Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?

[Jack Koons]

Let us continue.

2 Samuel 21:19 - Just Who Killed Goliath?


The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics. The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. These words were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to eliminate a perceived contradiction. However, according to Rev. Tom Weaver's quote, then even the Hebrew from which the KJV was translated contains a lie and therefore cannot be God's word.”

The above statement is an absolutely unprofessional, deceitful, and untrue attempt to convince ignorant (simply unknowing) people of that which is simply not true.

Writing Tips: Paragraph Builder - WritingDEN

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“What is the topic sentence?
The topic sentence is the first sentence in a paragraph.
What does it do?
It introduces the main idea of the paragraph.
How do I write one?
Summarize the main idea of your paragraph. Indicate to the reader what your paragraph will be about.”

In the above excerpt (from “Just Who Killed Goliath?”), the 'topic sentence' states, “Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics”. The sentence following the topic sentence, then states, “The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated.” Please notice the use of the bold text, in order to emphasize and draw the readers attention to those words. We will deal with the second sentence in a few moments, but first, let's examine the the topic sentence.

“Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics”.

Just why does the King James have italics? The absolute pure and simple answer is, integrity and honesty! Yes, it really is just that simple. Allow me to give you an example. The following is a parallel presentation of Psalm 23:1 found at Psalm 23:1 The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.

New International Version
A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.

New Living Translation
A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I have all that I need.

English Standard Version
A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

New American Standard Bible
A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.

King James Bible
A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
A Davidic psalm. The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.

International Standard Version
The LORD is the one who is shepherding me; I lack nothing.

NET Bible
A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Lord Jehovah will shepherd me and I shall lack nothing.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
[A psalm by David.] The LORD is my shepherd. I am never in need.

Jubilee Bible 2000
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

King James 2000 Bible
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not lack.

American King James Version
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

American Standard Version
Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Douay-Rheims Bible
A psalm for David. The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing.

Darby Bible Translation
{A Psalm of David.} Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.

English Revised Version
A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Webster's Bible Translation
A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

World English Bible
Yahweh is my shepherd: I shall lack nothing.

Young's Literal Translation
A Psalm of David. Jehovah is my shepherd, I do not lack,

Of the 20 versions shown above, 17 state “The LORD is”, while 2 have alternate (or variant) readings, while only the King James states, “The LORD is”. Using ilalics for the word is. But why?

Psalms 23 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד יְהוָה רֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָר

The above is Psalm 23:1 as it appears in Hebrew.

“¶ [[A Psalm 4210 of Däwið דָּוִד.]] 1732 Yähwè יָהוֶה 3068 Rö`îרֹעִי; 7462 z8802 I shall not x3808 want. 2637 z8799”

The above is how the above site transliterates the verse. Notice how the word “is” is not present between “Yahwe” and “Roi” (#7462 translated 'shepherd' in English). Nor is there any reference to the word “is”. However, the translators of 18 of the above translations inserted (ADDED) the word “is” to the English translation. But why? Because in order for the TRUE meaning of the text to be brought to the target language, the word “is” had to be added. The difference between the King James translators, and the rest of the translators is their integrity, and honesty. You see, if the ACTUAL TRANSLATIBLE WORDS were NOT in the original, they showed this, by using italics. A good article on this very subject (italics in the Bible) titled, “THE USE OF ITALICS IN ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by WALTER F. SPECHT ” can be found at www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=426&journal=1...

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“The careful reader of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is aware of the frequent use of italics for certain words from Gn I : 2 to Rev 22 : 21. Every informed Bible teacher and minister is, of course, aware that these italics indicate words for which there are no exact equivalents in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but which have been added to make the translation conform to English idiom.”

It is clear to see that the 'topic sentence' used by the author of “Just Who Killed Goliath” made a very unethical, and untruthful statement concerning the use of italics by the King James translators. With that said, my next post will show even more deceit on the part of this author.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Translating the truth of the scripture is the real subject of who killed Goliath. The interesting point here, is how the modern scholar can only do his best to discredit the established King James Bible. But as will be seen shortly, while the modern scholar claims the King James translators “added” to the Hebrew in order to “correct” what would otherwise be a 'contradiction', modern scholars actually use a method of translating, which regularly “adds” to the scripture, in order to bring out the true meaning.

