Nit-picking the KJV or other translations

[John146]

Are you denying that the LXX exists, or that Jesus and the Apostles quoted it in our NT?

Absolutely! I've refuted that claim a dozen times. There is zero evidence of its existence.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

A critic of the KJV points to Deut. 8:9 as an error for its translation of "brass" since it is an alloy that is not dug out of the ground, and it is a difficult point to answer. I'm using the KJV here, but any translation can be criticized in like manner in various verses.

Brass, from the Encyclopedia Britannica
"Brass, as an alloy of copper and zinc without tin, did not appear in Egypt until about 30 BCE, but after this it was rapidly adopted throughout the Roman world, for example, for currency."

The KJV translators translated the Hebrew nchosheth 103 times as brass, 28 times brazen, fetters 5, chain(s) 3, copper 1, filthiness 1 and steel 1.

The KJV translators certainly knew about the alloy "brass" and knew it was not dug directly out of the ground, so why would they use the term "brass" 103 times instead of "copper" when they used "copper" the one time?

The first line in the ISBE states: "The use of the word brass has always been more or less indefinite in its application."

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language Second Edition, Unabridged:
brass "13. having the color brass"

From the KJV "Translators to the Readers" -
"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader: that we have not tied
ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure
would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere
have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense
of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places
(for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere [polushma]), we
were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we
should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we
translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where
journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never
ache; if one where joy, never gladness, etc--thus, to mince the matter, we thought to
savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist
than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or
syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when
we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

My guess is, the translators considered the context and used "brass" to represent any metals derived by digging in earth that was supportive of prosperity and showing the goodness from God. Any other ideas?

The brass thing again. I'm not sure the use of brass rather than bronze is a KJ original. Didn't The KJ translators
rely heavily on earlier English transtations like The Bishop's Bible, Geneva & Tyndale? Brass could have originated
from one or more of these or earlier from The Latin Vulgate

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Are you saying a translation cannot be the inspired word of God?

i am saying it can be manipulated easier by man than it can be Inspired of God.

 

[Ethan1942]

Absolutely! I've refuted that claim a dozen times. There is zero evidence of its existence.

What was the writer of Hebrews quoting, since it was not the Hebrew?

The writer to the Hebrews in Heb 1:6 quotes from Deut. 32:43 and writes the words: "And let all the angels of God worship him."

"And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Heb 1:6, KJV)
The TSK cross reference for the underlined above reads: De 32:43; Sept:

When you go to the KJV of Deut 32:43, from the Hebrew, you cannot find that sentence underlined above.

"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. (Deut 32:43, KJV)

Paul, if he wrote Hebrews, was quoting the LXX, the Septuagint which includes that sentence:

"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people." (Deut 32:43, LXXE)

What recognized authority or respected reference work states that the Septuagint did not exist?

The Encyclopedia Brittannica gave a lot of space for a translation that did not exist.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

 

[Ethan1942]

Most web sites that claim to give a clear review of Bible translations tend to be fundamentalist/evangelical rather than balanced reviews. The best overview of translations I've found comes from the UK:

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/which-is-the-best-bible-translation/

An example is how that web site describes the NRSV approach to translating the OT:

• The Old Testament was translated to reflect Jewish interpretations of the text. The problem for some here is prophecies that were later seen to be about Christ. Some think their translation should always reflect this; others that they should be translated in such a way as the original audience might have understood them

I personally want to know how the Jews would have understood the OT, and yet use the NT as an explanation of the truth behind the words of the OT. So, for a modern translation I prefer the NRSV and now the NRSVUE of 2021. The REB is a favorite as to a more dynamic equivalence version for today.

 

[Lanolin]

what?
The KJV has nits?!

 

[wattie]

The word "brass" is found in the NRSV only once and in the REB four times. The NRSV and REB use "bronze" in most places, but in Deut. 8:9 where it refers to the metal dug out of the earth, the NRSV and REB use "copper".

On why the KJV translators used "brass" when they knew something about metallurgy, I came up with another idea during the night. The KJV Translators to the Readers state the following about ecclesiastical words:

"Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, ..."

