Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

[KJV1611]

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Daniel 9:27 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/dan.9.27.KJV

In this version someone is confirming (making valid or affirming) THE existing covenant.
And for all the abominations committed, He will make it desolate even until the end. And that which was determined in the past will be poured out upon the desolate.

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
Daniel 9:27 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/dan.9.27.NASB

In this version someone is making a covenant, creating a covenant that didn't exist before. And then someone will come and make something desolate until it's completely destroyed. Apparently that someone is not the "he" that made the covenant because the person who has been decreed to come at the end of the verse, is poured out on the person who makes desolate. My question is who is the "he" that made the covenant, who is the one who makes desolate, and finally who is the one that is poured out on the one who makes desolate. To be honest CharliRenee the NASB makes no sense in that verse.

He will make a strong covenant with leaders for one week [of years]. For half of the week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the grain offering. On the wing of detestable things the desolator will come and continue until the already decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.” In the KJV it's the desolated, not the desolator that gets poured upon.
Dani'el (Dan) 9:27 CJB

Again here, a new agreement is made, not the confirmation of THE covenant. This version has someone making a covenant with leaders.... which is not mentioned in the other two versions. Then the desolator will come and continue until the desolator is destroyed. Again it's the desolator and not the desolate that get poured upon.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."
Daniel 9:27 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/dan.9.27.ESV

Help me understand the huge difference, please.

Again a new covenant is being made. Then someone comes and makes something desolate until the end. And again the desolator and not the desolate are being poured upon.

I have no clue what message those other versions are trying to convey but I do know that in the KJV it's Christ confirming THE covenant made with Abraham. An he is the one who caused the daily sacrifice to cease when he offered up himself. And I do know that the abominations were the abominations the Jews made against the prophets and God's people, culminating with killing their messiah... and that's why they were left desolate.... all the way to the consumation.

This took me so long that i'm not going to proof read for spelling and stuff.

 

[Endoscopy]

I don't think God waited 1600 years before producing the bible. From the days of the writings of the new testament those writings were passed around to all the churches. I don't know of a time when the word of God wasn't available to his people accept maybe when the Catholics try to keep it from people.

You say scripture doesn't state that there would only be one valid translation per language and it may not directly. But the concept is found everywhere in the bible - one God, many false gods, one Christ many antichrists, children of God children of Belial, one baptism... the bible from cover to cover is one way and many false ways.

What drivel!! God waiting to create a new Bible!!! Are you nuts!!! The Bible is the Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Judeo Greek. When was that replaced.

Get it straight that the original language mad manuscripts are translated into modern languages for people to read and understand. They are the most important Bible.

 

[KJV1611]

So is the Holy Spirit's revealing limited to KJV, as far as you KJV only are concerned? That makes us following Him, James not Jesus, don't you think?

Oh most certainly the bible version is going to affect how much the Holy Spirit will reveal. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth by saying to us, what we have said to him through reading the word.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think the NASB for sure contains enough of the word of God for the Holy Spirit to teach from it... maybe even the NIV too. But bar none, the KJV is the best.

 

[KJV1611]

What drivel!! God waiting to create a new Bible!!! Are you nuts!!! The Bible is the Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Judeo Greek. When was that replaced.

Get it straight that the original language mad manuscripts are translated into modern languages for people to read and understand. They are the most important Bible.

Which manuscript line should I use?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As far as Dan 9 and “confirming” a covenant goes People should look up the hebrew word. I think you will see it does not actually say what some may think it says.

 

[Endoscopy]

Leave out the mad. Don't know how it got there. Went to edit it and the edit got messed up and had to delete it and then the 5 minute rule was in effect.

 

[CharliRenee]

In this version someone is confirming (making valid or affirming) THE existing covenant.
And for all the abominations committed, He will make it desolate even until the end. And that which was determined in the past will be poured out upon the desolate.


In this version someone is making a covenant, creating a covenant that didn't exist before. And then someone will come and make something desolate until it's completely destroyed. Apparently that someone is not the "he" that made the covenant because the person who has been decreed to come at the end of the verse, is poured out on the person who makes desolate. My question is who is the "he" that made the covenant, who is the one who makes desolate, and finally who is the one that is poured out on the one who makes desolate. To be honest CharliRenee the NASB makes no sense in that verse.

