The ever-changing ESV Bible
- Thread starter John146
- 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.
in the language it is called "Yam Suph"
go have a look at what "suph" means in any lexicon.
& this is an objection that has been raised since the 11th century, at least - shouldn't be hard for you to find some info on it. in fact if you dig into the literature and media presentations of any serious Biblical archaeologist on the subject of the exodus, you should see very quickly what honest scholarship points to.
go have a look at what "suph" means in any lexicon.
& this is an objection that has been raised since the 11th century, at least - shouldn't be hard for you to find some info on it. in fact if you dig into the literature and media presentations of any serious Biblical archaeologist on the subject of the exodus, you should see very quickly what honest scholarship points to.
the ever-changing KJV.
this is exactly the intention of the translators of the king james version in 1611: first, their own work was to improve existing English translations, and they fully expected, intended and hoped for continuous work to go on correcting errors and refining the work of translation into whatever the common tongue is, because in order for the scripture to be read, it must be understood.
it is the express intent and expectation of the translators of the KJV that new versions continue to be made.
have a look at the preface to the 1611 version:
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/KJVPref.pdf
and if their archaic speech is too difficult for you, here's a good article beginning to explain it in your own common tongue:
http://sharperiron.org/article/embarrassing-preface-to-king-james-version
have you looked it up?
or are you happy to simply dismiss the actual words of scripture?
it's no issue to you at all to just toss it away and ignore it?
well that's interesting.
i can provide the definition of the word for you, of course, but i don't want to risk offending you by accidentally using some evil "modern" dictionary.
and it seems very apparent that though you say "i'm here to listen" you are not listening to me; if you were, you would be looking that Hebrew up for yourself to determine the truth. i don't expect that you will accept what i say - i expect and clearly understand ((your polite platitudes notwithstanding)) that you count me among the "greatly deceived" since i'm obviously not part of the "KJV-only" crowd that this issue falsely divides believers into.
therefore in deference to you, i'm asking you to go look it up for yourself.
go and see what the literal translation of "yam suph" is.
not the "tradition of men" about what this should be rendered into English as.
what is the literal translation of this into English?
use whatever source you think is best. i'm well aware that you do not think i am the best source.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
the NASB by the way, also translates what is literally "sea of reeds" in the original text of scripture as "red sea"
this mistranslation was introduced into English by the KJV and has become tradition; almost all English translations copy this mistake.
answering my own question, having found no help from you, Fred, i found that the "Aramaic Bible in plain English" and the ISV both use "sea of reeds"
or are you happy to simply dismiss the actual words of scripture?
it's no issue to you at all to just toss it away and ignore it?
well that's interesting.
i can provide the definition of the word for you, of course, but i don't want to risk offending you by accidentally using some evil "modern" dictionary.
and it seems very apparent that though you say "i'm here to listen" you are not listening to me; if you were, you would be looking that Hebrew up for yourself to determine the truth. i don't expect that you will accept what i say - i expect and clearly understand ((your polite platitudes notwithstanding)) that you count me among the "greatly deceived" since i'm obviously not part of the "KJV-only" crowd that this issue falsely divides believers into.
therefore in deference to you, i'm asking you to go look it up for yourself.
go and see what the literal translation of "yam suph" is.
not the "tradition of men" about what this should be rendered into English as.
what is the literal translation of this into English?
use whatever source you think is best. i'm well aware that you do not think i am the best source.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
the NASB by the way, also translates what is literally "sea of reeds" in the original text of scripture as "red sea"
this mistranslation was introduced into English by the KJV and has become tradition; almost all English translations copy this mistake.
answering my own question, having found no help from you, Fred, i found that the "Aramaic Bible in plain English" and the ISV both use "sea of reeds"
Hi Post,
Yes of course, I am here to listen to your post but commanding me to look up that's different. For the Hebrew, I am not adept with that language. Of course I can google that as easy as I can but who gives the authority of your finding, is the lexicon? Is lexicon above the Word of God and is not translation the Word of God? Yes you found two English version that it was "sea of reeds" where else? The many witnesses says Red Sea and according to the "Biblical Rock of Honesty" used Red Sea. Are you saying that NASB is dishonest and all other translation the same?
Now for the mis-translation is due to KJV? why in a world is that when new versions with their most updated mss and everything still used Red Sea as against two you mentioned.
Let me know more please...
God bless
Yes of course, I am here to listen to your post but commanding me to look up that's different. For the Hebrew, I am not adept with that language. Of course I can google that as easy as I can but who gives the authority of your finding, is the lexicon? Is lexicon above the Word of God and is not translation the Word of God? Yes you found two English version that it was "sea of reeds" where else? The many witnesses says Red Sea and according to the "Biblical Rock of Honesty" used Red Sea. Are you saying that NASB is dishonest and all other translation the same?
Now for the mis-translation is due to KJV? why in a world is that when new versions with their most updated mss and everything still used Red Sea as against two you mentioned.
Let me know more please...
God bless
U
I saw no command given. Which means you are twisting what someone says in an attempt to play the victim. This is done to discredit another person as well. But since no command was given, instead of looking like the poor victim of a bully, instead you appear to be manipulative. Which serves only to discredit you and make you look weak and desperate.
E
Here's the gospel, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 NASB:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, [SUP]2[/SUP]by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. [SUP]3 [/SUP]For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [SUP]4 [/SUP]and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
So whats your point?
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, [SUP]2[/SUP]by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. [SUP]3 [/SUP]For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [SUP]4 [/SUP]and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
So whats your point?
The preface to the 1611 King James bible clearly implies that they both are God's word. Your dichotomy is groundless.
You have this indefensible idea that God's word can only be one set of English words. That is false, and betrays a massive lack of understanding about translation and about the Bible. You keep bringing up God's promise to preserve His word for all generations... if that were the case, what about the English Bibles before 1611 (which are not the same as the KJV)? Were they God's word or not? If not, then either God's promise failed, or your understanding of God's promise is faulty. If you do consider them God's word, then you have no reason to think the ESV or NASB is not God's word. You're being inconsistent and illogical.
You have this indefensible idea that God's word can only be one set of English words. That is false, and betrays a massive lack of understanding about translation and about the Bible. You keep bringing up God's promise to preserve His word for all generations... if that were the case, what about the English Bibles before 1611 (which are not the same as the KJV)? Were they God's word or not? If not, then either God's promise failed, or your understanding of God's promise is faulty. If you do consider them God's word, then you have no reason to think the ESV or NASB is not God's word. You're being inconsistent and illogical.
Last edited: