just as many, if not more, errors as translating a language. Again the Masoretic Text was copied 1000 years+ after the Greek Septuagint an Samaritan Pentateuch was translated. This means they used a much older "Hebrew" text as a source. Like I've said many times... I'm not claiming either of those as the perfect infallible word of God... I'm just claiming that that the KJV is not either.

 

[MalikB]

Hmm, the point is if you can read and write Hebrew then we will consider your judgment. But how can we consider anyone's judgment if one cannot even read or write the Hebrew language? O how well do you understand the Hebrew language? How well you can know what is meant to be translated that way. You have yet to prove to me your ability before you can judge someone, they are wrong. And yet, I see those modern scholars who also have been given the ability to read, write and understand but failed to translate Exo. 12:40 correctly. So, you are pointing in the wrong direction. Give to whom what is due and actually, you are looking into some English versions that have the contradiction and in this case, there must be an exception to the rule.



Well, you haven’t proved it yet. Here is an error about your traditions. While the Hebrew text was written traditionally as the name Masora speaks of but the tradition is well kept by them. It is said that the Jews were keepers of the O.T. scripture as a matter of fact per Romans 3:1-2 and that they come from the priestly tribe of Levi to copy the scriptures-Deut. 17:18; 31:25,26; 33:10 1 Chron. 16:4; Ezra 7:1-6; Malachi 2:7. The Scribes began with Ezra who returned to Palestine. It is reasonable to expect the scribal tradition was to continue in Palestine and not in any other place like Alexandria Egypt or Samaria. God had ruled out any Egyptian translation of the O.T in Jeremiah 44:26. And no evidence shows that there was a biblical mandate for them to copy the Hebrew scriptures.

Regarding the “tradition” the scriptures say can either be good or not. What you are sensing is not the good one like Jesus said to the Pharisees by transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition. Matthew 15:3 yet I am seeing a good tradition so as Apostle Paul stated, and then again you are going into another wrong direction. Paul tells us:

2 Thess. 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.




So you have at least have the other witnesses that seem to agree with the added “and the land of Canaan” and let’s see them, first of Josephus. Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-100?) is often cited here:

Jewish Antiquities 4.15.2

They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he had charged his sons to do.

So in saying the Israelites made an exodus after a period that was 215 years for a total sojourning into the land of Canaan of 430 years. The commentary of Josephus is treated very well and accepted but is never said to be as scripture. And you are trying to assume the phrase that it came from the original Hebrew text but this is good for an educational guess as well. By tradition the Masoretic text in Exo. 12:40 even without the phrase “and the land of Canaan” is quite correct and translated in English KJV correctly. Josephus is worth like John Gill and other commentaries. Put it simply commentaries are but mere opinions and never to be equated with the scripture.

Now, we come to the Samaritan Penta..

Samaritan Pentateuch in English

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and fathers of them, who dwelt in Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

The Samaritans had long been believed to have some disputes with the Jews. They hated each other. Yes,
Samaritans accept the Torah—the first five books of the Hebrew Bible also called the Pentateuch—as authoritative, but reject the writings of the prophets and the other writings which are part of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.

The Samaritan Pentateuch had seemed to no further evidence to say they were based on the original Hebrew Text as I said the scribe Ezra needs to return to Palestine to copy the scriptures. The true keepers are those Palestine Jews and where the original Hebrew text is to be found. Aside from that, the Samaritan Penta was written in the Samaritan alphabet, and yes it is more closely related to the LXX. So from there, it can be possibly said it is not faithful to the original Hebrew text. Hebrew is still Hebrew and who says Samaritan Penta is correct when the fact is the keeper of the oracles of God belongs to the Palestine Jews.

I responded to this post, but I left some good stuff here, so I will repost what you didn't reply to:

There was errors in the copied Hebrew text before the KJV translators even got their hands on it. The language itself was a dead language and "revived". There was also traditions involved that affect a translation... like not using the name of God. So to accommodate that tradition, many work arounds with the translation had to take place. Of course using the word "Lord" instead of the name... which lead to also having to use "GOD" in all caps for the name when the actual word for "lord" was used (Jdg 16:28, 2Sa 7:28, Psa 69:6, etc.). There is also verses where "God" in the Hebrew was removed altogether... I mentioned Due 32:8 earlier, but Gen 23:6 and Exo 9:28 actually have the word for "Gods" in the Hebrew... but the KJV translates them as "mighty". Just a theory... but there seems to be a pattern of them trying to remove any trace of certain people being referred to as gods or sons of gods. Anyway, its not just the word "god"... there are hundreds of examples of the translators using one word in English to represent a Hebrew word in one place of the bible, and a different English word for the same Hebrew word in another place. Some of these translation decisions may be close in English, but others clearly have different English meanings (I can give you some examples of these if you like).