Again here, a new agreement is made, not the confirmation of THE covenant. This version has someone making a covenant with leaders.... which is not mentioned in the other two versions. Then the desolator will come and continue until the desolator is destroyed. Again it's the desolator and not the desolate that get poured upon.

Again a new covenant is being made. Then someone comes and makes something desolate until the end. And again the desolator and not the desolate are being poured upon.

I have no clue what message those other versions are trying to convey but I do know that in the KJV it's Christ confirming THE covenant made with Abraham. An he is the one who caused the daily sacrifice to cease when he offered up himself. And I do know that the abominations were the abominations the Jews made against the prophets and God's people, culminating with killing their messiah... and that's why they were left desolate.... all the way to the consumation.

This took me so long that i'm not going to proof read for spelling and stuff.

I see your point, thanks for taking the time, and for helping me understand why this debate goes on and on. I just want to say this about that...

understanding the text mentioned with regards to this verse, requires not just the perceived correct translation but the surrounding verses and cross referencing, word study, not to mention the Holy Spirits revealing, eh?

 

[Endoscopy]

Which manuscript line should I use?

Line??? They create a copy with the scribal copy errors in each removed. Then they translate that.

 

[KJV1611]

As far as Dan 9 and “confirming” a covenant goes People should look up the hebrew word. I think you will see it does not actually say what some may think it says.

Why don't you post it so we can all see it?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

In fact, here I will give everyone a hand.

From CHAL
גָּבַר: qal: pf. גּ׳, גָּֽבְרוּ, גָּבֵֽרוּ; impf. יִגְבַּר, יִגְבְּרוּ:—1. excel Ex 17:11, w. min prevail over 2 S 1:23; metaph. šeqer Je 9:2 (rd gāberâ);—2. accomplish s.thg 1 S 2:9;—3. mayim: swell, rise Gn 7:18, 20, 24.
piel: pf. גִּבַּרְתִּי; impf. יְגַבֵּר:—1. make superior Zc 10:6;—2. w. ḥayālîm exert all one’s strength Ec 10:10.
hif.: pf. הִגְבִּיר; impf. נַגְבִּיר: be strong Ps 12:5;? Dn 9:27 w. berît: verss: make a firm covenant; oth.: make heavy = let become faithless (in cov’t), or become heavy, oppressive. †
hitp.: impf. יִתְגַּבָּֽר, יִתְגַּבָּֽרוּ:—show onesf. superior Is 42:13, be overbearing Jb 15:25; 36:9. †

From TLOT
1504 גָּבַר (gā·ḇǎr): v.; ≡ Str 1396, 1399; TWOT 310a—1. LN 88.206–88.222 (hitp) show oneself arrogant, vaunt oneself, be overbearing, i.e., have attitudes and actions showing hubris and pride (Job 15:25; 36:9+); 2. LN 34.22–34.30 (hif) confirm, i.e., to establish a relationship with a person or group (Da 9:27+); 3. LN 16 (qal) rise, flood, i.e., have a mass swell or rise higher (Ge 7:18, 19, 20, 24+), note: as a non-linear movement of water; 4. LN 21.1–21.5 (qal) overwhelmed, inundated, formally, flooded over, i.e., be in a state of danger, as a figurative extension of being flooded over by a mass of water (Ps 65:4[EB 3]+); 5. LN 78.28–78.39 (qal) be greater, be more, i.e., have a degree greater that is normal, compared to another point on a scale (Ge 49:26; 2Sa 1:23; Job 21:7; Ps 103:11; 117:2+); (piel) be greater, be more, (Ecc 10:10+); 6. LN 76 (qal) be strong, i.e., be in a state of strength and ability (1Ch 5:2+); (piel) strengthen, i.e., make an object mighty and forceful (Zec 10:6, 12+), note: in context, apparently military strength, see also domain LN 74; 7. LN 39.52–39.61 (qal) win over, have a victory over (Ex 17:11; 1Sa 2:9; 2Sa 11:23+); (hif) triumph over, i.e., make a conquest and so a victory over an enemy (Isa 42:13+); 8. LN 33.387–33.403 unit: (hif) לָשׁוֹן גָּבַר (lā·šôn gā·ḇǎr) slander, formally, be strong of tongue, i.e., speak in attacking ways such as slander and insult (Ps 12:5[EB 4]+)

As usual, Not literally taking the english text, and doing further study shows the interrpetation is not what we think it is (KJV is right, But is not different than the other bibles, It just uses a different word, and a word which does not mean the same in todays english (he is not confirming an old covenantant, He is confirming, or establishing a new relationship

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I see your point, thanks for taking the time, and for helping me understand why this debate goes on and on. I just want to say this about that...

understanding the text mentioned with regards to this verse, requires not just the perceived correct translation but the surrounding verses and cross referencing, word study, not to mention the Holy Spirits revealing, eh?

