TotD: KJV = inaccurate translation?

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK....... I get it..... you don't believe that ...

No, you don't "get it" in the least, but have fun with your silly toy.

 

[McBell]

THE 1611 KJV of the bible describes Endor as a 'familiar'. This is 'witch-related!

Where is this in the 1611 KJV?

The Earliest Greek Bible (transliterated) which I copied for Jayhawker describes her as 'stomach related - acquainter- to one of the soil' That is a medium. Connected to the deceased.

interesting leap.
How do you explain it?

However, to make it easier still, here is a translation (ergo:somebody's subjective interpretation) from the Greek Septuagint:-
7 Then Saul said to his servants, Seek for me a woman who has in her a divining spirit, and I will go to her, and enquire of her: and his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman who has in her a divining spirit at Aendor.

So one early bible calls her a medium, another calls her a divining spirit. Now, that's massively different from 'familiar'.

Perhaps you should remove your "special" glasses and read what you presented?
She is not called a divining spirit. she is described as having a divining spirit.

Now, taking into account King James' fondness for the subject of witches,

Which you claim but refuse to support.

and the above, you can make your own subjective decision about whether what I heard and understood could be true.

Do you honestly think that what you have presented actually supports your claims?
I sincerely hope not.

But it does look good to me.

Then you should try actually researching instead of being content with ratification.

 

[Neo Deist]

To answer the OP: the KJV may have inaccuracies in it, but that does not mean that the entire work is to be discarded. You'll find that it agrees with most modern translations more than it disagrees.

Every holy book that has ever been written on this planet has been written by human beings. Humans make mistakes all the time. The logical conclusion then is that every holy book ever written contains errors, discrepancies and is subject to interpretation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You'll find that it agrees with most modern translations more than it disagrees.

Wow -- just WOW.

 

[Neo Deist]

Wow -- just WOW.

I know, it is hard to believe that even after all these centuries, the message is still the same.

unk:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know, it is hard to believe that even after all these centuries, the message is still the same.

No, it's hard to believe that you would waste our time with such a vapid observation.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

You have indicated and shown that you are not the least bit interested in anything outside your sermons.
Now since I am not the least bit interested in sermons...

And you refuse to see anything outside your sermons, I fail to see how anything productive can come from further discourse.

Followed by eternal silence, right, maybe even 2x silent lol Just sayin ....
I didn't realize that religion was an observer sport

Don't forget to not write.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Wow -- just WOW.

I guess those KJV boys were bang on the money when it comes to being accepted by those with a hidden agenda (other than truth for truth's sake alone)

(KJV pre-face in part)
Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't realize that religion was an observer sport

Nor is it an exercise in banal pretense. Pretending that your bible-dumps are probative is simply delusional.

 

[McBell]

Followed by eternal silence, right, maybe even 2x silent lol Just sayin ....
I didn't realize that religion was an observer sport

Don't forget to not write.

It is not any fault of mine that you are not open to anything outside your sermons.
Your skill at parroting what others have told you is admiral for a parrot, for a human, not so much.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

And you get a big fat zero for doing what you said you were. How many more pages before you come up with something called a valid point. How about the mini version, Ge:1-3 and Re:20-22 and we'll leave the rest to the the professionals? In the beginning has creation days that are multiples of 10 in terms of length and if day 1 ended 4BYA then it began 40BYA and that is when the holy spirit began to gather material in each hand and at about 14BYA the two collided in what we would call black holes (the one the univers is speeding back to) in a not so gentle meeting we lovingly call the 'big bang'.
You want to go forward or backwards from there?

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Nor is it an exercise in banal pretense. Pretending that your bible-dumps are probative is simply delusional.

