You might be right, James37, but where we are told that your arithmetic is the evidence that a certain translation is the only word of God? Why wouldn't earlier and therefore more reliable manuscripts than those that form the basis of the KJV be a better yardstick? Makes more sense than numbers adding up to 37, right?
The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I disagree with you there bro. They took the time to count the fish and the Spirit has John remember and write the number - i don't think it's insignificant. Counting words in King Jimmy may not get us anywhere but it's 153 in every language here, and we're not in some census in the book of Numbers. I think there's something potentially profound here if we can find it, something that fits with John's whole purpose in writing.
Actually it really isn't my arithmetic but a computers. There are patterns related to the numbers 7, 37 and 73 in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Others have researched this and they are not pro King James Bible as far as I know. I only speak English so I am in no position to comment or analyze translations in other languages. What I assert is that they are in the KJB just as they are present in Hebrew and Greek texts. If there are patterns in the Hebrew, Greek and English scriptures, then there are 3 witnesses and 3 witnesses are biblical. 1 John 5:7; Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; and 2 Corinthians 13:1
I can be very direct and tactless, sorry. I'm not calling you nuts or saying there are no patterns in scripture though - i've been saying that it's in the Hebrew and Greek that we should be looking if we're looking for those, that they're not useful if they can't be interpreted and understood, and that to comprehend them in a useful way we should find and apply analytical, deliberate methods and justify all those methods starting from first principles. Im pushing you towards what I think is a better way. Sorry if I'm blunt just assume I'm an ordinary mathematician - you know, abstract, systematic personality with 0 or < 0 people skills
Numerical patterns can be found in all literature, and the greater the number of morphemes and lexemes in that literature, the greater the number of numerical patterns that can be found. Moreover, the smaller the vocabulary of the literature, the greater the number of numerical patterns that can be found. As the number of repetitions of the morphemes and lexemes increases, the number of numerical patterns that can be found increases. Consequently, a very large number of numerical patters can be found in of the Bible, and in translations of it.
James has failed to demonstrate that more numerical patterns can be found in his particular edition of the King James translation of the Bible than in the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version. There may be more—or there may be fewer. Finding them accomplishes nothing at all except for wasting ones time. We would expect to find, however, for mathematical reasons, if one was to waste his time looking for them, fewer numerical patterns in the New International Version than in modern editions of the King James Version (such as James is using), or in the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version.
James has failed to demonstrate that more numerical patterns can be found in his particular edition of the King James translation of the Bible than in the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version. There may be more—or there may be fewer. Finding them accomplishes nothing at all except for wasting ones time. We would expect to find, however, for mathematical reasons, if one was to waste his time looking for them, fewer numerical patterns in the New International Version than in modern editions of the King James Version (such as James is using), or in the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version.
I'm inclined to think, James37, that the Lord can speak to us through any translation of his word (but I'd steer clear of translations like the NWT, of course). I started with the KJV when I was young, so I like that translation. But then came the RSV and God continued to speak to me through that one. More recently it's been the NIV, NASB and the ESV, all good translations for various reasons. But if you like the KJV - even if you think it's the only valid word of God, which I think perhaps a bit extreme - that's fine and you're entitled to your view, though I feel more comfortable reading versions based on more ancient and therefore more reliable manuscripts and then checking the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic when I need to.
I can be very direct and tactless, sorry. I'm not calling you nuts or saying there are no patterns in scripture though - i've been saying that it's in the Hebrew and Greek that we should be looking if we're looking for those, that they're not useful if they can't be interpreted and understood, and that to comprehend them in a useful way we should find and apply analytical, deliberate methods and justify all those methods starting from first principles. Im pushing you towards what I think is a better way. Sorry if I'm blunt just assume I'm an ordinary mathematician - you know, abstract, systematic personality with 0 or < 0 people skills
Ok....so....men have been studying it for how many years now? And the whole point of this thread is to prove what exactly? That the King James is more than just another translation which is foolish because it is exactly that...a translation/transliteration....nothing more nothing less...so grand poobah of numbers...What does it mean? Why has no one found the special meaning? Who does not count the number of fish they catch? I am interested in knowing this profound truth...........
