Version Difference Question

[KJV1611]

Amos 9:14King James Version (KJV)

14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

Amos 9:14New International Version (NIV)

14and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[a]

They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyardsand drink their wine;
They will make gardens and eat their fruit.

Why does the KJV say that God will agian bring about the captivity of Israel but the NIV says exactly the opposite? The NIV says that God will bring Israel back from exile.

 

[oldhermit]

Because their captivity was exile. They had been exiled out of their own land into the lands of their captors.

 

[Willie-T]

This is the clear danger of going by "words literally translated" (KJV), and the more accurate translation of the INTENT of the passages.

 

[KJV1611]

Because their captivity was exile. They had been exiled out of their own land into the lands of their captors.

Which captivity are you talking about Oldhermit?

 

[MarcR]

Amos 9:14King James Version (KJV)

14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

Amos 9:14New International Version (NIV)

14and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[a]

They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyardsand drink their wine;
They will make gardens and eat their fruit.

Why does the KJV say that God will agian bring about the captivity of Israel but the NIV says exactly the opposite? The NIV says that God will bring Israel back from exile.

Actually in early 17th century English, the KJV meant exactly what the ESV or NIV mean now.

The language has changed in 400 years.

In 1587, the well known drama critic, Ben Johnson, reviewed Shakespeare's Othello, calling it awful and artificial.

At the time awful meant awesome, and artificial meant well crafted.

 

[KJV1611]

Actually in early 17th century English, the KJV meant exactly what the ESV or NIV mean now.

The language has changed in 400 years.

In 1587, the well known drama critic, Ben Johnson, reviewed Shakespeare's Othello, calling it awful and artificial.

At the time awful meant awesome, and artificial meant well crafted.

Did the Hebrew word mean something different also?

H7622
שׁבית שׁבוּת
shebûth shebı̂yth
sheb-ooth', sheb-eeth'
From H7617; exile; concretely prisoners; figuratively a former state of prosperity: - captive (-ity).

 

[oldhermit]

Which captivity are you talking about Oldhermit?

The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.

 

[Agricola]

Did the Hebrew word mean something different also?

H7622
שׁבית שׁבוּת
shebûth shebı̂yth
sheb-ooth', sheb-eeth'
From H7617; exile; concretely prisoners; figuratively a former state of prosperity: - captive (-ity).

According to Strongs it means Exile as well, so what point are you trying to prove? All languages have words unique to that language and English is not a perfect language, there aer plenty of words in use around the world which need whole sentances to describe properly in English. Hebrew and Greek are no different.

 

[posthuman]

Amos 9:14King James Version (KJV)

14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

Amos 9:14New International Version (NIV)

14and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[a]

They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyardsand drink their wine;
They will make gardens and eat their fruit.

Why does the KJV say that God will agian bring about the captivity of Israel but the NIV says exactly the opposite? The NIV says that God will bring Israel back from exile.

our language has changed.

think of it like this:

if you take something and put it in a box, stick it in a closet, and then later "bring it again" -- you've taken it out of the closet and the box, right?

it's saying the same thing just in archaic language. the captivity (Israel) is 'brought again' i.e. removed from captivity.

 

[posthuman]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: maintext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: top, width: 17%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]Str[/TD]
[TD="class: top, width: 20%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]Translit[/TD]
[TD="class: top, width: 20%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]Hebrew[/TD]
[TD="class: top, width: 25%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]English[/TD]
[TD="class: top, width: 18%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]Morph[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]7725 [e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]wə-šaḇ-tî[/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew2"]וְשַׁבְתִּי֮[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]And I will bring again[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Verb[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]853 [e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]’eṯ-[/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew2"]אֶת־[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]-[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Acc[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]7622 [e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]šə-ḇūṯ[/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew2"]שְׁב֣וּת[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]the captivity[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Noun[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]5971 [e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]‘am-mî[/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew2"]עַמִּ֣י[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]of my people[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Noun[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

click on that first word, 7725.

it's variously translated "restore" or "return" -- we're not looking at a translation error, just a change over the last few hundred years in the way English is spoken and understood.
obviously they are not restored into captivity, but restored out of ​captivity - brought out again from prison, as it were.

 

[dcontroversal]

Add Amos to Isaiah and the time frame seems to be pointing to the period following the destruction describe at the end of the age......they will rebuild the waste cities...notice Isaiah 52:9, 58:12, 61:4,

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Why does the KJV say that God will agian bring about the captivity of Israel but the NIV says exactly the opposite? The NIV says that God will bring Israel back from exile.

Actually, your belief that the KJV says God will return Israel to captivity is a misinterpretation on your part. The KJV says, in an archaic form, the exact same thing the NIV, the NASB, the HCSB, the ESV, and a host of other modern and ancient versions of God's word says.

Look at what you posted from the KJV:

Amos 9, KJV
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
​

In the Old English in which the KJV is written, "bring again" is still the same Hebrew word in the NIV, NASB, etc. That word is bwX (shuwb), and it means "return, turn back." In other words, the captivity ends. How else would Israel build the cities and live in them, plant vineyards and drink the wine from them, plant gardens from which they eat? The verse is self-explanatory.

The effort to paint the NIV as saying something different is nothing short of disingenuousness on the part of "Onlyists" who wish to cling to the false belief the KJV is inspired separate from the original languages. That is a false concept.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

Actually, your belief that the KJV says God will return Israel to captivity is a misinterpretation on your part. The KJV says, in an archaic form, the exact same thing the NIV, the NASB, the HCSB, the ESV, and a host of other modern and ancient versions of God's word says.

