There is a thing called "God's perfect timing." Why did God wait 4,000 years to send His only begotten Son?
-
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.
There is a thing called "God's perfect timing." Why did God wait 4,000 years to send His only begotten Son?
Thank you wwjd. That's what I was trying to post to show elah - singular. Do you know why this is different than what Grace777 was posting?That is a bit more difficult, as it won't let me copy the same way when the text is all backwards .p
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 God
עָנֵה וְאָמַר הָֽא־אֲנָה חָזֵה גֻּבְרִין אַרְבְּעָה שְׁרַיִן מַהְלְכִין
בְּגֹֽוא־נוּרָא וַחֲבָל לָא־אִיתַי בְּהֹון וְרֵוֵהּ דִּי רביעיא דָּמֵה
לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃ ס
Reverse Interlinear
He answered h6032 עֲנָה `anah (Aramaic) 
and said h560 אֲמַר 'amar (Aramaic) Lo h1888 הָא he' (Aramaic) I h576 אֲנָא 'ana' (Aramaic) see h2370 חֲזָא chaza' (Aramaic) four h703 אַרְבַּע 'arba` (Aramaic) men h1400 גְּבַר gĕbar (Aramaic) loose h8271 שְׂרָה shĕre' (Aramaic) walking h1981 הֲלַךְ halak (Aramaic) in the midst h1459 גַּו gav (Aramaic) of the fire h5135 נוּר nuwr (Aramaic) and they have h383 אִיתַי 'iythay (Aramaic) no h3809 לָא la' (Aramaic) hurt h2257 חֲבַל chabal (Aramaic) and the form h7299 רֵו rev (Aramaic) of the fourth h7244 רְבִיעַי rĕbiy`ay (Aramaic) is like h1821 דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic) the Son h1247 בַּר bar (Aramaic) of God h426 אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 6"][/TD]
לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃ ס
I'm still checking it out brother.
Do you know what is meant by "house of Jacob"? It seems to mean sons and grandson's from Jacob's loins.
It looks like it is in Aramaic and not Hebrew. Some parts of Daniel are written in Aramaic. This particular verse in Daniel, along with the whole section 2:4b-7:28 is in the Aramaic language, rather than in Hebrew like most of the rest of the Old Testament.
Here is an article that addresses the Aramaic portion of Daniel and describes the difference between Aramaic usage and Hebrew. It is definitely in the "plural" form of "gods".
SON OF GOD OR A SON OF THE GODS (DANIEL 3:25) ?
Here is a little quote:
Elahin is a masculine plural noun, denoting “gods”; the singular form is elah, or, with the definite article attached, elaha. The Arabic equivalent in allah. The Hebrew equivalent of elahin is Elohim.
When we examine the Aramaic portion of the OT (besides Daniel 2:4b-7:28, Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Jeremiah 10:11 are also in Aramaic), we discover that there is a clear distinction between the use of the plural form elahin and the singular elaha. When the true God is spoken of, the singular elaha is invariably used (the singular is also used of false gods when referred to individually, as in Daniel 3:14; 4:5; etc.).
The plural form elahin is used only of false gods, especially in the phrase, “the spirit of the holy gods” (4:5; 4:6; 5:11; etc.), words spoken by pagan polytheists from their perspective. The use of the plural form with reference to the one true God does not occur in the Aramaic portion of the OT. It must also be noted that the phrase bar-elahin in Daniel 3:25 does not have the definite article in the original Aramaic; that would be bar-elahayya.
UNQUOTE:
Last edited:
Ok, the Lord showed me the answer... here it is:I'm still checking it out brother.
Genesis 46:26 KJV
All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six;
All the souls that came WITH (very important word in this passage) Jacob into Egypt which came out of Jacob's loins, EXCLUDING (another important word) the wives, were 66.
Genesis 46:27 KJV
And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
So we have 66 who came WITH Jacob into Egypt.
+
Josephs 2 sons which were BORN in Egypt.
+
Joseph who was already in Egypt.
+
Jacob who CAME into Egypt.
So we have 66 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 70. So all the souls from the house of Jacob (excluding wives) that came into Egypt were 70 souls.
Genesis 46:27 KJV
And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
Last edited:
Ok, I'm sorry... I got excited and didn't finish the whole thing. Ive only proved that the KJV is right in Genesis by using the number 70. So to continue:
Acts 7:14 KJV
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him , and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
Here in Acts the writer says that Joseph called his father and ALL HIS KINDRED, not just the house of Jacob, but also the wives to come down to Egypt.
Acts 7:14 KJV
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him , and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
Here in Acts the writer says that Joseph called his father and ALL HIS KINDRED, not just the house of Jacob, but also the wives to come down to Egypt.