Brass was so much used in liturgical churches, maybe it was considered an ecclesiastical word? In the KJV "brass" was used 30 times in reference to the furnishing of the tabernacle. In Britain, brass was associated with the liturgical churches as can be seen in one website I found: https://churchantiques.com/product-category/religious-brassware-metalware/

It is true of course we don't worship the translations, they give us the word of God about Jesus Christ in various translations. The question about "brass" has no bearing I know of on doctrine. My OP was prompted by a web site pointing out the errors in the KJV and so many web sites of the skeptics exhibit such wretched ignorance of the Scriptures and they need to be exposed at times.

By the way, some people have a quick wit and humor that sometimes they regret later. My BIG problem is my sharp and impatient tongue and I've struggled for years with that very verse I quoted in another thread.

By the way .. washing for baptism and congregation for church are better translations.

The word church has many meanings in English.. that goes beyond what the Bible supports.
Congregation fits better with the Greek.

Same for 'washing'... that had more relation to immersion than baptism when people used to 'baptise' babies thinking the Bible supported that.

 

[Aaron56]

what?
The KJV has nits?!

Lanolin. You’re funny.

 

[Aaron56]

By the way .. washing for baptism and congregation for church are better translations.

The word church has many meanings in English.. that goes beyond what the Bible supports.
Congregation fits better with the Greek.

Same for 'washing'... that had more relation to immersion than baptism when people used to 'baptise' babies thinking the Bible supported that.

”ekklisia”
Greek = Ekklisía
French = église
Spanish = iglesia
Latin = ecclesia
English = church (record scratch)

The odd one out is English. The fifth century Cappadocian (central Turkey) Christians called their communities Kyriakos oikos (the Lord’s house). They had a major influence on the translation of the Bible into Gothic, an old east Germanic language. The Goths rendered Kyriakos oikos as ciric. In old English that became kerk, and then in English ‘church’ and in German Kirche.

The KJV translators used the familiar “kirche” to render the english “church”. The trouble with that was a kirche was a building. And so now we think nothing about saying “going to church” when we are the church, “the called out”. IMO this is a grievous error that led to a tradition of thinking contrary to the mind of Christ among the believers. Still, the KJV has value.

 

[fredoheaven]

What was the writer of Hebrews quoting, since it was not the Hebrew?

The writer to the Hebrews in Heb 1:6 quotes from Deut. 32:43 and writes the words: "And let all the angels of God worship him."

"And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Heb 1:6, KJV)
The TSK cross reference for the underlined above reads: De 32:43; Sept:

When you go to the KJV of Deut 32:43, from the Hebrew, you cannot find that sentence underlined above.

"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. (Deut 32:43, KJV)

Paul, if he wrote Hebrews, was quoting the LXX, the Septuagint which includes that sentence:

"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people." (Deut 32:43, LXXE)

What recognized authority or respected reference work states that the Septuagint did not exist?

The Encyclopedia Brittannica gave a lot of space for a translation that did not exist.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

The supposed LXX is neither definite nor denied over here. This is found in the Vaticanus B (an LXX mss./ uncial), however, another uncial of LXX is found in Alexandrinus A which differs on the reading “And let the angels of God give them (Him) strength” and this is adopted by Alfred Ralphs in 1935 and a standard to all LXX authorities. If the content of Uncial A is correct then Uncial B is altered to agree with Hebrews 1:6. And the author of Hebrews is not quoting it. Hence, the scribe of B had the book of Hebrews with him after the time it was written.

Moreover, the writer of Hebrews is not citing Deut.32:13, it either cites Ps. 97:7, 103:20; 148:2 or Neh. 9:6 meaning the scribe of B simply could not find any of these references and added the portion in Hebrews 1:6 in his altered LXX B. Actually, Vaticanus B in this is Origen’s fifth column or the Hexapla who failed to find the cross-reference.

The 10th Anniversary NIV Study Bible footnotes, further stated that this has been a reference to Psalms 97:7.

Other commentaries also has Ps.97:7
https://www.preceptaustin.org/hebrews_16-7

 

[John146]

The KJV translators used the familiar “kirche” to render the english “church”. The trouble with that was a kirche was a building. And so now we think nothing about saying “going to church” when we are the church, “the called out”. IMO this is a grievous error that led to a tradition of thinking contrary to the mind of Christ among the believers. Still, the KJV has value.

That's man's fault for not studying and knowing scripture. God's word never should be changed to fit the culture of the day. Stick with scripture and how scripture defines the word.

