KJV-O study challenge

[daveleau]

Why does Isa 14:4 of the KJV use the words "Golden City", when the modern versions use "fury"?
Hint: Analysis of the Hebrew is needed here

God bless you!
Dave

 

[TwinCrier]

The ASV also uses "Golden City." The word it's translated from means literally "Gold." Some of the 'newer" manuscripts have a different symbol or letter that makes it a different word so they usually put fury or arrogance, though that doesn't make sense in the sentence so they restructure it to imply that the "oppressor" ceases to exist or his anger ceases to exist depending on which version. The foot note usually read "14:4 Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint and Syriac; the meaning of the word in the Masoretic Text is uncertain." I wouldn't want to rely on uncertain manuscripts.

 

[daveleau]

Let's see if this forum can handle Hebrew text...

ר
ד
Is the only difference between these two texts in this verse. It is very difficult to see the difference and the letters were sometimes exaggerated slightly in the copies to help distinguish. This one letter, from a "d" to an "r" caused this change from "golden city" to "fury". The context appears to be that the fury of Babylon (Assyrian attempt at conquest) has ceased. It could also mean that the Golden City (figurative language for Babylon) has ceased, but there is no Hebrew here for city in this verse. As stated above, the word literally means gold, which was then interpreted to be "Golden City". This is the only time in Hebrew that this word is used, making it difficult to translate.

Interestingly, my NIV Exhaustive Concordance does not show the Hebrew difference. So, my source may be incorrect. *shrugs* This word only occurs once in the Strong's Concordance and the NIVEC.

Interesting but absolutely inconclusive.

 

[TwinCrier]

but there is no Hebrew here for city in this verse.

That may be true; then the word city should be italicized as that is how words that do not actually appear are usually handled in the KJ.

 

[Ave Maria]

Well, here's what my Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions says for "the golden city" in Isaiah 14:4 or Strong's Number 4062:

H4062
מדהבה
madhêbâh
BDB Definition:
1) boisterous, raging, behaviour, boisterous behaviour
2) (CLBL) golden city, exactness of gold
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: perhaps from the equivalent of H1722
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2125d

So it appears to me, that it could mean both.

 

[brandplucked]

In verse 4 we read: "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the GOLDEN CITY ceased!"

"the GOLDEN CITY ceased", referring to the great riches of Babylon, is the reading of the Revised Version of 1885, the ASV of 1901, ther 1936 Jewish translation, the NKJV, Webster's Bible, the Third Millenium Bible, the KJV 21, and the Hebrew Names Version. Young's says "the golden one ceased". The 1917 Jewish translation and Darby say "the exactress of gold."

Yet when we get to the NASB, ESV and NIV we read something very different. The NIV says: "How HIS FURY has ended." Then we read in the niv footnote that this reading supposedly comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and the Syriac, and that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

I have a copy of the Septuagint and it does not say Fury at all, but rather Taskmaster or one who hurries another. The niv editors are lying.

For those of you who do not have any infallible, inerrant, complete Holy Bible, you can keep using your multiple choice versions and never have any final authority save your own minds. Go for it and see where it will get you.

I believe we have an inerrant and complete Holy Bible in the King James.

Will Kinney

 

[ClementofRome]

The niv editors are lying.

But on the other hand, I suspect you would say (and forgive me for putting words in your mouth) that President Bush did not lie about WMD!

A "lie" is a purposefully told untruth.

The NIV editors did not lie and neither did Bush! Good grief.

Dave, thanks for your efforts and I certainly understand what you are showing with your example and in fact I agree with you whole-heartedly.

On the other hand, and I am sure I will take some abuse for this, but I don't give a flip whether is it "Golden City" (what, you mean the KJV had to ADD something ..."city"...to the original to make it work?) or whether it is "fury." Neither says a thing about correct faith or practice.

Sorry to be so disagreeable, but I just enjoy my freedom in Christ Jesus.

 

[christian-only]

Well, it's got to be a gold something or other since that's what the word means. Whether it's a golden city or a (exactress) taxer of gold may be up for grabs, but it certainly aint fury, unless you want to say its "golden fury."

 

[filosofer]

The ASV also uses "Golden City." The word it's translated from means literally "Gold." Some of the 'newer" manuscripts have a different symbol or letter that makes it a different word so they usually put fury or arrogance, though that doesn't make sense in the sentence so they restructure it to imply that the "oppressor" ceases to exist or his anger ceases to exist depending on which version. The foot note usually read "14:4 Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint and Syriac; the meaning of the word in the Masoretic Text is uncertain." I wouldn't want to rely on uncertain manuscripts.

Well, "certainty" is elusive, isn't it? You wouldn't want to relay on "uncertain manuscripts" some of which are 1000 years older than the other Hebrew manuscripts available. But you want absolute certainty for a word that does occur in Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts, but only once? And that is more certain?

Thus, to claim The word it's translated from means literally "Gold." is less than certain, because no one knows for certain. It's an educated guess, but not an absolute certainty.

 

[vinsight4u]

...

 

[daveleau]

2Sa 12:31 And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

There is a parallel passage in Chronicles that says something very different:

1Ch 20:3 And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.

David did not cut these people up; he put them to work. This is an error in the translation that I think the NKJV fixed from the old KJV. Again, minor, but it seems that a look at parallel versions and parallel Scripture is key. Otherwise, people could take this 1 Chron verse to support their execution, torture and dismemberment of their conquered enemies.

 

[Andy D]

But on the other hand, I suspect you would say (and forgive me for putting words in your mouth) that President Bush did not lie about WMD!

A "lie" is a purposefully told untruth.

The NIV editors did not lie and neither did Bush! Good grief.

Dave, thanks for your efforts and I certainly understand what you are showing with your example and in fact I agree with you whole-heartedly.

On the other hand, and I am sure I will take some abuse for this, but I don't give a flip whether is it "Golden City" (what, you mean the KJV had to ADD something ..."city"...to the original to make it work?) or whether it is "fury." Neither says a thing about correct faith or practice.

Sorry to be so disagreeable, but I just enjoy my freedom in Christ Jesus.

I dont think we can answer either of these questions, about G Bush and the editors of NIV. We dont know their motives in their hearts because we are not them or even close enough to them to know. I am sure there were good Christian men working on the NIV translation, but we cant be sure they all were completely honest...(not insinuating any werent) I dont have a problem with the NIV translation as much as I do the text it came from.

Great to hear you enjoy your freedom in Christ though!! AMEN!!

 

[ClementofRome]

I dont think we can answer either of these questions, about G Bush and the editors of NIV. We dont know their motives in their hearts because we are not them or even close enough to them to know. I am sure there were good Christian men working on the NIV translation, but we cant be sure they all were completely honest...(not insinuating any werent) I dont have a problem with the NIV translation as much as I do the text it came from.

Great to hear you enjoy your freedom in Christ though!! AMEN!!

Andy is correct. My apologies to political leftists and rightists and otherwise. I was reacting to a bold faced statement that seemed certain that the individual who made the statement knew for fact that the translators of the NIV lied. I was just drawing upon a contemporary parallel which we all have heard, I am sure.

I am not a bearer of the NIV torch, it is fine, but not perfect (I know here comes the "mantra"..."then you don't have an inerrant/infallible word of God do you?"). The NASB is better!

Over and out.
C of R