Fixing the scripture ...

[Muffled]

Moses probably wrote some of the books of the Old Testament.
Jesus wrote nothing.
God was never an Author of books.

It makes sense for God to avoid writing books. Books are static while His word is contemporary. And since He knows every language, He never has to translate.

 

[Muffled]

Which translation do you prefer?


The NSRV offers:

• The face of the Lord is against evildoers, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth
• When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears, and rescues them from their troubles.

This is very nice, but the second verse is more interpretation than translation. At least the KJV put the interpretive text in brackets.

I use the NASV: 34:17 The Righteous cry and the Lord hears

If you want a literal translation you could go to the NWT but it tends to be very confusing and the authors have translated according to their bias. I like the fact that translators have reduced the confusion and done so wisely. Much too often there ae numb heads who would think that God delivers the wicked.

 

[jtartar]

An example.

Let's start with some examples of Psalm 34:15-17.

King James Version

• The eyes of the LORD [are] upon the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their cry.
• The face of the LORD [is] against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
• [The righteous] cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.

New Jerusalem Bible

• The eyes of Yahweh are on the upright, his ear turned to their cry.
• But Yahweh's face is set against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
• They cry in anguish and Yahweh hears, and rescues them from all their troubles

Segal

• The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, His ears toward their outcry.
• The face of the LORD is against evildoers, to cut off their memory from the earth.
• They cry out, and the LORD hears, and from all their troubles He saves them.

The bracketed emendation found in the KJV is not uncommon, but the other two examples are more accurate. Clearly the KJV is trying to make sense of something that otherwise does not - at least not on the surface. What's going on here?

Jayhawker Soule
I don't quite understand the problem you are concerned with, they seem to be saying about the same thing.
First,as to the brackets, many times, because of the rules of transaltion words such as the, or a are put in to make it text understandable to the reader.
As to the name of Yahweh, many Jewish people think that is the proper way to spell and to pronounce the Proper Name of the Almighty God. Now, in the English language the majority of people, for hundreds of years have used the English translation, Jehovah. The reason the name is there insted off LORD, or GOD, is because God's name was in the original writings over 7,000 times. Most Bible translations have left out God's name completely, some have left it in a few times. In the KJV, every place where God's name was originally, is now LORD or GOD, in all Capital letters.
If you are speaking about the use of the words EYES, FACE, or EARS, these are called Anthropomorphisms. These words are used as if God had the same parts as we do so we will easily unserstand what He means.
As for exact words, both Hebrew and Greek use words that can be translated several ways, exactly as the English language does. Many times it is up to the translater to use the proper word, so that it is in harmony with the rest of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First,as to the brackets, many times, because of the rules of transaltion words such as the, or a are put in to make it text understandable to the reader.

And where did you gain you knowledge concerning rules of transliteration?

The word in brackets was put there because the translator was trying to make sense out of three successive verses that do not meke sence otherwise, i.e., because s/he did not like the fact that the 'they' in verse 17 would otherwise (i.e., normally) be read as referring to those spoken of in verse 16.

 

[12jtartar]

An example.

Let's start with some examples of Psalm 34:15-17.

King James Version

• The eyes of the LORD [are] upon the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their cry.
• The face of the LORD [is] against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
• [The righteous] cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.

New Jerusalem Bible

• The eyes of Yahweh are on the upright, his ear turned to their cry.
• But Yahweh's face is set against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
• They cry in anguish and Yahweh hears, and rescues them from all their troubles

Segal

• The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, His ears toward their outcry.
• The face of the LORD is against evildoers, to cut off their memory from the earth.
• They cry out, and the LORD hears, and from all their troubles He saves them.

The bracketed emendation found in the KJV is not uncommon, but the other two examples are more accurate. Clearly the KJV is trying to make sense of something that otherwise does not - at least not on the surface. What's going on here?

Jayhawker Soule,
I really do not understand what you are trying to get at.
I do hope that you know that The KJV is not the Original Autographs.
If you want to know exactly what the original writings said, you need to consult, either a concordance or an Interlinear Bible.
If you read in the prefaces of many Bibles, especially the Bibles that follow the habit of the KJV, to substitute the Titles, LORD, or GOD, where the Original Autographs had God's Personal, or Proper Name, in Hebrew YHWH, called The Tetragrammaton, or The Four letters in Hebrew, for God's Name.
In the Originals God's Proper Name was in His Book over 7,000 times. I believe it is an enormous sin to remove God's name from His own book, when it was God's Holy Spirit that guided men as they wrote, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21. The translators that removed God's personal name from His own book have judged themselves, Matt 5:17-19, Rom 14:22.