Also, like I mentioned in my other post... When it comes to cross referencing The Messiah's and other NT quotes to the OT, the Septuagint lines up with these quotes far more often then the KJV. I gave the example of how in Luke 4:18 The Messiah says one of the things he was sent to do was recover the sight to the blind. That is supposed to be a reference to Isaiah 61:1.... but that phrase in Isaiah is completely missing from the KJV. I didn't want to have to go look all of these up again... but if u need me to supply more examples of this, there are plenty of them. Whether you believe this is evidence of one translation being better than the other is for you to decide, but if the KJV doesn't match the quotes in the NT, Its clear that the Messiah and other people in the NT weren't using the source text that the KJV was translated from.

All throughout the NT The Messiah battles with and warns about the scribes... but you put complete trust in them to deliver the perfect Word of God to us?

The real and original "Word of God" has been altered to fit Satan's agenda for a long time. Hence why we have:



Revelation 22:18-19

King James Version


18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

The fact that there are penalties associated with changing these words means that it is possible for them to be changed.

FYI: That was the KJV translation.. the word "book" makes it appear that the verse is speaking about the bible as we have it today. The "book" didn't exist at the time... The word should have been translated as "scroll".


In Jeremiah it also says that the scribes changed some things:


Jeremiah 8:8

King James Version

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.


The phrase "in vain" here is also a bad translation.. it should read "falsehood" or "lying" (which the KJV correctly translated in other verses). Even Jerimiah lets us know that the scribes were changing things very early on. This is why the Messiah said... "It hath been said..... But I say". He had to rightly divide the law that The Father gave, from the false law that the scribes and Pharisees were teaching. We are supposed to be doing the same... but we cant do that if we are holding on to the belief that God's Word has been given to us in writing completely infallible and wrapped up in a bow.

 

[MalikB]

Will the pen lies or tell a falsehood? Who do you think is lying the pen which is a thing or the scribe who writes with his pen? Your accusation that there are errors in the KJV has been proven false so there is no way to stop. False accusation bears another false accusation. The fruit speaks well. But I have the word of God that is perfect and preserves in the English KJV.

You might be joking as well in the particular verse and why they are wrong in the KJV, you should substantiate your claim not just point and leave it there. That’s a baby cry, but to give you the benefit of doubt, would you mind why the KJV as you are saying is a bad translation here? By the way, Malikb, are you saved? Do you know for sure when you die you are going to heaven? Thanks

A pen can not write by itself... I don't understand what you are getting at. I've given plenty of examples of errors... you can read my most recent post (#413) to see some of them.... I also recommend that you watch the 2 videos I left in post #395.

I'm sorry that you feel that things are "baby cry's"... but you can read my previous posts if you are open minded to looking into the evidence I provided. The topic of the room is Bible versions... we can talk about the scriptures if you are able to be cordial, but I'm not interested in having a conversation on this thread about me or you.

 

[John146]

If you lived in 1611, maybe. Are you that old?

Only in my spirit. The words of the KJV are alive and well today my friend.

 

[fredoheaven]

First you ask appeal to authority questions as if you need to be fluent in Hebrew to know that commas and italicized text is not in the Hebrew.... but then you say modern scholars "failed to translate it correctly." You make it clear that the knowledge of the language is irrelevant. It is not "correct" to you if doesn't support your ideology... hence why you so quickly latched on the interpretation posted by another user here.

Still, the point is not addressed. If the copiest of the scripture is to the Jews at Palestine so that they have the pure copies. Grecian or Hellenistic Jews living in Egypt have also scriptures, the difference is that they will be tarnished with errors and the very example is the LXX. Yes, Christ did rebuke the scribes by putting their tradition above the commandments of God. That tradition is of course against the word God and not the tradition which the Apostles receive for as long it is within the conformity to the oracles of God that will be considered good so the copying of the scribes of the scriptures is not at all against the commandment of God.

The originals have been pen-knife and it was lost so we but God provided another one that would lead us to original #2. I agree that these originals are no longer with us, what we have are copies of copies as a way God will preserve his words and I also believe that these faithful copies of the scriptures got into the wrong hands emending it to suit their beliefs but scripture also provide he will preserve it. Taking the side of Bible translations has error is taking the side of those who hold the impure scripture. I take the side God can preserve it forever.