As D. A. Carson observes,1
"Large quantities of ink have gone into explaining why there should be 153 fish. At the purely historical level, it is unsurprising that someone counted them, either as part of dividing them up amongst the fishermen in preparation for sale, or because one of the men was so dumbfounded by the size of the catch that he said something like this: ‘Can you believe it? I wonder how many there are?'"
I agree: this event made such a lasting impression on John, that he remembered the exact number of fish they picked up. Just as he remembered the name of Malchus, whose ear Peter severed. I read no more into 153 fish, than I do into the 2000 donkeys in 1 Chr 5:21
"Large quantities of ink have gone into explaining why there should be 153 fish. At the purely historical level, it is unsurprising that someone counted them, either as part of dividing them up amongst the fishermen in preparation for sale, or because one of the men was so dumbfounded by the size of the catch that he said something like this: ‘Can you believe it? I wonder how many there are?'"
I agree: this event made such a lasting impression on John, that he remembered the exact number of fish they picked up. Just as he remembered the name of Malchus, whose ear Peter severed. I read no more into 153 fish, than I do into the 2000 donkeys in 1 Chr 5:21
Actually, you mix memorizing the content with memorizing location of the content based on numerical operations, which is wrong.
Second, why do you need to memorize 10 commandments, they are pretty simple. Are you able to forget that you should not kill anybody? Do you really need to have 7, 37 etc to remember that?
Second, why do you need to memorize 10 commandments, they are pretty simple. Are you able to forget that you should not kill anybody? Do you really need to have 7, 37 etc to remember that?
Modern Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV do not say of Jesus, “he was afterward hungred; they say, “he was afterward an hungred.” It is the English construction “an hungred” that is especially obscure, and the meaning of the English particle “an” in this context is what is debated. Furthermore, neither Merriam-Webster nor Oxford University recognizes the lexeme “hungred” as a word. The KJV uses it to translate a Greek verb as is correctly shown in the Text Analysis, but in the English sentence, “hungred” necessarily functions as an adjective modifying the pronoun “he.”
The NASB translated the phrase as, “He then became hungry” because, as is correctly shown in the Text Analysis, the Greek verb ἐπείνασεν is in the indicative mood and the aorist tense indicating punctiliar action in past time. The concept “became” is expressed in the aorist tense of the Greek verb used in the indicative mood.
KJV: “he was afterward an hungred.” = unintelligible babble
NASB: “He then became hungry” = a statement that is so easy to understand that a three-year-old child could understand it; and a very accurate translation of the original
Translations of the Bible are poor substitutes for the word of God given to us in the ancient languages—and the poorness of the substitute is greatly increased by the use of an inaccurate translation in archaic English! Moreover, no translation of the Bible is a really good one unless the user of it understands the guiding principles and practices that the translators followed—and that is why it is so very important to very carefully read and understand the information provided in the preface.
The NASB translated the phrase as, “He then became hungry” because, as is correctly shown in the Text Analysis, the Greek verb ἐπείνασεν is in the indicative mood and the aorist tense indicating punctiliar action in past time. The concept “became” is expressed in the aorist tense of the Greek verb used in the indicative mood.
KJV: “he was afterward an hungred.” = unintelligible babble
NASB: “He then became hungry” = a statement that is so easy to understand that a three-year-old child could understand it; and a very accurate translation of the original
Translations of the Bible are poor substitutes for the word of God given to us in the ancient languages—and the poorness of the substitute is greatly increased by the use of an inaccurate translation in archaic English! Moreover, no translation of the Bible is a really good one unless the user of it understands the guiding principles and practices that the translators followed—and that is why it is so very important to very carefully read and understand the information provided in the preface.
Wonderful topic
153 happens to be the the 17th triangular number.
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17 = 153
In the King James Bible (perhaps in other translations also, I have not checked) both the names of Peter and Paul are found in 153 verses each.
153 happens to be the the 17th triangular number.
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17 = 153
In the King James Bible (perhaps in other translations also, I have not checked) both the names of Peter and Paul are found in 153 verses each.
in the Greek, 156 instances of the name Peter - not counting Cephas - and 158 of the name Paul.