Please consider the following:

Eugene Nida, Father of Dynamic Equivalence, Dies at 96 | Bible Gateway Blog

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“Eugene Nida, the father of the “dynamic equivalence” Bible translation philosophy,passed away today at age 96.
Nida’s name might not be familiar to many Christians, but his ideas had a massive influence on modern Bible translation. Nida’s dynamic equivalence translation philosophy (also known as functional equivalence) encourages Bible translators to convey the thoughts and ideas expressed in Bible passages, rather than translating each phrase word-for-word. The driving goal behind the philosophy is to make the meaning of each Scripture passage clear and accessible to modern readers, even if it means sacrificing the exact form of the passages in their original language.”

Bible Translations: Dynamic Equivalence or Essentially Literal

The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

“Briefly stated, the theory of dynamic equivalence in Bible translation emphasizes the reaction of the reader to the translated text, rather thanthe translation of the words and phrases themselves. In simplest terms, dynamic equivalence is often referred to as thought for thought, translation as compared to essentially literal, translation.... (Ryken 13).”

The related footnote reads: “Ryken, Leland, The Word of God in English.”

Keith Sharp then states the following:

“An "essentially literal" translation strives to render the original Hebrew and Greek words with their English counterparts while adapting the original grammar to English grammar.


1 Corinthians 4:9 exemplifies the differences. The New King James Version, an essentially literal translation, reads, "For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men." Literally translated, both as to words and word order, the passage reads, "For I think that God us the apostles last set forth as appointed to death. For a spectacle we became to the world, both to angels and to men." (Berry). The essentially literal NKJV gives us the Greek words in English but in readable English order. But The New International Version, a dynamic equivalence translation, renders the verse thus:
"For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men."
The verse is longer because explanatory words and phrases have been added: "of the procession," "in the arena," and "whole." These added words are not italicized to indicate to readers that they are interpolations, words added by the translators that have no Greek words in the original behind them. The NIV translators as a matter of stated policy add to the divine text without indicating to the reader when they have done so.”


The related footnote reads: “Berry, George Ricker, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament.”

In my last post I quoted from an article written specifically about the use of italics in the New Testament. I would now like to take another excerpt from that same article to give another witness to what has just been stated above (“The NIV translators as a matter of stated policy add to the divine text without indicating to the reader when they have done so.”)

www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=426&journal=1...

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“The Revised Standard Version (RSV, NT, 1946; OT, 1952) completely abandoned the practice of using italics for words added by translators. Words inserted to complete or clarify
the meaning were regarded by the revision committee "as an essential part of the translation." l2”

This is the philosophy of the modern scholar. Since their “translation” renders a 'better understanding' of that which is in the 'original', their “added” words are as divine as those found in the 'original'.

In the above example, (1 Corinthians 4:9), the words, "of the procession," "in the arena," and "whole", were interpolations, words added by the translators that have no Greek words in the original behind them. Furthermore, while these things may be true, in and of themselves, there is absolutely NO textual basis, in the immediate surrounding text, or in a 'parallel text' to support these added words.

It is extremely hypocritical to add words in this manner while telling someone else they are “correcting” the original languages, while doing the same thing. But as will be seen in my next post, the King James translators were actually acting within the laws of Hebrew grammatical rules when translating 2 Samuel 21:19; not to mention the fact that they actually had a 'sister text' which supported their translation.

Jack

 

[standingtall]

This may well be my last post.

You have said that more times than we can count. When will we finally see that you are truthful in that matter?

Admit it. You are full of yourself and can't stand it when no one will listen to you.

 

[Second Phoenix]

You have said that more times than we can count. When will we finally see that you are truthful in that matter?

Admit it. You are full of yourself and can't stand it when no one will listen to you.

