Which Bible?

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

Not sure what does Luke have to do with it.

It was Stephen talking. And remember, Septuagint (OT used by the first church) has 75 which is the right number referred by Stephen.

So no "two different countings" (how can you count 'all souls' differently? All means all), but two different text sources.

Your response was to John146's comment which cited Acts. My apologies if I read that wrong. It's just a way to understand that accounting by two authors may be slightly different yet still harmonize correctly with the scriptures.

I would be careful to make the assumption that the Septuagint/LXX was and is the bible used by the first church. It also has some errors, and there is no definitive proof that they indeed used the Septuagint.

 

[KJV1611]

This is an easy one. The reason for the difference between the KJV and the NASB is that the KJV translators........






wait for it








it's coming






made an error in translation.

The Aramaic word used is elahin (the plural of elah) therefore son of the gods would be the correct translation. You have to remember that Nebuchadnezzar would have been a polytheist therefore believing that the fourth being on the furnace was a son of one of the numerous gods that he believed in. He was not referencing the Son of God. As Hornetguy already said though the KJV's error in no way substantially changes facts of the story as it pertains to Christian theology.

This Greek Aramaic Hebrew stuff is so confusing. Where do you get elahin from? The Aramaic word from Blue letter bible is elahh.

 

[BrokenSparrow]

I always read the King James version. I just like it better. I think that when they keep translating or revising Bible's it just keeps watering it down and much of the meaning may be lost in translation. That's just how I feel about it. I'm not saying that it is wrong to read other things than the King James or that you can't be saved if you don't read the King James. I just like it better and feel more at ease reading it.

 

[trofimus]

Your response was to John146's comment which cited Acts. My apologies if I read that wrong. It's just a way to understand that accounting by two authors may be slightly different yet still harmonize correctly with the scriptures.

I would be careful to make the assumption that the Septuagint/LXX was and is the bible used by the first church. It also has some errors, and there is no definitive proof that they indeed used the Septuagint.

Actually, such things like Stephen talking about the count of souls are proofs Septuagint was used.

Yes, LXX has also errors (my belief, I do not know of any), I am not LXX Only guy. I just trust it more than the massoretic text edited by antichristian Jews.

The number of souls is written in Genesis only. So I have no idea how would Luke or anybody else be able to count it differently. Count from what?

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

Actually, such things like Stephen talking about the count of souls are proofs Septuagint was used.

Yes, LXX has also errors (my belief, I do not know of any), I am not LXX Only guy. I just trust it more than the massoretic text edited by antichristian Jews.

The number of souls is written in Genesis only. So I have no idea how would Luke or anybody else be able to count it differently. Count from what?

When it comes to the OT, I would argue the Masoretic Text is a bit more accurate than the LXX. You do know that the KJV did utilize the LXX in the translation. It was one of the many manuscripts examined for the translation.

 

[trofimus]

When it comes to the OT, I would argue the Masoretic Text is a bit more accurate than the LXX.

Why do you think so? Many quotations of OT in NT differs significantly from massoretic text. Mainly the messianic ones.

But my point was not to prove LXX is better than MSS, rather to prove KJV translators saw what number NT is using and still used the wrong one in OT. And so got inconsistency which must be explained by the proponents of KJV' infallibility in some funny way (why 70 = 75).

You do know that the KJV did utilize the LXX in the translation. It was one of the many manuscripts examined for the translation.

I have read something like that.. but I actually do not study KJV that much.

 

[KJV1611]

Trofimus I couldn't find any bible translatation where Luke and Isaiah match, are there any that you know of?

 

[trofimus]

Trofimus I couldn't find any bible translatation where Luke and Isaiah match, are there any that you know of?

Luke and Isaiah? What verse?

 

[KJV1611]

Luke and Isaiah? What verse?

The ones we have been talking about - Isaiah 61-1 and Luke 4:18.

 

[trofimus]

The ones we have been talking about - Isaiah 61-1 and Luke 4:18.

It was not a discussion with me, probably... I know nothing about this

I am discussing Acts 7:14 vs Genesis 46:27.

 

[Oncefallen]

This Greek Aramaic Hebrew stuff is so confusing. Where do you get elahin from? The Aramaic word from Blue letter bible is elahh.

I had to take a look at Blue Letter so we were both looking at the same thing. Both on Blue Letter and q Bible (a resource I frequently use) when you click on the Strong's number the word it brings up is elah which is the root word, not necessarily the form of the word used in the text.

