• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Does this belong in our Bibles?

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by BWSmith, Jun 21, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BWSmith

    BWSmith Biblical Scholar

    This paragraph was found at the top of 1 Sam 11 in the Qumran scrolls, and was also used by Josephus:

    "Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead. About a month later..."(cont. with 1 Sam 11:1)

    This paragraph is restored in the NRSV. Should it be in all Bibles?
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    This is the 3rd place on the net I've seen this posted.
  3. TorahsDisciple

    TorahsDisciple I Come To Serve

    The KJV is the true word of G_D and is without error.
  4. BWSmith

    BWSmith Biblical Scholar

    > This is the 3rd place on the net I've seen this posted.

    And your point is?

    I'm a member of 8 different Christian boards. Would you prefer that I not ask the same question to everyone at the same time?
  5. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    well sounds a little like trolling but if you're going to check them faithfully, then I'd say its okay.
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    I can name one. The book of Job uses the word narem that in the KJV is translated unicorn in Job 39. That word is flatout an incorrect translation. We know now that the word narem means "wild bull" or a similar animal. If there is one error in the KJV, then the KJV is not without error...
  7. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    Interesting that the translators of the KJV themselves wrote in their "translators to the reader" that multiple translations are beneficial, and that their translation had errors in it like all translations. So when did people figure out that the KJV was without error? I guess the KJV translators were apostates if they picked up a Geneva Bible from time to time?

  8. BWSmith

    BWSmith Biblical Scholar

    Unfortunately, it is methodologically impossible to prove that anything is in error, because the meaning of "error" can be redefined (especially when divine intervention is involved).

    I've heard that the Arabic language itself was altered so that poor grammar in the Koran would not be in error.

    Hence, inerrancy is not so much the result of any logical process, as much as it is a philosophical postulate around which all reality is shaped. (Something I refer to as "Bibliolatry".)
  9. BWSmith

    BWSmith Biblical Scholar

    > Interesting that the translators of the KJV themselves wrote in their "translators to the reader" that multiple translations are beneficial, and that their translation had errors in it like all translations. So when did people figure out that the KJV was without error? I guess the KJV translators were apostates if they picked up a Geneva Bible from time to time?

    Take a fundamentalist. Draw a line in time between himself and God in terms of revelation. If God is truly good, then everything along that line has to be perfect. Otherwise, all is lost, because there is no way of absolutely distinguishing between the whisper of God and Satan.

    Specifically, The King James Bible, its manuscript sources, their sources, their originals, etc. must all be completely flawless, or else God has not "preserved His word", and their worldview collapses.
  10. ThrdJohn13

    ThrdJohn13 New Member

    So if the KJV is the only way, what do you conclude about both a) textual traditions that act as the basis for the KJV, and b) subsequently my Greek and Hebrew Bibles? There's a lot of history about the transmission of the Greek and Hebrew texts that I'd be interested in hearing how you deal with them, and then if you think there's any way you can verify/prove your conclusions. If we're not careful, weend up saying that God's covenant community never really had his Word at all, and we only got it in 1611!

    About the 1 Samuel passage, I know the most recent critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (BHS 4, which uses codex Leningradensis as it's template) does not have it, and neither does Ralph's Septuagint, but I'm very curious about what it's newest update (BHQ) and the Hebrew Bible Project (which uses the Aleppo codex I think as it's template) will do about the issue (as well as other issues, like the missing chapters in Jeremiah, and the flip-flopping of parts of chapters in Isaiah, etc.). After these new editions come out, it'll be interesting to see what kind of Bible translations may spring as a result! Any of you think that we'll feel more pressed to deal with the original languages? I know the Jews do! (lots of em need to memorize the Hebrew Pentateuch for their Barmitzvahs and Batmitzvahs! THAT humbles me!)

  11. Ioustinos

    Ioustinos Veteran

    Eastern Orthodox
    To go back to the original question I believe it depends on which manuscripts were used in the translation process.
  12. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    Re: 1 Sam. 11 from the NET Bible footnote, p. 526.

  13. Julie


    Yep, sure is. :wave:
  14. Julie


    Unicorn: described as an animal of great ferocity and strength ( Num 23:22, R.V., "wild ox," marg., "ox-antelope; 24:8; Isa 34:7, R.V., "wild oxen"), and untamable ( Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered ( reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius ( "primitive ox"), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar ( Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended ( Deu 33:17; Psa 22:21; 29:6; 92:10).

    I would not say it was a MIS translation.....at all!


    The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1901, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible, published in 1833, Lamsa’s Bible translation of 1933, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

    The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the nkjv, nas and niv have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, and the wild ox has two horns, not just one. One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS. In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else, but God, what the unicorn was or is. It was a one horned animal of great strength, and it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.
  15. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    Other mistranslations:

    <B>Translation Errors</B>

    Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

    <B>Genesis 1:2</B> should read "And the earth<B> became </B>without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is <I>hayah</I>, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in <B>Genesis 19:26</B>.

    <B>Genesis 10:9</B> should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter <B>in place of</B> [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

    <B>Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26</B> in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is <I>Azazel</I>, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

    <B>Deuteronomy 24:1</B>, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

    <B>II Kings 2:23</B>, should be "young men", not "little children."

    <B>Isaiah 65:17</B> should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

    <B>Ezekiel 20:25</B> should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

    <B>Daniel 8:14</B> is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

    <B>Malachi 4:6</B> should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in <B>Zechariah 14:11</B>.