In general, it's not hard to play an expert on Greek when no one else has a clue about the language.

I could not figure out why he made himself out to be knowledgeable about it while saying things that no one with a basic understanding of the language and structure would say. I wish he would answer that.

 

[Jack Koons]

You have said that more times than we can count. When will we finally see that you are truthful in that matter?

Admit it. You are full of yourself and can't stand it when no one will listen to you.

Just a few words in defense of DeaconDean. It is my personal opinion (whatever that is worth), that DeaconDean is not "full of himself"; rather he is quite frustrated, and by the way, people are listening to him.

I do hope that the regular readers of this thread take time to read this post.

DeaconDean and I do not see things from the same perspective, but that is okay. I actually admire his tenacity. (Although he really needs to learn to admit when he has been proven to be in error.)

DeaconDean once stated that he felt that there had to be more than the Quarterly (I'm paraphrasing). That is why in these threads, I'm hoping to cause him to dig deeper(as well as in new locations) than he has ever dug before. If he learns the simple point that maybe, just maybe, there is a side to these issues that he has never been exposed to; that once tapped into, there awaits a river of illumination he can not imagine.

I can tell by information he presents that he has studied much, the problem is that the waters are purer elsewhere; that is why he keeps getting corrected.

May I say that while others are judging him harshly, they present no better of an understanding than he. So while he may be getting frustrated, he is doing so in the battle, not on the bench.

Remember, this Christian Forum is about bringing glory to God by discussing our faith (not judging one another).

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

The Proper Translation: Part 1

Once again, the question has been put forth, “Just Who Killed Goliath?”

While the evidence is quite clear on the fact that David killed Goliath, we are still left with 2 Samuel 21:19.


The following is 2 Samuel 21:19 shown in parallel, taken from the following site:

2 Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.


"New International Version
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

New Living Translation
During another battle at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair from Bethlehem killed the brother of Goliath of Gath. The handle of his spear was as thick as a weaver's beam!

English Standard Version
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

New American Standard Bible
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

King James Bible
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Once again there was a battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam.

International Standard Version
In yet another battle at Gob, Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite's son Elhanan killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear resembled that of a weaver's beam.

NET Bible
Yet another battle occurred with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
When more fighting broke out with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan, son of Jaare Oregim from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath. (The shaft of Goliath's spear was like a beam used by weavers.)

Jubilee Bible 2000
And there was another war in Gob with the Philistines where Elhanan, the son of Jaareoregim of Bethlehem, slew Goliath, the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

King James 2000 Bible
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

American King James Version
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

American Standard Version
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Darby Bible Translation
And there was again a battle at Gob with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, smote Goliath the Gittite; now the shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam.

English Revised Version
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Webster's Bible Translation
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

World English Bible
There was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite's brother, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Young's Literal Translation
And the battle is again in Gob with the Philistines, and Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim, the Beth-Lehemite, smiteth a brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the wood of his spear is like a beam of weavers.”


Here is how it appears in Hebrew:




וַתְּהִי־עוֹד הַמִּלְחָמָה בְּגוֹב עִם־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּ
אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן־יַעְרֵי אֹרְגִים בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי אֵת גָּלְיָת

אֲשֶׁר בִּילִדֵי הָרָפָה פ


I would like at this time to remind you the reader of the words of the author of “Just Who Killed Goliath?”

“Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics. The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. These words were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to eliminate a perceived contradiction. However, according to Rev. Tom Weaver's quote, then even the Hebrew from which the KJV was translated contains a lie and therefore cannot be God's word.”

I would now like to address this paragraph. First, the reason for italics has already been covered, and therefore needs no further discussion. Let us consider the second sentence above:

“The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated.”

The above statement is only 'partially' true. The fact of the matter is that the words, “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew; however, to say “nor are implied”, is a stretch of the truth.

Please allow me to explain.

There is in fact an “implication” in the Hebrew that according to the rules of Hebrew Grammar, would explain why the translators of the King James chose the words “the brother of”.

