Jump to content
Online Baptist

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

We are sure that the KJV is correct and more easily understandable in this matter.

Certainly more correct than your conjecture about something that is nowhere indicated in Scripture.

Your argument is based on nothing of consequence and designed to cause doubt, not clarity.

 Well, ACTUALLY, it's to emphasize the fact that the literal translation can't be wrong unless the source is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Well, ACTUALLY, it's to emphasize the fact that the literal translation can't be wrong unless the source is wrong.

That doesn't even make sense - mind explaining what you mean, because to me it appears as though you are just smoke screening with irrelevant stuff...... again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19.

First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning.  Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew.  Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near."  If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother.  As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation.  By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work.  You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to).  However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.

2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  But then, of course, a STRICTLY-LITERAL translation of the Hebrew can't be incorrect, either, unless the Hebrew itself is.

  I understand, of course, that sometimes words must be added in translation to make the passage understandable in English, which has many more words than the Scriptural languages do, but OTOH, a strictly-literal translation can't be incorrect, either.

Indeed.  So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be --

". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ."

or --

". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ."

However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother).

Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation.  However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all.

 

2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Are we SURE the Israelis didn't call the brother of the original Goliath whom David killed, also Goliath? After all, it seems "Goliath" was a Hebrew nickname; thus it could've been applied to multiple people in the manner "Junior" or "Bubba" are applied today. Just saying...

I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture.  The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19.  Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed.  So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be --

". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ."

or --

". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ."

However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother).

Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation.  However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all.

 

I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture.  The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19.  Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.

 The fact that Goliath  & Lahmi are hebrew names says a lot, as we know the Philistines used another language. And from jewish history, we know the used nicknames same as we do. So we can't rule out that some old Israelis called two separate giants "Goliath".

 However, I don't believe anyone seriously denies that David & Elhanan whacked different giants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 The fact that Goliath  & Lahmi are hebrew names says a lot, as we know the Philistines used another language. And from jewish history, we know the used nicknames same as we do. So we can't rule out that some old Israelis called two separate giants "Goliath".

 However, I don't believe anyone seriously denies that David & Elhanan whacked different giants.

Except for those that read any one of a number of MV's which clearly state WITHOUT Explanation that both David and Elhanan killed Goliath, and there is no explanation nor indication that they were different men - people reading one of the two passages would come to entirely different conclusions depending upon which they read, and since both passages refer to an UNUSUAL man called Goliath, the obvious conclusion is that they are the same man and there is a mistake in the Bible.

If however, those men were reading the KJV they would read the verses as stated without even the smallest thought of a contradiction.

SINCE YOU HAVE SPOUTED OFTEN AND LOUDLY about the matter of explanation somehow being a bad thing, YOU MUST BY YOUR OWN CONDITIONS agree that any version that doesn't include the note as in the KJV is INFERIOR - because the KJV makes the need for explanation in this case unnecessary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 20 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...