That's not true at all. You don't appear to be the right person to discuss myth biting the dust because of the two visions given in Da:7 and Re:17 that come with explanations that tells you just what those 'terms' mean when it comes to flesh and blood fulfillment, Nor can the prophecies get twisted when the slaughter of the innocents defines what 'land of the enemy' means in Jer:31. How about the slap in the garden was the start of the cross bruise and that helped define who the 'little ones' are in Zec:13. With those two anchor points all the other prophecies revolve around them, easily. Let's start small, you tune me in on how 'the rest' in Re:20 are not the ones in the whole chapter of Isa:65. I am so waiting for correction on that. Especially the dating in the new earth, care to start with that??

 

[McBell]

That's not true at all. You don't appear to be the right person to discuss myth biting the dust because of the two visions given in Da:7 and Re:17 that come with explanations that tells you just what those 'terms' mean when it comes to flesh and blood fulfillment, Nor can the prophecies get twisted when the slaughter of the innocents defines what 'land of the enemy' means in Jer:31. How about the slap in the garden was the start of the cross bruise and that helped define who the 'little ones' are in Zec:13. With those two anchor points all the other prophecies revolve around them, easily. Let's start small, you tune me in on how 'the rest' in Re:20 are not the ones in the whole chapter of Isa:65. I am so waiting for correction on that. Especially the dating in the new earth, care to start with that??

It is interesting how you continue trying to shove the NT down the throat of someone who does give it the credence you do.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Isa:65 is in the OT. oh wisened one. As is Da:7 and Jer:31

Teacher, teacher he is smoking dope!

Who did I copy that from?

Here an avatar just for you.

 

[jtartar]

I grew up learning from the KJV, memorizing all the verses in Sunday School, etc. Now, 37.9 years later, I look back and can see where it was translated not quite so accurately. This may make some KJV advocates mad, but that is not the intent. Keep an open mind as you read through this.

The KJV was an English translation, taken from the Latin Vulgate. It was done during the Protestant Reformation, at the start of the 17th century. At that time, very few textual resources were available to scholars outside of what they already had. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until some ~450 years later.

Modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc) have gone back and revised their respective translations for accuracy, given the greater amount of material that is now available for cross-referencing. If you compare the KJV to the modern ones (BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.) you'll find where the KJV had numerous errors throughout it.

I know that the scholars and authors *claim* that they were divinely inspired and that the KJV is the word of God, and can't be refuted. If I claim the same and write something, does that make it irrefutable? :no:

Like I said, keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture.

CDWolf,
Theologists have compared the KJV with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and have found the KJV to have over 20,000, of what they call errors. These errors were almost all in the spelling of names, and of numbers. Theologists have concluded that the Bible is accurate, and that the last reason to doubt the BIble's accurracy has been proven false.
Remember how we have received the Holy Scriptures, and what Jesus said about the Bible in his day, John 17:16. He said: Your word is truth, and they had all of the Hebrew Scriptures when Jesus said that.
Remember that the Dead Seas Scrolls were hidden for around a thousand years. During that time the scriptures that were available were copied many, many times, and when they were compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was almost no changes, and the few that did occur were of no consequence, and had nothing to do with the message from God to man.
To say that the Bible is not the word of God is to deny both Jesus and The Almighty God, whose personal name is Jehovah, as pronounced in the English language. God Himself, promised to protect His word from all generations, Ps 12:6,7. Think!! If God allowed His word to become adulterated, He could not judge anyone from what it says, and it really would not be the word of God, Isa 40:8, 1Pet 1:25.
The Christian Greek Scriptures were all written during the time that God's Holy Spirit was especially active. Remember, on Pentecost of 33CE God poured out the Holy Spirit on the disciples, and many of them had special powers beyond humans ability. Especially did the Apostles have power, and they were the recognized authority about Bible truth during the first century. They knew what Bible books should be added to the Bible Canon. It was not until after the first century ended and the great apostasy started that there was any doubt about the Christian Greek Scriptures being completely accurate.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

It is interesting how you continue trying to shove the NT down the throat of someone who does give it the credence you do.