Here again is the verse in question in Hebrew, followed by their pronunciation in Hebrew, and finally by a transliteration into English:

וַתְּהִי־עוֹד הַמִּלְחָמָה בְּגוֹב עִם־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּ
אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן־יַעְרֵי אֹרְגִים בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי אֵת גָּלְיָת

אֲשֶׁר בִּילִדֵי הָרָפָה פ


waT'hiy-ôd haMil'chämähB'gôv im-P'lish'Tiym waYakh'el'chänän Ben-ya'rëy or'giym BëythaLach'miy ët Gäl'yät haGiTiy w'ëtzchániytô Kim'nôr or'giym š

And there was x1961 again x5750 a battle 4421 in Gôv גּוֹב 1359with x5973 the Pælištîm פְּלִשׁתִּים, 6430 where ´Elçänän אֶלחָנָן 445 the son 1121 of Ya`rê ´Örqîm יַערֵי־אֹרגִים, 3296 a Bê± Laçmî בֵּית־לַחמִי,1022 slew 5221 z8686 [the brother of] x853 Golyä± גָּליָת 1555 the Gittî גִּתִּי,1663 the staff 6086 of whose spear 2595 [was] like a weaver's 707 z8802beam. 4500


Notice above the “x853”, it follows the words in question “the brother of”.

In our next discussion we will take a closer look at the just translation by the King James translators of these words.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

The Proper Translation: Part 2

I ended the last post with the the following:

I would like at this time to remind you the reader of the words of the author of “Just Who Killed Goliath?”

“Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics. The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. These words were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to eliminate a perceived contradiction. However, according to Rev. Tom Weaver's quote, then even the Hebrew from which the KJV was translated contains a lie and therefore cannot be God's word.”

I would now like to address this paragraph. First, the reason for italics has already been covered, and therefore needs no further discussion. Let us consider the second sentence above:
“The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated.”

The above statement is only 'partially' true. The fact of the matter is that the words, “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew; however, to say “nor are implied”, is a stretch of the truth.

Please allow me to explain.

There is in fact an “implication” in the Hebrew that according to the rules of Hebrew Grammar, would explain why the translators of the King James chose the words “the brother of”.

Here again is the verse in question in Hebrew, followed by their pronunciation in Hebrew, and finally by a transliteration into English, found at 2 Samuel 21 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study


וַתְּהִי־עוֹד הַמִּלְחָמָה בְּגוֹב עִם־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּ
אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן־יַעְרֵי אֹרְגִים בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי אֵת גָּלְיָת
הַגִּתִּי וְעֵץ חֲנִיתוֹ כִּמְנוֹר אֹרְגִים ס

waT'hiy-ôd haMil'chämähB'gôv im-P'lish'Tiym waYakh'el'chänän Ben-ya'rëy or'giym BëythaLach'miy ët Gäl'yät haGiTiy w'ëtzchániytô Kim'nôr or'giym š

And there was x1961 again x5750 a battle 4421 in Gôv גּוֹב 1359with x5973 the Pælištîm פְּלִשׁתִּים, 6430 where ´Elçänän אֶלחָנָן 445 the son 1121 of Ya`rê ´Örqîm יַערֵי־אֹרגִים, 3296 a Bê± Laçmî בֵּית־לַחמִי,1022 slew 5221 z8686 [the brother of] x853 Golyä± גָּליָת 1555 the Gittî גִּתִּי,1663 the staff 6086 of whose spear 2595 [was] like a weaver's 707 z8802beam. 4500


Notice above the “x853”, it follows the words in question “the brother of”.

In our next discussion we will take a closer look at the just translation by the King James translators of these words.


The Hebrew word in question is “אוֹת". This Hebrew word falls under two different numbers according to Strong's. Please observe:

Strong's Hebrew: 853. אוֹת (eth) -- untranslatable mark of the accusative case.