    <B>Matthew 5:48</B> should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

    <B>Matthew 24:22</B> needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved<B> alive</B>."

    <B>Matthew 27:49</B> omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

    <B>Matthew 28:1</B>, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

    <B>Luke 2:14</B> should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

    <B>Luke 14:26</B> has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word <I>miseo</I>, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

    <B>John 1:31, 33</B> should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not <B>with</B> water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

    <B>John 1:17</B> is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

    <B>John 13:2</B> should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

    <B>Acts 12:4</B> has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is <I>pascha </I>which is translated correctly as<B> Passover</B> in Matthew 26:2, etc.

    <B>I Corinthians 1:18</B> should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that <B>are perishing </B>foolishness; but unto us which <B>are being saved</B> it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, <B>II Thessalonians 2:10</B> should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

    <B>I Corinthians 15:29</B> should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for <B>the hope of</B> the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for<B> the hope of</B> the dead?"

    <B>II Corinthians 6:2</B> should be "<B>a</B> day of salvation", instead of "<B>the </B>day of salvation." This is a quote from <B>Isaiah 49:8</B>, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

    <B>I Timothy 4:8</B> should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth <B>for a little time</B>: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

    <B>I Timothy 6:10</B> should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

    <B>Hebrews 4:8</B> should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

    <B>Hebrews 4:9</B> should read, "There remaineth therefore a <B>keeping of a sabbath</B> to the people of God."

    <B>Hebrews 9:28</B> is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

    <B>I John 5:7-8</B> contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in <I>heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth</I>, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

    Also, Deuteronomy 8:9 in the KJV says that the hills of Palestine contained "brass". Brass is an artificial composite and cannot be found in nature.


    As to unicorn, from answersingenesis.com

    <P class=main align=left>So what was the animal described in the Bible as the 'unicorn'? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is 'reem'. This has been translated in various languages as<I> monoceros</I>, <I>unicornis</I>, <I>unicorn</I>, <I>einhorn</I> and <I>eenhorn</I>, all of which mean 'one horn'. However, the word 'reem' is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.
    <P class=main align=left>Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of 'reem'. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called 'rimu'. It is thus highly likely that this was the 'reem' of the Bible, a wild ox.
    <P class=main align=left>It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the 'rimu/reem' were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the 'rimu/reem' was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as <I>monoceros</I> (one horn).
    <P class=main align=left>The real 'reem' or wild ox was also known as the <B>aurochs</B>, the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle. (see the feature article on the aurochs in this issue of Creation magazine, pages 25-28)."
  16. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    Saying the King James version is the true word of God is irrational, as is any translation of the bible from the origional hebrew and greek to another language, especially english.&nbsp; When you write a piece for orchestra and wish to orchestrate it for piano, you will have to use the same keys more than once, as indeed what may be a violin solo may not be copied in perfection to what a trumpet solo is: the instruments are using the same keys, but have different sounds.&nbsp; The same is with biblical translation.&nbsp; When going from a rather complex language such as greek to a much less complicated language as our own, you will have to use many of the same words more than once when you substitute words.&nbsp; This does not mean you lose the general idea of passage, but it is nowhere near transliteration.&nbsp; If you doubt, research the word "good" as found in Genesis 1 and see how many different words you get that could have just as likely been in place of it.&nbsp; The King James is not the "true" word, nor is the New American Standard, or New International Version.&nbsp; They are all run-offs from a language that we do not have.&nbsp; I will admit, however, that some translations are closer than others.&nbsp; But we all need to rent a cabin on a cold winter day,&nbsp;sip vanilla cokes, and&nbsp;struggle to learn the complicated greek and hebrew languages.&nbsp; Until then, we will not know the origional.&nbsp;


  17. Job_38

    Job_38 <font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

    Hey BW, I like the title in your avatar.
  18. qkumba

    qkumba New Member

    Anyways, to return to the original question, since a discussion of the KJV really has its place elsewhere. From an academic point of view, I would say that yes, the paragraph should be included. To summarise what Dr. Jonathan Campbell writes ("Deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls" (1996), p. 43), the Hebrew script for "But he held his peace" and "About a month later" is very similar and it is considered likely that a scribe at some point missed out the section in question, explaining why it was found in the DSS version but not in others. The MT and LXX (Masoretic and Septuagint) do not have this passage, but the Qumran scrolls do, and Josephus' history of Israel shows evidence of knowledge of it.

    However, it is not correct to conclude from this that the MT and LXX translations are necessarily inferior, since the findings at Qumran indicate that many versions of the scriptures were in circulation at the time, some closely resembling the MT while others did not.

    Most Bibles are prepared by scholars with the intention of using all available textual evidence in order to reach decisions on questions such as this regarding what translation or what version of the book is correct. Some will make decisions based on theological decisions (eg. New KJV, I would suppose); however, in order to prepare a translation of this chapter which best reflected the available manuscripts it makes sense to include the additional sentences.

    edit: Sorry for dragging this up again - I was searching for threads including "Qumran" to contribute to and it didn't occur to me to notice that the last post was in 2002! Still, it's relevant and interesting.
  19. Knight

    Knight Knight of the Cross

    Wow, you sure pulled this one out of the pit.... :)

    Like anything else, this is a manuscript question. Did the author of Samuel write this?
  20. qkumba

    qkumba New Member

    Yeah, sorry about bringing it up!

    It makes sense to conclude that the writer of this section was the same author as the author of Samuel, since the passage was evidently circulating as part of the "biblical" manuscript of Samuel before any error in copying was made.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.