Josephus was from the first century, way before the Masoretic text was copied.... The Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek Septuagint even older (over 1000 years before The Masoretic text). This means they were taking from an older source. What one considers "scripture" is highly debated. If you grew up many places in the East... your belief of what "scripture" is would be very different. Its arrogant to think that what we have is 100% "correct" and the rest of the world has the problem.

Umm, What I believe is what the scripture says to itself that God will preserve his words and I have it today. The problem is, it is that you have said All bibles have such an error and hence you have the problem. No there’s no arrogance over claiming what the bible says to itself. If the bible has an error as you are saying and quoting then we are most miserable and there's no truth. I quoted the commentary of Josephus, again this is the same as your commentary and mine and nothing else. Not een close Josephus is quoting the original source. Even, Jsephus is not a realible source for this one because in his Antiguties 2:9.1 expressly stated the Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt and this speaks of his inconsentency. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link22HCH0009
1. Now it happened that the Egyptians grew delicate and lazy, as to pains-taking, and gave themselves up to other pleasures, and in particular to the love of gain. They also became very ill-affected towards the Hebrews, as touched with envy at their prosperity; for when they saw how the nation of the Israelites flourished, and were become eminent already in plenty of wealth, which they had acquired by their virtue and natural love of labor, they thought their increase was to their own detriment. And having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; for they enjoined them to cut a great number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its waters from stagnating, upon its running over its own banks: they set them also to build pyramids, 17 and by all this wore them out; and forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom themselves to hard labor. And four hundred years did they spend under these afflictions; for they strove one against the other which should get the mastery, the Egyptians desiring to destroy the Israelites by these labors, and the Israelites desiring to hold out to the end under them.

 

[fredoheaven]

Again the Masoretic Text was copied 1000 years+ after the Greek Septuagint an Samaritan Pentateuch was translated. This means they used a much older "Hebrew" text as a source. Like I've said many times... I'm not claiming either of those as the perfect infallible word of God... I'm just claiming that that the KJV is not either.

Now I see your untruthfulness over the Greek LXX AND Samaritan Penta. For how many times has been said that when someones claim anything it would be far better to give evidence. Now its my turn to challenge if you could show evidence that the LXX is before 1,000 years older than the 10 ce, Masoretic Text? Now you have all the time to prove it. Thanks.

 

[fredoheaven]

MalikB, for the rest, don't you worry, we'll be there in due time, you have yet to provide evidences being ask of you.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

MalikB, for the rest, don't you worry, we'll be there in due time, you have yet to provide evidences being ask of you.

Just to be clear, you want evidence that the Spetuagint is older than the Masoretic?

 

[MalikB]

I agree that these originals are no longer with us, what we have are copies of copies as a way God will preserve his words and I also believe that these faithful copies of the scriptures got into the wrong hands emending it to suit their beliefs but scripture also provide he will preserve it. Taking the side of Bible translations has error is taking the side of those who hold the impure scripture. I take the side God can preserve it forever.

We choose are beliefs... So you are allowed to believe whatever you want. But that belief comes with a certain level of ignorance... Having to ignore certain facts of what happens during any translation. It also comes with a certain level of arrogance... To believe you and your circle of believers has this pure preserved copy of Gods Word, and not the people in the East for example.

Not een close Josephus is quoting the original source. Even, Jsephus is not a realible source for this one because in his Antiguties 2:9.1 expressly stated the Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt and this speaks of his inconsentency. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link22HCH0009
1. Now it happened that the Egyptians grew delicate and lazy, as to pains-taking, and gave themselves up to other pleasures, and in particular to the love of gain. They also became very ill-affected towards the Hebrews, as touched with envy at their prosperity; for when they saw how the nation of the Israelites flourished, and were become eminent already in plenty of wealth, which they had acquired by their virtue and natural love of labor, they thought their increase was to their own detriment. And having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; for they enjoined them to cut a great number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its waters from stagnating, upon its running over its own banks: they set them also to build pyramids, 17 and by all this wore them out; and forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom themselves to hard labor. And four hundred years did they spend under these afflictions; for they strove one against the other which should get the mastery, the Egyptians desiring to destroy the Israelites by these labors, and the Israelites desiring to hold out to the end under them.

You are mixing up information again. The 400 years is the time spent under Egyptian afflictions, not the amount of time Jacob and his seed spent in the land. Abram and his family dealt with afflictions from Egypt before Jacob was even born. Was Abram, Sarah, Lot and family not kicked out of Egypt earlier with the whole wife being his sister situation?