 

[fredoheaven]

”ekklisia”
Greek = Ekklisía
French = église
Spanish = iglesia
Latin = ecclesia
English = church (record scratch)

The odd one out is English. The fifth century Cappadocian (central Turkey) Christians called their communities Kyriakos oikos (the Lord’s house). They had a major influence on the translation of the Bible into Gothic, an old east Germanic language. The Goths rendered Kyriakos oikos as ciric. In old English that became kerk, and then in English ‘church’ and in German Kirche.

The KJV translators used the familiar “kirche” to render the english “church”. The trouble with that was a kirche was a building. And so now we think nothing about saying “going to church” when we are the church, “the called out”. IMO this is a grievous error that led to a tradition of thinking contrary to the mind of Christ among the believers. Still, the KJV has value.

I think your post needed some straightening the record, the earliest known Gothic Bible is 4th Ce translated by Wulfila which he translated from Greek and is not Kyriakos oikos as this seems. You might have clicked the wrong information over the Internet. Here is a sample translation from who invented the Gothic Alphabet

Romans 16:23

A goleiþ izwis Gaïus, wairdus meins jah allaizos aikklesjons. goleiþ izwis Airastus, fauragaggja baurgs, jah Qartus sa broþar.

http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?book=5&chapter=16
http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1910/HTML/B004.html

Aikklesjons – Kirke in German = Ekklesia in Gk = French eglise, Spanish Iglesia ecclesia Latin, that means to say a church in a proper English translation and not a congregation or assembly. It means a spiritual building and or the believers group together.

 

[fredoheaven]

By the way .. washing for baptism and congregation for church are better translations.

The word church has many meanings in English.. that goes beyond what the Bible supports.
Congregation fits better with the Greek.

Same for 'washing'... that had more relation to immersion than baptism when people used to 'baptise' babies thinking the Bible supported that.

What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Washed does convey also as affusion. This is not the right word for the Greek baptidzo or the English baptism that does carry the total meaning of the gospel. Immersion cannot be.

King James Bible Rev. 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[wattie]

What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Washed does convey also as affusion. This is not the right word for the Greek baptidzo or the English baptism that does carry the total meaning of the gospel. Immersion cannot be.

King James Bible Rev. 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Yea i realized after I posted.. washing doesn't fit well with immersion.. my bad.

Congregation or assembly instead of 'church' though is better

 

[Aaron56]

I think your post needed some straightening the record, the earliest known Gothic Bible is 4th Ce translated by Wulfila which he translated from Greek and is not Kyriakos oikos as this seems. You might have clicked the wrong information over the Internet. Here is a sample translation from who invented the Gothic Alphabet

Romans 16:23

A goleiþ izwis Gaïus, wairdus meins jah allaizos aikklesjons. goleiþ izwis Airastus, fauragaggja baurgs, jah Qartus sa broþar.

http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?book=5&chapter=16
http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1910/HTML/B004.html

Aikklesjons – Kirke in German = Ekklesia in Gk = French eglise, Spanish Iglesia ecclesia Latin, that means to say a church in a proper English translation and not a congregation or assembly. It means a spiritual building and or the believers group together.

Are you a King James Only person?

 

[Aaron56]

I think your post needed some straightening the record, the earliest known Gothic Bible is 4th Ce translated by Wulfila which he translated from Greek and is not Kyriakos oikos as this seems. You might have clicked the wrong information over the Internet. Here is a sample translation from who invented the Gothic Alphabet

Romans 16:23

A goleiþ izwis Gaïus, wairdus meins jah allaizos aikklesjons. goleiþ izwis Airastus, fauragaggja baurgs, jah Qartus sa broþar.

http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?book=5&chapter=16
http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1910/HTML/B004.html

Aikklesjons – Kirke in German = Ekklesia in Gk = French eglise, Spanish Iglesia ecclesia Latin, that means to say a church in a proper English translation and not a congregation or assembly. It means a spiritual building and or the believers group together.

A spiritual building? There is no such building in the scriptures. Jesus was building His gathering, the called out. People.
Naos is the closest reference to a building and that is temple, as in “believers are the temple of God”.
Perhaps you are referring to “a spiritual house”? “House” there is oikos.
The issue is about how the KJV translators dealt with “ekklesia”. They defaulted to the familiar and obscured its meaning.