Look at what you posted from the KJV:

Amos 9, KJV
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
​

In the Old English in which the KJV is written, "bring again" is still the same Hebrew word in the NIV, NASB, etc. That word is bwX (shuwb), and it means "return, turn back." In other words, the captivity ends. How else would Israel build the cities and live in them, plant vineyards and drink the wine from them, plant gardens from which they eat? The verse is self-explanatory.

The effort to paint the NIV as saying something different is nothing short of disingenuousness on the part of "Onlyists" who wish to cling to the false belief the KJV is inspired separate from the original languages. That is a false concept.

And KJ onlyists wonder why the have doctrinal issues.

 

[posthuman]

reading Shakespeare helps me understand the KJV's prose:

Take, O, take those lips away,​
That so sweetly were forsworn;​	​
And those eyes, the break of day,​	​
Lights that do mislead the morn:​
But my kisses bring again, bring again;​	​
Seals of love, but sealed in vain, sealed in vain. ​

(from Measure for Measure, Act IV Scene I)
​

here the speaker laments that kisses restore promises of love that were in vain -- they 'bring again' or 'restore' what was forsworn and forsaken.
in Amos, 'the captivity' refers to the people, not to the action or state of being captive. it is the people being 'brought again' - not the bondage.
the way the NIV renders it is a lot more clear to modern English speakers.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

reading Shakespeare helps me understand the KJV's prose:

Take, O, take those lips away,​
That so sweetly were forsworn;​	​
And those eyes, the break of day,​	​
Lights that do mislead the morn:​
But my kisses bring again, bring again;​	​
Seals of love, but sealed in vain, sealed in vain. ​

(from Measure for Measure, Act IV Scene I)
​

here the speaker laments that kisses restore promises of love that were in vain -- they 'bring again' or 'restore' what was forsworn and forsaken.
in Amos, 'the captivity' refers to the people, not to the action or state of being captive. it is the people being 'brought again' - not the bondage.
the way the NIV renders it is a lot more clear to modern English speakers.

I like the NASB rendering of Amos 9.14:
“Also I will restore the [SUP][a][/SUP]captivity of My people Israel,
And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them;
They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine,
And make gardens and eat their fruit.

Here is the ESV:
I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,
and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,
and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.

 

[KJV1611]

I find it absolutely fascinating that people who don't understand some things in the bible take words and flip them upside down from their real meaning to support their misconceptions. Please show me how you guys twist the Hebrew word H7622 to mean bring Israel back into the land. Excile means the state of being barred from one's native country.

H7622
שׁבית שׁבוּת
shebûth shebı̂yth
sheb-ooth', sheb-eeth'
From H7617; exile; concretely prisoners; figuratively a former state of prosperity: - captive (-ity).

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I find it absolutely fascinating that people who don't understand some things in the bible take words and flip them upside down from their real meaning to support their misconceptions. Please show me how you guys twist the Hebrew word H7622 to mean bring Israel back into the land. Excile means the state of being barred from one's native country.

H7622
שׁבית שׁבוּת
shebûth shebı̂yth
sheb-ooth', sheb-eeth'
From H7617; exile; concretely prisoners; figuratively a former state of prosperity: - captive (-ity)

Note that the Strong's number you cite is not a noun, not a verb. Yet you want to use the definition of the verb form in this sentence. That leaves the sentence without a subject. See, in your own post the second entry, the phrase "concretely prisoners." It's a noun, not a verb meaning "to imprison," and is the proper understanding of the word rendered "captivity" in the English versions.

These verbs, by your understanding, would be "bring again" or as the NASB renders it, "restore," Strong's #H7625, while simultaneously using "captivity" -- Strong's #H7622 -- as a verb in the aforementioned meaning, imprisonment. Your problem is, that leaves no subject for the action of either verb. Therefore, "captivity" has to be a noun describing the people of Israel.

Christians using such subterfuge to promote a false and completely frivolous concept is the kind of false teaching Christ warned us would lead us away from our focus on Him, where in times like these it particularly needs to be.

 

[valiant]

Amos 9:14King James Version (KJV)

14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

Amos 9:14New International Version (NIV)

14and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[a]

They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyardsand drink their wine;
They will make gardens and eat their fruit.

Why does the KJV say that God will agian bring about the captivity of Israel but the NIV says exactly the opposite? The NIV says that God will bring Israel back from exile.

The verb shub means bring back, return, and 'cause to return'. The AGAIN is not there in Hebrew. KJV assumes it from the verb. It must not be emphasised. The point was that God's promise was that they would again be in their own land because He would restore them from exile.

 

[posthuman]

I find it absolutely fascinating that people who don't understand some things in the bible take words and flip them upside down from their real meaning to support their misconceptions. Please show me how you guys twist the Hebrew word H7622 to mean bring Israel back into the land. Exile means the state of being barred from one's native country.

well, what do you think? that the NIV and ESV and all the others that tried to render the Hebrew into English in a way that we could easily understand have it wrong?

do you think through Amos, the Lord is saying He will send them back into exile?
let's all have a look at some of the immediate context:

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.
13 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.

​

this is obviously speaking of restoration out of captivity - right?
how does a people taken out of their land rebuild their own waste cities?
how could He be speaking of being put again into a state of exile and at the same time being planted upon their land?

​

 

[MarcR]

Did the Hebrew word mean something different also?

H7622
שׁבית שׁבוּת
shebûth shebı̂yth
sheb-ooth', sheb-eeth'
From H7617; exile; concretely prisoners; figuratively a former state of prosperity: - captive (-ity).

Am 9:14
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
KJV
Amos 9:14New International Version (NIV)

14and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[a]

They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyardsand drink their wine;
They will make gardens and eat their fruit.




will bring again In17th century English, 'again' was a short form of against. the sense intended is that it will be reversed or overturned.