I don't believe there to be any symbolical significance, nor there to be a sign, but that it was recorded for historical purposes. Fisherman have their tales, the fish were numbered before Christ likely due to the fact of such a vast amount and the net did not break. No fish tales were forthcoming, but I believe this great catch did portend the vast amount of elect that the apostles would bring into the kingdom.
The Biblical Illustrator sheds some light on this:
"Joh_21:11. An hundred and fifty and three [ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν].—The Evangelist’s primary intention in reporting the number of the whole mass of great fishes was, manifestly, to render prominent the miraculousness of the fact that the net was nevertheless untorn. The trait that the number (153), as a number, is not symbolical, speaks very decidedly in favor of the historic truthfulness of the narrative in opposition to the assumption of its being a tradition (Strauss), or the work of an apocryphal narrator.
The attempt has indeed been made to construe the number materially as a symbolical one. Ammonius: The number 100=the Gentiles, 50=the Jews, 3=the Trinity. 10 Jerome and Köstlin: Oppian counted 153 species of fish, ergo the universality of species=the universality of the nations entering the net of the Gospel. “Which statement, as far as Oppian is concerned rests upon a mistake.”
Recently, some one has even, conceived it to be his duty to work out the name: of Simon [son of] Jonas, by means of numerical allegory (Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 135).
We do not consider the number as symbolical, but the numbering does appear to us in that light. The elect, who form the main element of the Church, are’ great and numbered fishes. And great and numerous as the elect of the congregated mass may be, they are not the ones who break the net Of the Church. It is the maxim of all the elect: first Christ, then the Church. John is moreover always fond of stating numbers; for instance, the 200 cubits, Joh_21:8; Joh_6:10, etc."
I do not believe Christ wants any of us to be superstitiously chasing numbers, counting chapters, verses &c, coming up with mathematical equations thereby which prove absolutely nothing. One whose mind is preoccupied with these things is wasting valuable time that could be spent on examining and understanding the Gospel, Christ, God's attributes &c and glorying in these things, expounding Scripture, not in searching for signs.
The Biblical Illustrator sheds some light on this:
"Joh_21:11. An hundred and fifty and three [ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν].—The Evangelist’s primary intention in reporting the number of the whole mass of great fishes was, manifestly, to render prominent the miraculousness of the fact that the net was nevertheless untorn. The trait that the number (153), as a number, is not symbolical, speaks very decidedly in favor of the historic truthfulness of the narrative in opposition to the assumption of its being a tradition (Strauss), or the work of an apocryphal narrator.
The attempt has indeed been made to construe the number materially as a symbolical one. Ammonius: The number 100=the Gentiles, 50=the Jews, 3=the Trinity. 10 Jerome and Köstlin: Oppian counted 153 species of fish, ergo the universality of species=the universality of the nations entering the net of the Gospel. “Which statement, as far as Oppian is concerned rests upon a mistake.”
Recently, some one has even, conceived it to be his duty to work out the name: of Simon [son of] Jonas, by means of numerical allegory (Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 135).
We do not consider the number as symbolical, but the numbering does appear to us in that light. The elect, who form the main element of the Church, are’ great and numbered fishes. And great and numerous as the elect of the congregated mass may be, they are not the ones who break the net Of the Church. It is the maxim of all the elect: first Christ, then the Church. John is moreover always fond of stating numbers; for instance, the 200 cubits, Joh_21:8; Joh_6:10, etc."
- end -
It appears in the above we have always had those who are superstitiously minded attempt to make more out of the number than what is intended. The historical narrative was confirmed in the amount of fishes taken. The amount of fishes pulled in by Peter must have been an unbelievable amount captured in one net, hard for others to accept as an accurate account. The catch itself was, I believe, miraculous.
I do not believe Christ wants any of us to be superstitiously chasing numbers, counting chapters, verses &c, coming up with mathematical equations thereby which prove absolutely nothing. One whose mind is preoccupied with these things is wasting valuable time that could be spent on examining and understanding the Gospel, Christ, God's attributes &c and glorying in these things, expounding Scripture, not in searching for signs.
Last edited: