Peter's rise and fall as the head of the little flock

[ViaCrucis]

You don't believe in the KJV being the authority in the English Bible translation?

Nobody should. It's an indefensible position to take because there is literally nothing to support treating the KJV as "the authority" in English-language Bibles. The authority of English-language translations of Scripture lay in the Scriptures themselves which they are translated from: If a reading in the KJV is demonstrably false when compared and critiqued against our body of manuscripts and source materials, then the KJV is in error--not necessarily the manuscripts from which it was translated.

Case in point: Psalms 2:12 in the KJV is as follows: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

Now, this isn't unique to the KJV, this can also be found in the earlier Geneva Bible of 1599 and the earlier 1535 Miles Coverdale version. And in Martin Luther's 1545 German Bible he likewise has translated it here as "Küßt den Sohn"

The problem is that this rendering of the Hebrew isn't correct. It doesn't say "Kiss the Son", and indeed earlier translations before the Protestant Reformation don't reflect this reading. The Vulgate has (and thus John Wycliffe's translation in the 1300's likewise has)

"Apprehendite disciplinam, nequando irascatur Dominus, et pereatis de via justa. Cum exarserit in brevi ira ejus, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo."

Which Wycliffe translates as
"Take ye lore; lest the Lord be wrooth sumtyme, and lest ye perischen fro iust waie. Whanne his `ire brenneth out in schort tyme; blessed ben alle thei, that tristen in hym."

The Douay-Rhimes likewise has
"Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him."

Now let's look at the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) here, specifically the phrase being translated as "kiss the son" or "embrace discipline", it is נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר (nashequ-bar), the Hebrew word nashaq does mean "to kiss" or "to embrace" or "to touch gently" etc, and thus the major question is the word bar.

Now, in Aramaic the word bar means "son". But that's not the meaning in Hebrew, the Hebrew word for "son" is ben. The Hebrew word bar, rather than "son", means "purely" or "with purity".

It is also the case that the LXX, likewise has rendered this as δράξασθε παιδείας, "grasp discipline".

Jerome chose to understand the meaning here to be something like "worship purely", that the language of embrace indicates worship, paying homage--and thus to accept discipline or "apprendite disciplinam".

While "Kiss the Son" would certainly make the passage more obviously Christocentric, if it is a bad translation then it is still a bad translation.

Should the KJV be our standard for what the meaning of the Scriptures are, or should the Scriptures mean what they say--and the job of translators is to do their best to make the Scriptures as accessible as possible to others? In other words, which is more important: The King James Version of the Bible, or the Bible itself?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

Nobody should. It's an indefensible position to take because there is literally nothing to support treating the KJV as "the authority" in English-language Bibles. The authority of English-language translations of Scripture lay in the Scriptures themselves which they are translated from: If a reading in the KJV is demonstrably false when compared and critiqued against our body of manuscripts and source materials, then the KJV is in error--not necessarily the manuscripts from which it was translated.

Case in point: Psalms 2:12 in the KJV is as follows: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

Now, this isn't unique to the KJV, this can also be found in the earlier Geneva Bible of 1599 and the earlier 1535 Miles Coverdale version. And in Martin Luther's 1545 German Bible he likewise has translated it here as "Küßt den Sohn"

The problem is that this rendering of the Hebrew isn't correct. It doesn't say "Kiss the Son", and indeed earlier translations before the Protestant Reformation don't reflect this reading. The Vulgate has (and thus John Wycliffe's translation in the 1300's likewise has)

"Apprehendite disciplinam, nequando irascatur Dominus, et pereatis de via justa. Cum exarserit in brevi ira ejus, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo."

Which Wycliffe translates as
"Take ye lore; lest the Lord be wrooth sumtyme, and lest ye perischen fro iust waie. Whanne his `ire brenneth out in schort tyme; blessed ben alle thei, that tristen in hym."

The Douay-Rhimes likewise has
"Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him."

Now let's look at the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) here, specifically the phrase being translated as "kiss the son" or "embrace discipline", it is נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר (nashequ-bar), the Hebrew word nashaq does mean "to kiss" or "to embrace" or "to touch gently" etc, and thus the major question is the word bar.

Now, in Aramaic the word bar means "son". But that's not the meaning in Hebrew, the Hebrew word for "son" is ben. The Hebrew word bar, rather than "son", means "purely" or "with purity".

It is also the case that the LXX, likewise has rendered this as δράξασθε παιδείας, "grasp discipline".

Jerome chose to understand the meaning here to be something like "worship purely", that the language of embrace indicates worship, paying homage--and thus to accept discipline or "apprendite disciplinam".

While "Kiss the Son" would certainly make the passage more obviously Christocentric, if it is a bad translation then it is still a bad translation.

Should the KJV be our standard for what the meaning of the Scriptures are, or should the Scriptures mean what they say--and the job of translators is to do their best to make the Scriptures as accessible as possible to others? In other words, which is more important: The King James Version of the Bible, or the Bible itself?

-CryptoLutheran

If you compare the 2 ways of understanding Matthew 16:18

KJV
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

versus his paraphrase
"Peter, will you just listen to what I'm teaching here? This is what I'm building my church on if you'd just be quiet and listen."

Don't tell me you actually think the latter is a more accurate translation of what Matthew 16:18 meant?