 

[Tumah]

Still, the second verse is intrusive. It should come last.

Not really.
For one thing, the cry could be in repentance. The verse doesn't specify what the crying is about. But the next verse seems to be speaking about a repentant person. So going from the righteous, to the wicked, to the repentant is a fine progression.

But even without that, it can still be understood as talking about the righteous.
Its not the first time in this chapter that a verse seems to be intrusive:
- The first 7 verses keep switching back and forth between David himself, and the humble ones. Not necessarily evenly.
- Verse 8 speaks about those that fear G-d. Verse 9 goes off topic. And verse 10 goes back to fearing G-d.
- Verse 12 tells the children to listen and learn about fear of G-d. Verse 13 doesn't seem related to that idea whatsoever. Verse 14 could be going back on 12 or 13.

I think verse 17 was put there as counterpoint to the facial analogies used in verse 16 speaking about G-d's eyes and ears. Previously, the psalms was describing qualities of the righteous. Then the verse describes G-d's relationship with the righteous as opposed to the wicked. Then the verse continues with G-d's relationship with the righteous. Verse 18 speaks about the righteous crying out to G-d. And verse 19 speaks about how G-d is close to the righteous to hear their prayer.

However you look at it, the chapter is clearly using poetic license. Besides for being acrostic, it also seems to be built on couplets where each verse is split in two totaling 6, 7 or 8 words (with a few exceptions). The intention is certainly clear enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you want to know exactly what the original writings said, you need to consult, either a concordance or an Interlinear Bible.

Good grief!

 

[aoji]

Clearly the KJV is trying to make sense of something that otherwise does not - at least not on the surface. What's going on here?

When was each of those versions written? That probably has something to do with it. On another note, English-Germanic languages tend to have problems with tenses ("is" and "are", singular and plural) and tend to have but one gender 9wherreas Latin has three, masculine, feminine and neutral); then there's the "no vowels" thing of the Hebrew and Egyptian languages...

Judaism 101: Hebrew Alphabet

IMO, since the 'I AM' 'is' always 'Now," I would read it as

15: The eye of the LORD is on the righteous, and his ear hears his cry.

Logically (???) I have a problem with "The face of the LORD is set against evildoers, to erase their names from the earth." We all know that the most infamous persons are remembered, so I don't think that that means what we think it means. I tend to read it as "The face of the LORD is set against evildoers, to erase their names from His memory," meaning that G-d will not remember them after they die, which is more in keeping with Judaism, where after death G-d remembers the faithful so that they live on in His memory. Psalm 88:5 "Forsaken among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave, Whom You remember no more, And they are cut off from Your hand." Of course that theological concept may be at odds with Jesus meeting Moses and Isaiah in front of the disciples but isn't in contradiction with Jesus' words that G-d is the the God of the living.

 

[Muffled]

Not really.
For one thing, the cry could be in repentance. The verse doesn't specify what the crying is about. But the next verse seems to be speaking about a repentant person. So going from the righteous, to the wicked, to the repentant is a fine progression.

But even without that, it can still be understood as talking about the righteous.
Its not the first time in this chapter that a verse seems to be intrusive:
- The first 7 verses keep switching back and forth between David himself, and the humble ones. Not necessarily evenly.
- Verse 8 speaks about those that fear G-d. Verse 9 goes off topic. And verse 10 goes back to fearing G-d.
- Verse 12 tells the children to listen and learn about fear of G-d. Verse 13 doesn't seem related to that idea whatsoever. Verse 14 could be going back on 12 or 13.

I think verse 17 was put there as counterpoint to the facial analogies used in verse 16 speaking about G-d's eyes and ears. Previously, the psalms was describing qualities of the righteous. Then the verse describes G-d's relationship with the righteous as opposed to the wicked. Then the verse continues with G-d's relationship with the righteous. Verse 18 speaks about the righteous crying out to G-d. And verse 19 speaks about how G-d is close to the righteous to hear their prayer.