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“Strong's Concordance
eth: untranslatable mark of the accusative case.
Original Word: אוֹת
Part of Speech: Untranslatable mark of the accusative; mark of accusative
Transliteration: eth
Phonetic Spelling: (ayth)
Short Definition: a”

Strong's Hebrew: 854. אוֹת (eth) -- with (denoting proximity)

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“Strong's Concordance
eth: with (denoting proximity)
Original Word: אוֹת
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: eth
Phonetic Spelling: (ayth)
Short Definition: against”

With the above in mind, please consider the following:

The word preceding גלית (Galeyat) in 1 Chronicles 20:5 is אחי (achi), which is translated “the brother of.” The word preceding גלית (Galeyat) in 2 Samuel 21:19 is את (“et” with the Masoretic vowel markings). This word generally serves as the untranslatable particle which marks the accusative case (Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions). However, את could serve a dual purpose of pointing to the direct object as well as meaning "with" or "among" (Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions).
Observe Judges 1:16

Judges 1:16 The descendants of Moses' father-in-law, the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms with the people of Judah to live among the inhabitants of the Desert of Judah in the Negev near Arad.

The following excerpt is from the above site:

“Parallel Verses
New International Version
The descendants of Moses' father-in-law, the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms with the people of Judah to live among the inhabitants of the Desert of Judah in the Negev near Arad.

New Living Translation
When the tribe of Judah left Jericho--the city of palms--the Kenites, who were descendants of Moses' father-in-law, traveled with them into the wilderness of Judah. They settled among the people there, near the town of Arad in the Negev.

English Standard Version
And the descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up with the people of Judah from the city of palms into the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the Negeb near Arad, and they went and settled with the people.

New American Standard Bible
The descendants of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, went up from the city of palms with the sons of Judah, to the wilderness of Judah which is in the south of Arad; and they went and lived with the people.

King James Bible
And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The descendants of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, had gone up with the men of Judah from the City of Palms to the Wilderness of Judah, which was in the Negev of Arad. They went to live among the people.

International Standard Version
The descendants of the Kenites, the tribe from which Moses' father-in-law came, accompanied the descendants of Judah from the city of the palms to the Judean wilderness, which is in the desert area south of Arad, and lived with the people there.

NET Bible
Now the descendants of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, went up with the people of Judah from the City of Date Palm Trees to Arad in the desert of Judah, located in the Negev. They went and lived with the people of Judah.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The descendants of Moses' father-in-law, the Kenite, went with the people of Judah from the City of Palms into the desert of Judah. There they lived with the people of Judah in the Negev near Arad.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And the sons of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the sons of Judah into the wilderness of Judah which is towards the Negev of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.

King James 2000 Bible
And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lies to the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.

American King James Version
And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelled among the people.

American Standard Version
And the children of the Kenite, Moses brother-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the children of the Cinite, the kinsman of Moses, went up from the city of palms, with the children of Juda into the wilderness of his lot, which is at the south side of Arad, and they dwelt with him.

Darby Bible Translation
And the descendants of the Ken'ite, Moses' father-in-law, went up with the people of Judah from the city of palms into the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the Negeb near Arad; and they went and settled with the people.

English Revised Version
And the children of the Kenite, Moses' brother in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the people.

Webster's Bible Translation
And the children of the Kenite, Moses's father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.

World English Bible
The children of the Kenite, Moses' brother-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and lived with the people.

Young's Literal Translation
And the sons of the Kenite, father-in-law of Moses, have gone up out of the city of palms with the sons of Judah to the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and they go and dwell with the people.

Here is Judges 1:16 in Hebrew, followed by its pronunciation in Hebrew, and finally by a transliteration into English, found at Judges 1 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study.
וּבְנֵי קֵינִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה עָלוּ מֵעִיר הַתְּמָרִים
אֶת־בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה אֲשֶׁר בְּנֶגֶב עֲרָד
וַיֵּלֶ וַיֵּשֶׁב אֶת־הָעָם

ûv'nëy qëyniy chotën moshehälû mëiyr haT'märiym et-B'nëy y'hûdähmid'Bar y'hûdäh ásher B'negev árädwaYëlekh' waYëshev et-hääm