I'm not trying to gather anybody. The 'needless' detail is my justification for being a believer and still claim to be of sound mind (relative to the time and place) The sermon was for you just to show what reading the Bible should be like if you took the same path I have already been down.

First you zip my lips, then you take away posting partial passages. That it, cause if I find a loop-hole you will just try and close with via some unsound doctrine. I've already covered the basics for starting to explore in detail yhe brass and the iron/clay. If you are kicking and screaming all the way you are going to get road-rash.

Satan has a name in Daniel 11, he is the king with the daughter, same as the dragon and the harlot in Re:17. I'm not sure you are ready for that path, I'm not sure I'm ready for that path either. lol

 

[McBell]

I'm not trying to gather anybody. The 'needless' detail is my justification for being a believer and still claim to be of sound mind (relative to the time and place) The sermon was for you just to show what reading the Bible should be like if you took the same path I have already been down.

First you zip my lips, then you take away posting partial passages. That it, cause if I find a loop-hole you will just try and close with via some unsound doctrine. I've already covered the basics for starting to explore in detail yhe brass and the iron/clay. If you are kicking and screaming all the way you are going to get road-rash.

Satan has a name in Daniel 11, he is the king with the daughter, same as the dragon and the harlot in Re:17. I'm not sure you are ready for that path, I'm not sure I'm ready for that path either. lol

Actually, the only thing I am doing is trying to get you to realize that for the exact same reasons you reject the Pearls of Great Price, he rejects the NT.

So anything you present from the NT to him will not help your argument in any way.

Now instead of accepting this as a fact, you seem bound and determined to shove the NT down his throat any ways.

 

[CDWolfe]

...To say that the Bible is not the word of God is to deny both Jesus and The Almighty God, whose personal name is Jehovah, as pronounced in the English language...

Uhm, I never said that the Bible was not the word of God. I said human beings, who are subject to err, have mistranslated the Bible across different languages. No human is perfect, therefore no translation is perfect.

If I write something and claim divine inspiration, and that it is the word of God, and you deny it, would you not be guilty of denying The Almighty God? There is no way you can prove that it was not the word of God, nor can I prove that it was. It works both ways.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

... same reasons you reject the Pearls of Great Price,

So anything you present from the NT to him will not help your argument in any way.

Now instead of accepting this as a fact, you seem bound and determined to shove the NT down his throat any ways.

If nothing else it shows you admit this is out of your league, at the moment. That's a good sign. What validity is there in being a respected by those who agree with you when the acid test is having those that are hard-core opponents to 'belief without proof'. By rights we should be making sure we understand we understand the parables before 'correcting God and all the mistakes He made in His one and only book.

I'm all for looking at all the jots in Daniel and Revelation, starting with a biblical definition of what a 'great dominion' is in terms of it being land area or fully believed. The instinctive thought also has a counter argument, both need your full attention, not for the sake of the popularity of the book but for what imprents it leaves. What milk and meat are is real close to being the very first lesson that the NT teaches. Is there a plan,yes, ... and it's a really good one, .... details to follow, ....

Unriddle me this, (for the 2nd time)what part of the earth do I need to be in before the children are in full view and the consequences that has to the wisdom contained in Eze:37:1-14?

Jer:31:15: .
Thus saith the LORD;
A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation,
and bitter weeping;
Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children,
because they were not.
Jer:31:16:
Thus saith the LORD;
Refrain thy voice from weeping,
and thine eyes from tears:
for thy work shall be rewarded,
saith the LORD;
and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
Jer:31:17:
And there is hope in thine end,
saith the LORD,
that thy children shall come again to their own border.

Times up, btw.

 

[McBell]

To say that the Bible is not the word of God is to deny both Jesus and The Almighty God, whose personal name is Jehovah, as pronounced in the English language.

And?
I deny the vast majority of deities that are painted by people.
And guess what, not a single one of them has done anything about it.