The think I like about q Bible is that it allows you to compare numerous translations side by side including the Full Hebrew Names KJV that changes any name to the original Hebrew or Aramiac transliteration

Full Hebrew Names / Holy Name KJV (2008) [2] [3]
— He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of elahin.

and also gives the Hebrew Concordance with the Strongs

He answered 6032 z8750 and said, 560 z8750 Lo, 1888 I 576 see 2370 z8751 four 703 men 1400 loose, 8271 z8750 walking 1981 z8683 in the midst 1459 of the fire, 5135 and they have 383 no 3809 hurt; 2257 and the form 7299 of x1768 the fourth 7244 is like 1821 z8751 the Son 1247 of ´élähîn

If you click on the "Hebrew" button above, it will show you the chapter in question in original Hebrew script and along side the Hebrew transliteration which also shows elahin as the word used

 

[trofimus]

I always read the King James version. I just like it better. I think that when they keep translating or revising Bible's it just keeps watering it down and much of the meaning may be lost in translation. That's just how I feel about it. I'm not saying that it is wrong to read other things than the King James or that you can't be saved if you don't read the King James. I just like it better and feel more at ease reading it.

There is nothing that can be said against this.

Most of us have problems only when somebody says "KJV is perfect" or "all other translations are evil".

 

[KJV1611]

I had to take a look at Blue Letter so we were both looking at the same thing. Both on Blue Letter and q Bible (a resource I frequently use) when you click on the Strong's number the word it brings up is elah which is the root word, not necessarily the form of the word used in the text.

The think I like about q Bible is that it allows you to compare numerous translations side by side including the Full Hebrew Names KJV that changes any name to the original Hebrew or Aramiac transliteration

Full Hebrew Names / Holy Name KJV (2008) [2] [3]
— He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of elahin.

and also gives the Hebrew Concordance with the Strongs

He answered 6032 z8750 and said, 560 z8750 Lo, 1888 I 576 see 2370 z8751 four 703 men 1400 loose, 8271 z8750 walking 1981 z8683 in the midst 1459 of the fire, 5135 and they have 383 no 3809 hurt; 2257 and the form 7299 of x1768 the fourth 7244 is like 1821 z8751 the Son 1247 of ´élähîn

If you click on the "Hebrew" button above, it will show you the chapter in question in original Hebrew script and along side the Hebrew transliteration which also shows elahin as the word used

I tried to use qBible to see what the Aramaic word was from the ASV (I think) but there were no options that i could see to view the Aramaic.

So is the pural or no plural an issue with the manuscript line? in other words is the KJV is singular because the manuscript it was translated from was singular and the other versions are plural because the manuscript they were translated from was plural.... Seriously I'm confused and still don't know where the plural comes from.

 

[Grace777x70]

Here is a link to every place the very same Hebrew words as was used in Daniel 3:25 and you can see it means "gods".

In every place the KJV translated it accurately as "gods" except for the one place where it said in Dan. 3:25 about the One being in the furnace with them. The KJV translators put in their own "interpretation" and "bias" into the scripture - plain as day.

Does this make it bad?..No, of course not. It makes in a translation and a "version" just like the other works of translation. Every translation has this "bias"in some places.

Again it is a pagan guy making this statement - it is not a statement of doctrine being expressed here.

Click this link below and you can see everyplace the same Hebrew word was used.

Hebrew Concordance: ’ĕ·lā·hîn -- 9 Occurrences

Just wanted to leave this before I go. Have a good night everyone!

If you click on the blue link in the above post - it will take you to every place in Daniel where the "plural" form of "gods" is used and as you can see the KJV uses the plural in every place but the Dan. 3:25 one.

They clearly added their own bias and interpretation to the text because in every other place the KJV accurately translated the "plural" Hebrew word as "gods"...except for Dan. 3:25

 

[hornetguy]

Thanks to oncefallen and Grace777 for clearing that up.... I didn't know how to find the original words, Arabic or Greek, or Hebrew...whatever it was....

and, even though it's a "mis-translation" in the KJV, I STILL would have no problem trusting the KJV to be the word of God. Just as I do several other translations.

Just as we've said all along.... there is no "perfect" translation.... but we do have the words of God... in several translations, that are completely trustworthy, and I firmly believe those words have been preserved by God, for ALL nations..just as He intended.

 

[Dan_473]

The ones we have been talking about - Isaiah 61-1 and Luke 4:18.