And the children 1121 of the Kênî קֵינִי, 7017 Möšè's מֹשֶׁה 4872father in law, 2859 z8802 went up 5927 z8804 out of the city 5892 x4480 of palm trees 8558 z8677 y5899 with x854 the children 1121 of Yæhûðà יְהוּדָה3063 into the wilderness 4057 x4480 of Yæhûðà יְהוּדָה, 3063 which x834[lieth] in the south 5045 of `Áräð עֲרָד; 6166 and they went y3212 z8799 x1980and dwelt 3427 z8799 among 854 the people. 5971

Take notice the same Hebrew word “אֶת", now is used as a preposition as Strong's Number '854'. It is the same word, the only difference is that it is now used as a preposition; which is within the rules of Hebrew grammar. Being a preposition, “et” (or “eth”) indicates the temporal, spatial or logical relationship of its object to the rest of the sentence.

Therefore, since the King James translators knew 1) who killed Goliath according to several witnesses; 2) and that according to 1 Chronicles 20:5 Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath, they translated 2 Samuel 21:19 correctly within the rules of Hebrew grammar. The words “the brother of” indicate the logical relationship of Lahmi to Goliath. It is also reasonable for anyone who has taken an Old Testament Survey class to understand that since the books of 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings were written within a relatively short time after the actual events, it would be assumed that everyone knew the facts surrounding those same events (that Lahmi killed the brother of Goliath), therefore “et” would suffice. In like manner, the same student (of an Old Testament Survey class) would also know that since 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written much later, the details of the certain stories would need to be included in order to have clarity; hence, they included the words “the brother of” along with “Lahmi”, the name of the brother of Goliath that Elhanan killed.

Hence, the statement made by the author of “Just Who Killed Goliath” were made without careful study of the facts relating to the event, and a suitable knowledge of the Hebrew text in question.

In my next post I will remind the readers of this post of the qualifications of the King James translators in regards to their knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Did the King James translators have sufficient knowledge of the Hebrew to properly translate 2 Samuel 21:19 ?


Dr Launcelot Andrews, Dean of Westminster understood fifteen languages.

Mr Geoffrey King, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and Regius Professor of Hebrew.

Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge.

Dr Laurence Chaderton, one of the Cambridge delegates to the Hampton Court conference. He was Fellow of Christ's College, and afterwards Master of Emanuel. Chaderton entered Christ's College in 1564 and embraced the Reformed doctrines. He is described as well-skilled in Latin, Greek and Hebrew; but to the study of Rabbinical learning he especially devoted himself, with a view to the elucidation of the Scripture. He was one of the three representative Puritans at the Hampton Court conference.

Thomas Harrison, was vice-master of Trinity College, and his attainments in Hebrew are indicated by his having been appointed by the University as chief examiner in that language.

Robert Spalding; a Fellow of St John's College, and successor to Lively in the Hebrew chair.

Dr John Harding president of Magdalene College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Rector of Halsey, in Oxfordshire.

Dr Richard Kilby, was rector of Lincoln College, and author of Commentaries on Exodus, prepared chiefly from the writings of the Rabbis and Hebrew interpreters.

Dr Thomas Ravis, He took all academical degrees, and enjoyed all collegiate dignities, He was student, Canon, and Dean of Christ Church, Chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, vice-chancellor of Oxford, Bishop of Gloucester, 1604, and of London 1607. He died December 14th, 1609.


You will notice the title “fellow” in the following 'descriptions'. The following definition is given in case it is needed.

Fellow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“In academia, a fellow is a member of a group of learned people who work together as peers in the pursuit of mutual knowledge or practice. The fellows may include visiting professors, postdoctoral researchers and doctoral researchers.”

(In other words, 'fellows' are rather learned individuals.)

Dr John Overall. He was a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; and in 1596 was raised to the Regius Professorship of Divinity in that university. In 1604 he was appointed to the deanery of St Paul's.

Dr Richard Clarke, who had been fellow of Christ Church, Cambridge, and was, at the time of his appointment to the translatorship, vicar of Mynstre and Monkton, in the Isle of Thanet, and one of the six preachers at Canterbury Cathedral.