Make sure you confirm this is true..lol

In the hebrew, they all say the same thing..

 

[Dino246]

One has to be the preserved words of God, if not one, then none. That's really the debate. Most on here do not believe they can obtain the pure words of God given in the English language, but hold fast to the "originals" which are not available anywhere. Did God give us His words, tell us to live by them, and not provide them for us today?

CharliRenee, this answer from John146 is fallacious and false.

His first sentence employs a false dichotomy: it assumes two and only two contradictory possibilities. There is at least a third option that he doesn't acknowledge: that God's word may be rendered in different phrasings in a given language.

His second sentence is merely his opinion and has no validity.

His third sentence is a misrepresentation. He rejects that the original languages have any authority, and instead attributes all authority to the KJV alone. Most of us reject that. He wrongly interprets that as not believing "they can obtain the pure words of God given in the English language". He is implying that such a view is inferior to his view... based on nothing but his own opinion.

People here don't "hold fast to the originals" but rather to the original languages! There is a massive distinction that he glosses over in order to gain agreement.

His last sentence is a red herring to get you concerned about something irrelevant to the topic.

 

[KJV1611]

Line??? They create a copy with the scribal copy errors in each removed. Then they translate that.

No, that's not the way it is. There are two manuscript lines one is the line the KJV came from and the other ones are the Vaticanus and Sinaticus I think. They're are way more qualified people here to talk about that than I am.

 

[Dino246]

No, that's not the way it is. There are two manuscript lines one is the line the KJV came from and the other ones are the Vaticanus and Sinaticus I think. They're are way more qualified people here to talk about that than I am.

There are at least four lines of manuscripts. The majority of manuscripts are in the same line as those from which the KJV was translated... these are called the "Byzantine" line. The next-largest group is the Alexandrian line; then Western, and I don't recall the fourth offhand... Coptic perhaps.

What many people do is assume that the number of manuscripts directly correlates with the accuracy and/or faithful preservation of the original wording. That is a logical fallacy: an appeal to the majority (yes, that's a thing). It conveniently overlooks the historical fact that many churches and monasteries (storehouses of manuscripts) were destroyed over the centuries... mainly in the areas controlled by Moslems.

 

[Endoscopy]

In this version someone is confirming (making valid or affirming) THE existing covenant.
And for all the abominations committed, He will make it desolate even until the end. And that which was determined in the past will be poured out upon the desolate.


In this version someone is making a covenant, creating a covenant that didn't exist before. And then someone will come and make something desolate until it's completely destroyed. Apparently that someone is not the "he" that made the covenant because the person who has been decreed to come at the end of the verse, is poured out on the person who makes desolate. My question is who is the "he" that made the covenant, who is the one who makes desolate, and finally who is the one that is poured out on the one who makes desolate. To be honest CharliRenee the NASB makes no sense in that verse.

Again here, a new agreement is made, not the confirmation of THE covenant. This version has someone making a covenant with leaders.... which is not mentioned in the other two versions. Then the desolator will come and continue until the desolator is destroyed. Again it's the desolator and not the desolate that get poured upon.

Again a new covenant is being made. Then someone comes and makes something desolate until the end. And again the desolator and not the desolate are being poured upon.

I have no clue what message those other versions are trying to convey but I do know that in the KJV it's Christ confirming THE covenant made with Abraham. An he is the one who caused the daily sacrifice to cease when he offered up himself. And I do know that the abominations were the abominations the Jews made against the prophets and God's people, culminating with killing their messiah... and that's why they were left desolate.... all the way to the consumation.

This took me so long that i'm not going to proof read for spelling and stuff.