However you look at it, the chapter is clearly using poetic license. Besides for being acrostic, it also seems to be built on couplets where each verse is split in two totaling 6, 7 or 8 words (with a few exceptions). The intention is certainly clear enough.

I believe he then goes on to talk about the fate of the wicked in verse 21, so there is definietley a comparison of the righteous and wicked in this psalm.

 

[Kolibri]

I believe he then goes on to talk about the fate of the wicked in verse 21, so there is definietley a comparison of the righteous and wicked in this psalm.

Indeed. The last two stanzas sum up the contrast made nicely.

Disaster will put the wicked to death;
Those hating the righteous will be found guilty.
Jehovah is redeeming the life (or "soul.") of his servants;
None of those taking refuge in him will be found guilty.
- Psalms 34:21-22

As regards the 15th and 16th stanza consider a similar thought in this passage:

The memory (or "reputation.") of the righteous one is due for a blessing,
But the name of the wicked will rot.
- Proverbs 10:7

When considering the "they" in the 17th, would not those that cry out and are rescued be the same ones as mentioned at Psalms 145:18-19?

Jehovah is near to all those calling on him,
To all who call on him in truth. (or "in sincerity.")
He satisfies the desire of those who fear him;
He hears their cry for help, and he rescues them."

Are "those doing what is bad" calling on Jehovah "in truth"? If they are persisting in "doing what is bad" are they "those that fear him"?

 

[psychoslice]

I have always thought that it was funny how many people believe that the king James version is the best, it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Muffled]

I have always thought that it was funny how many people believe that the king James version is the best, it just doesn't make sense to me.

I believe it may be a loyalty to what one is taught. My first Bible was a King James but I never developed a loyalty to it and the church I attended did not require one although I was taught that the Bible was important and the source for our belief.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe it may be a loyalty to what one is taught. My first Bible was a King James but I never developed a loyalty to it and the church I attended did not require one although I was taught that the Bible was important and the source for our belief.

I'm glad you see it that way, but many believe it to be the best version, and even directed by God himself, the King James is just another version, and that's all it is, the real truth is seen between the words, not of the words, or by those who are spiritually discerned.

 

[12jtartar]

An example.

Let's start with some examples of Psalm 34:15-17.

King James Version

• The eyes of the LORD [are] upon the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their cry.
• The face of the LORD [is] against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
• [The righteous] cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.

New Jerusalem Bible

• The eyes of Yahweh are on the upright, his ear turned to their cry.
• But Yahweh's face is set against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
• They cry in anguish and Yahweh hears, and rescues them from all their troubles

Segal

• The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, His ears toward their outcry.
• The face of the LORD is against evildoers, to cut off their memory from the earth.
• They cry out, and the LORD hears, and from all their troubles He saves them.

The bracketed emendation found in the KJV is not uncommon, but the other two examples are more accurate. Clearly the KJV is trying to make sense of something that otherwise does not - at least not on the surface. What's going on here?

Jayhawker Soule,
What exactly are you trying to FIX??
If you look in the preface of many Bibles, you will find that brackets are used to show that the words in the brackets were not in the Original Autographs, but were added to assist in accurately understanding the message.
Science has found that it is impossible for one man to translate an entire Bible without making a mistake. The mistakes made by one translator, will not be the same mistakes made by another translator. By comparing different translations you will find, and be able to correct any mistakes. This is what Bible scholars have been doing for many years. Today, there are very few mistakes in any of the modern translations, just different words that mean almost exactly the same thing, only some showing more imphasis with some words. Today, our dictionaries list many definitions for words, and it is up to the translator to make sure that the words he uses agree with all other scripture. Intertextualism!!!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science has found that it is impossible for one man to translate an entire Bible without making a mistake.

What a laughably dumb statement!

 

[Muffled]

What a laughably dumb statement!

I believe he might have been referring to the Living Bible which had only one translator if he was even that. He claimed he produced that version by the help of the Holy Spirit and science has no measure for how accurate that is.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think adding something or subtracting something from the original is corruption, unless one gives the original text ; the Word revealed from the one true attributive creator God; side by side of the translation, in my opinion.

There is no original text to examine.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no original text to examine.

Which scripture you mean?
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Which scripture you mean?
Regards

To the best of my knowledge all of them. But certainly the new testament.

 

[paarsurrey]

To the best of my knowledge all of them. But certainly the new testament.

Quran is original, secure and concise, one could examine it easily.
Regards