Dr John Layfield, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and rector of St Clement Danes.

John Richardson, a fellow of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and afterwards Master of Peterhouse, and then of Trinity.

Francis Dillingham, was Fellow of Christ's College, Parson of Dean in Bedfordshire, and author of some theological pieces.

Dr Thomas Holland, was Fellow of Balliol College, Rector of Exeter, and Regius Professor of Divinity. He died in 1612.

Dr Branthwaite, at that time Fellow of Emanuel College, afterwards Master of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Dr Jeremiah Radcliffe, Fellow of Trinity College.

John Bois or Boys, Fellow of St John's College, Prebendary of Ely, and Rector of Boxworth, near Cambridge


I would have no desire to walk into the room where these men were gathered and argue the 'idea' that, “The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. These words were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to eliminate a perceived contradiction.”

I would like to make another small note at this time. I cannot help but wonder if the people who write such things ever actually study the Bible themselves, or whether they simply take the word of the first 'professor' they hear. I have found it to be the 'normal' that most people rarely do research themselves. Then, after being corrected, get angry at others for correcting them. Are these people aware that there is a vast amount of information available on the Bible. It does take a certain amount of research, which does require time and energy, but once the truth is found, it makes the search entirely worthwhile!

I would encourage everyone to look at the sources I provide in order to learn the joy of research.

Jack

 

[Second Phoenix]

What is your definition of a 'proper translation'?

 

[Jack Koons]

What is your definition of a 'proper translation'?

The proper translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 is as it is translated in the KJV.

Jack

 

[Second Phoenix]

You use the same words to define the words.

What is your defintion of a proper translation?

 

[Jack Koons]

Thank you for the preface to your question.

A proper translation is the rendering of the words from a source language to a target language using verbal and formal equivalence.

Jack

 

[Second Phoenix]

And that is to be determined by whom?

 

[Jack Koons]

And that is to be determined by whom?

Could you be a bit more specific than "that" please?

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Before the days of Johann Semler (1853-91 as a professor), the belief was nearly unanimous (I say 'nearly' to avoid the obvious absolute) that the scriptures in their original languages was divine, and that a verbal and formal equivalent translation carried derivative inspiration and was providentially preserved by God. In more modern times however, intellectual scholars have formed the opinion that they (somehow) have the authority to bring God's words under their microscope of scrutiny. Hence, they have replaced the former standard of translation with one of their own; 'dynamic equivalence'.
This does not change God's words; it simply replaces them with man's words.

Jack

 

[Second Phoenix]

Could you be a bit more specific than "that" please?

Jack

How does one determine whether or not a translation is the rendering of the words from a source language to a target language using verbal and formal equivalence?

 

[Jack Koons]

Will try another post.

 

[Jack Koons]

How does one determine whether or not a translation is the rendering of the words from a source language to a target language using verbal and formal equivalence?

Let us first deal with what I call 'common' knowledge.

The are in the world that we live in certain truths that are 'set standards'. An inch for example, is an inch everywhere the U. S. Measurement Standard is used. A millimeter, is a millimeter wherever the Metric Measurement Standard is used. In the defining of colors, green is green, and orange is orange. So it is in the world of language; there is a standardization of definitions for the words that we use. Whether the language be English, or some other, each language has its general standardization. Now there are of course dialects and idioms that are cultural that need to be taken into consideration, but the law of standardization for general communication is a fact.

When translating from one language to another, it is evident that only those who are learned in both the source and target languages should take on the endeavor. With this understanding, those who have a desire to have a document (of any kind) translated, only seek those individuals with the highest qualifications in these languages, and then trust those professionals to do the job correctly.

But, how does a person, who has only the ability to read and understand either the source language, or the target language know if the meaning of the source language was accurately rendered to the target language? This is where the above two mentioned facts come into play: First, known and established standardization of each language; and second, the long-term witness of those who have the highest qualifications in both languages.