I use my smartphone as my Bible with my browser set to biblegateway.com and select book and chapter. Then with a click I go between translations. I mainly use NIV, ESV, KJV and AMPC. Keep in mind the abomination that causes desolation is in Daniel and Daniel plainly states it is closed until the end times twice near the end of book. Jesus references this saying to flee when they see it happening. Therefore it has not happened yet. Theologians believe it will happen in the new temple the Israelies are starting to build on the site of the previous 2 temples. One view is the antichrist will go into the Holy of Holies behind the large curtain proclaiming he is God.

Your eschatology is very weak.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I knew what you meant, no problem. I believe it's Christ because of the language of the verse. It says he confirmed THE covenant. I know Christ confirmed the covenant with Abraham when he came.

The point is the two versions don't agree. One version has someone confirming a covenant and the other has someone making a new covenant. You believe the verse is talking about Titus, what covenant did Titus confirm? For that matter, what covenant did Titus make? I'm not looking for answers to these questions, I'm making a point.

One would tend to want to think so unless they read the verse before that which is verse 26
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Daniel 9:26 KJV
I don't see it anywhere in history nor do I think that Jesus would condone his people coming in and destroying the city. the implication of he in verse 27 being Jesus is just one more flaw in the King James Bible one of many.
I'm beginning to think with all the flaws that I've been fleshed out here in this thread that the King James Bible maybe one of the worst translations and possibly heretical.

 

[KJV1611]

There are at least four lines of manuscripts. The majority of manuscripts are in the same line as those from which the KJV was translated... these are called the "Byzantine" line. The next-largest group is the Alexandrian line; then Western, and I don't recall the fourth offhand... Coptic perhaps.

What many people do is assume that the number of manuscripts directly correlates with the accuracy and/or faithful preservation of the original wording. That is a logical fallacy: an appeal to the majority (yes, that's a thing). It conveniently overlooks the historical fact that many churches and monasteries (storehouses of manuscripts) were destroyed over the centuries... mainly in the areas controlled by Moslems.

I wonder if there were any groups around during the old times that didn't really like the way the bible was written and did a little bit of editing to make it fit their theology. You know kind of like the GENDER NEUTRAL NIV. They didn't like all the patriarchal language so they went in and fixed for God. Do you think any of those fragments contain stuff like that?

What if there was nuclear war that destroyed society and people 2000 years in the future dug up a few thousand 20th century bibles, could they put those fragments together and come up with say an accurate rendering of the NIV or KJV or NASB? I mean if it's fragments, how would they know whether it came from an NIV, KJV or Queen James bible. Let's also say that the English language died out about 1800 years previous to their discoveries.

Kinda silly isn't it.

 

[John146]

Whether I like it is irrelevant. Your reconciliation does nothing to explain the TEXT discrepancy.

You are rapidly earning the epithet, ‘Hypocrite’.

Break down my reconciliation and point out where I'm wrong?

 

[KJV1611]

One would tend to want to think so unless they read the verse before that which is verse 26
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Daniel 9:26 KJV
I don't see it anywhere in history nor do I think that Jesus would condone his people coming in and destroying the city. the implication of he in verse 27 being Jesus is just one more flaw in the King James Bible one of many.
I'm beginning to think with all the flaws that I've been fleshed out here in this thread that the King James Bible maybe one of the worst translations and possibly heretical.

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[John146]

CharliRenee, this answer from John146 is fallacious and false.

His first sentence employs a false dichotomy: it assumes two and only two contradictory possibilities. There is at least a third option that he doesn't acknowledge: that God's word may be rendered in different phrasings in a given language.

His second sentence is merely his opinion and has no validity.

His third sentence is a misrepresentation. He rejects that the original languages have any authority, and instead attributes all authority to the KJV alone. Most of us reject that. He wrongly interprets that as not believing "they can obtain the pure words of God given in the English language". He is implying that such a view is inferior to his view... based on nothing but his own opinion.

People here don't "hold fast to the originals" but rather to the original languages! There is a massive distinction that he glosses over in order to gain agreement.

His last sentence is a red herring to get you concerned about something irrelevant to the topic.

What good does the original languages do if we do not have the "original" writings? Zero. By the way, how many languages are used in the "originals?" Good question since we do not have them. The world may never know.