I think you were talking to me.

we can go into more details if you want, but the bottom line is that they just don't match.

to me this says the Bible isn't word-perfect... but the doctrine is maintained.

 

[fredoheaven]

I believe the KJV text “ is given by inspiration of God.” No doubts about the “originals”, I believe it was given by inspiration; however, it’s non-existent. Inspiration has something to do with words only and not the authors or translators. What God preserved is “All scripture, that is really a scripture, or the written words and if we call KJV, the words of God, it is a scripture given to the English speaking world by inspiration. Translated words of God in a pure, without admixture of errors in any language preserves the words of God given by inspiration. Hence, the inspiration of the Bible may also be achieved in every language. It so happen here in the Philippines, we have none yet, so that we used English and I used KJV. Anyway we can just expound truth in our vernacular language. Translation is a very difficult thing to do. Not to boast, I have been tasked to translate an English Bible tract into Tagalog by a friend although it got printed but there are negative comments from other local believers, so that it just not continue. What I am pointing is that it is likely impossible to have100 translations or more for Filipinos and the same time millions of Christians will starve in their spiritual growth merely because of this translation issue as one is pointing about. Many of the Christian churches here in the Philippines were using English versions in their pulpits though unaware of the issue which we are then discussing.

My other thoughts about none pure Filipino bible besides we have more than 100 dialects or vernacular languages is that, English is also used in our teaching schools or system of education so that mostly can read, write and understand English. Of course not to be compared with those who natively speak it like Bristish, US, Canada, Australia etc. but at the least we are not ignorant about it.

If I understand, it is not the copying of manuscripts that is inspired. The copies of the originals itself is given by inspiration but not the act of copying or translating. If this is true, this will pave way that authors or translators are inspired, the same way His words are inspired. Only the scripture is given by inspiration. The challenged of being “moved by the Holy Ghost” is not about inspiration. Not all that is being moved by the Holy Spirit does make it’s inspiration. The Bible does not say that Balaam’s ass was inspired or gets his inspiration but only moved by the Holy Ghost to speak to Balaam. Tertius who wrote the book of Romans is only moved by the Holy Ghost as Apostle dictates to him what God says of him.

Being born again Christian, I still have in my bookshelf my 5 English critical Study Bibles, I have the KJV Criswell Study Bible, New Scofield Reference Bible, KJV Study Bible which all tends to be more critical, the NIV Study Bible and the Revised Version with it’s footnotes. Going in through a simple study of God’s word lead me to what I believe in the KJV. At least, I have interacted with both camps since 2008 while I believe there might be some slight differing views in the KJV only-iest. Some just give preference to it,. While my view is pure, preserve and is given by inspiration. I believe it, The Bible KJV is my FINAL AUTHORITY.

I need to add, there are no contradictions in the KJV. There are seeming contradictions. Anyone who deals with this argument fails to recognize the Holy Spirit ministry or perhaps hasn’t done any study yet. One must work through a line upon line, comparing spiritual things principle of Bible study not “online” study as many do.

God bless to all!

 

[trofimus]

I need to add, there are no contradictions in the KJV. There are seeming contradictions. Anyone who deals with this argument fails to recognize the Holy Spirit ministry or perhaps hasn’t done any study yet. One must work through a line upon line, comparing spiritual things principle of Bible study not “online” study as many do.

1. KJV is perfect, because there are no errors in it.

2. And any error that is presented is not a true error, because KJV is perfect.

Any idea how you can come to truth being caught in such thinking?

 

[hornetguy]

I need to add, there are no contradictions in the KJV. There are seeming contradictions.

Sorry, brother, but that has been proven wrong in quite a few instances.... If you choose to ignore/minimize them, then that's your issue.
There are no errors that change the message, or the intent of the scripture, but errors are there, nonetheless... it is not "perfect". There is no such translation.

 

[John146]

and, even though it's a "mis-translation" in the KJV, I STILL would have no problem trusting the KJV to be the word of God. Just as I do several other translations.

Just as we've said all along.... there is no "perfect" translation.... but we do have the words of God... in several translations, that are completely trustworthy, and I firmly believe those words have been preserved by God, for ALL nations..just as He intended.

You say the KJV has errors and then call it the word of God. I believe God's words are without error. If it is indeed God's word, then it contains no errors. God's word would be perfect and without error. I would never say that God's word has errors.

It either is God's word or it's not. Same for all the rest of the translations. They are or they are not.