Moving on to Divine Knowledge:

There is however an added element in translation when discussing those writings which are of Divine origin; that element is the internal evidence given by the Divine Author about the very writings themselves. Such internal evidence would include things such as inspiration of the words given, value of each word given, and even the logical understanding of providential preservation of the words given, which are expressed by the Divine Author Himself.

To give the simplest understanding of the former, the following examples are given:

Inspiration
2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Value
Proverbs 30: Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Logical understanding of Providential Preservation
Matthew 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


When the King James translators translated the scriptures from the source languages into English, they used Verbal and Formal Equivalence. The King James Bible stood for over 250 years with literally NO scholarship denying its inerrancy. As a matter of fact, 78 years later (plenty of time for learned scholars to point out the error of the method of translation), the London 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was declared as shown in the link below.


1689 LBC: Chapter 1 "Of the Holy Scriptures"


The following excerpts were taken from the above site:


“THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH
With Scripture Proofs
Adopted by the Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly which met in London in 1689”
“8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )”


The “Scripture Proofs” given by the “Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly which met in London in 1689” for their English speaking people to read and understand; were none other than those Scriptures that had been translated into English for them by the King James translators using verbal and formal equivalence. Here we have a logical witness (or witnesses) of several truths by these Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly of the Baptists of London in 1689:
1) The belief that the Text used by the translators of the King James were the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and providentially preserved Scriptures (written words) of God; for both the Old and the New Testaments.
2) The belief that the translators of the King James Bible were called of God to translated His Scriptures from the “original tongues” into “the vulgar language” of English speaking people.
3) The belief that the “Scripture Proofs” in English are equivalent to the words in the “original tongues”.
4) The belief that the totality of Scripture (as outlined in the Confession) in English, is equivalent to the “original tongue(s)”.


This simply means that until the days of Johann Salomo Semler in the mid 1700's, the Scriptures were believed to be Divinely Authored, Divinely Preserved, Divinely translated, and therefore Divinely Authoritative.


It is for the above reasons that the majority of Christians (at least until that time) believed those things that have been mentioned here; including the understanding that the best way to render the meanings of words from a source language to a target language is through verbal and formal-equivalence.
Jack

 

[cubanito]

Welcoming myself back from the seasonal hiatus (AKA a Mass of Christ): "Hi JR, hope you had a joyful remebrance of the Humiliation!"

1- It is commendable that Koonzy has kept a courteous and high level of forebearance even when, at times, getting unkind responses. His post in defense of the Dean of Deacons was especially heartwarming. I remain in disagreement with Koonzy, but quite applaud his courtesy (especially when needlessly provoked by one particularly childish numbskull who keeps calling him "Koonzy" and "The Koonz").

2- While still in disagreement with both the basic premise and general application of said premise by "The Koonz"; I do share his distaste for "dynamic equivalence." I would much rather recommend "The Message" which is a paraphrase with no scholarly pretentions, to the NIV whose publishers have clearly shown their hand as they go from bad to disgusting. My "go to" is the NASB, but I often try to muddle through the original languages using eSword and Strong numbers. I recently even found my old Greek interlinear, so I hail from the time of paper exhaustive concordances and the like. I once tried to learn Biblical Hebrew, but failed miserably. As a layman, I'll give myself a pass for at least trying.

3- Given my failure to learn Hebrew, I can again not argue with the answer to "who killed Goliath" which I posed. I am going to try and find another place where I believe there was a copying error. I still do NOT believe that the manuscripts of the Bible have been kept 100% pure. The very fact that there exists variants seems proof to me that a small (2-5%) error rate has crept in. Being not Baptist, I have never subscribed to their creeds. I DO subscribe to the wider "Chicago Statement of the Fundamentals."

JR, TTFN

 

[Jack Koons]

Welcome back JR,

Don't be getting all sentimental on me; I can not be anyone but who I am. I believe myself to be a professional, and must always represent Christ in the proper manner. I give credit when credit is due, and reprove when reproof is needed.

I will continue to attempt to show why I believe, what I believe.

Jack