Here is a resource that looks at the claims that KJV is the only real bible. It makes for some really compelling things when you look at it.
www.kjvonly.org -
www.kjvonly.org -
I'll check it out and see if there's anything I havent seen before. Those things always increase my trust in the KJV.
I'll check it out and see if there's anything I havent seen before. Those things always increase my trust in the KJV.
I like the KJ version. It is my second one I read. In cases of that "uneasiness in my spirit" - that something is not quite right - where the Spirit is witnessing that all is not right here - I go to the Greek but without the Holy Spirit giving us the revelation - it is just something we try to figure out in our own minds. We are at His mercy and we are totally reliant on Him for all things.
I have found a bias in some places here and there in every version I have looked at so far.
If you really want to understand why I'm KJV only, check out the explanation of the 70 75 "mistranslation" above... I've had that same scenario come up with other passages many many times and it always turns out that the KJV is always right.
They use a terrible background made to look like paper but it has too much of a patterned grain in it making the text difficult to read
Still I looked at it because I am interested. Here is some of what Robert Joyner had to say on obsolete words:ARCHAIC EXPRESSIONS
In the KJV you run into outdated expressions which the modern American could never understand without help.
In I Samuel 30:31 the KJV says, “Where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.” Five times the KJV uses the expression, “Fetch a compass” (examples: II Sam. 5:23; Acts 28:13). In Matt. 27:44 it says, “They cast the same in his teeth.” In Mark 9:18 the KJV says, “And pineth away.” In Gal. 4:24 it says, “Which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” In James 1:21 we are told to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.”
The reader will never know what these obsolete expressions mean unless he looks them up in another source.
I find it ridiculous that he assumes to know what I will understand and what I will not. If people are so dumbed down that they do not understand what "fetch a compass" means... I truly am at a loss for words LOLOLOL. Or is it because I am a modern Canadian???
It's mostly a preference thing depending on what you're trying to do. If you want to get as close as you can to some sort of literal translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek manuscripts, then there are some you would prefer over others. If you're just looking for someone to convey the sense of the text to you, then you chose others. If you're trying to use some scholarly/academically acceptable version, then you use BHS, BHQ or NA28.
I wasn't really paying attention to the 70 or 75 thing so I don't have a clue what was being said actually. It's actually irrelevant to me as I read different translations but I acknowledge your choice to use the KJV only.
They use a terrible background made to look like paper but it has too much of a patterned grain in it making the text difficult to read
ARCHAIC EXPRESSIONS
In the KJV you run into outdated expressions which the modern American could never understand without help.
In I Samuel 30:31 the KJV says, “Where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.” Five times the KJV uses the expression, “Fetch a compass” (examples: II Sam. 5:23; Acts 28:13). In Matt. 27:44 it says, “They cast the same in his teeth.” In Mark 9:18 the KJV says, “And pineth away.” In Gal. 4:24 it says, “Which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” In James 1:21 we are told to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.”
The reader will never know what these obsolete expressions mean unless he looks them up in another source.
I find it ridiculous that he assumes to know what I will understand and what I will not. If people are so dumbed down that they do not understand what "fetch a compass" means... I truly am at a loss for words LOLOLOL. Or is it because I am a modern Canadian???
LOL..I thought the background was strange too actually and hard to read. I think that is what happens when academic people try to be "artsy"...lol
I haven't read too much in the site as it is all moot for me anyway. I just thought it was interesting when it talked about the Aramaic usage of the word "gods" in Dan. 3:25 which the KJV didn't translate it properly but put their bias in. All translations do that here and there as I far as I can see.
I find the archaic words not useful in our everyday speech. The KJ "version" was written for people in 1611 using their modern day vernacular.
We are modern Canadians and Americans now and some of the terminology is from another century. But everyone is free to use what translation they choose. I read a lot of different ones - listening for the witness of the Spirit of God inside of me to reveal Jesus in the scriptures.
I have no problem with any brethren that want to read a certain translation only. We all have the capability now to check the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic for words without going to a seminary. The Lord has made this available to anyone that can read.
The return of Christ can not be used to compare translations of the Bible, it is a ridiculous comparison. So you are saying that Gods perfect timing to give us a word perfect Bible was in 1611 and that, according to you in your previous replies, this version is the only perfect version in the world ever written, so STFU rest of world who can not speak English.
Again I ask you, does God really think then that 16th Century English is better than the original Hebrew from thousands of years ago etc when it comes to re-writing the Old Testament.
Then I would ask which Greek manuscripts? The Majority Texts (Textus Receptus) or the Minority Texts, based primarily on the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Vaticanus?
Actually, the speech used in the KJV was not being used as much anymore during 1611. But the translators wanted to be accurate as concerning the language. By 1611 people had stopped using "thee" and "thou" and the like.