Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  A word about the "Goliath" controversy of 2 Samuel 12:19:

    "Goliath" is a HEBREW word which means "splendor". And "Lahmi" is also a Hebrew word meaning "my bread'.

   Scripture doesn't tell us the Philistine names of those 2 giants. Goliath & Lahmi are likely Hebrew "handles" for those 2 men. As both were abnormally large, it could be that the Israelis applied Goliath to the original G's brother, not knowing his actual name.

  Just a suggestion regarding the controversy of the Hebrew wording of that verse.

I believe you mean 2 Samuel 21:19, right?

If so, I ask -- What is the specific phrase in the verse wherein the King James translation got it wrong?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Yes, 2 Sam 21;19. My typo.

  And the KJV didn't actually get it wrong, by strict interp, but it ADDED the words "the brother of". However, some KJVOs say other versions that don't include that phrase got it wrong. Hard to do when it's a LITERAL transalation of the Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Yes, 2 Sam 21;19. My typo.

  And the KJV didn't actually get it wrong, by strict interp, but it ADDED the words "the brother of". However, some KJVOs say other versions that don't include that phrase got it wrong. Hard to do when it's a LITERAL transalation of the Hebrew.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was first saved over forty years ago, I was taught first the basics of reading and studying the Bible. One of the first basics I remember is being taught that the italicized words were words that were added to facilitate the readers understanding. Silly me I thought everybody knew this, but I guess I was wrong.

Now, for someone to come along at this late date and insist that this basic feature of italicized words is adding to Scripture, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course the translators have the HONESTY to denote EVERY instance where they included extra words for clarity.

How many other "translations" do that?

Most don't have any indication of when they have done similar.

Thanks for pointing out the honesty of the KJV translational process.

Not really having much success with these errors.... in spite of your constant implying that there are many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Thanks for this Bro. Dave. I was going to add something very much like it to my last reply, but figured I had said enough.

Well brother, from the way he has been talking, I was expecting lots of errors to be pointed to and difficult things to answer (but I am confident that a suitable answer could be found), and yet all we have had is a couple of instances which are answered easily, and the second of which actually points to errors in other version whilst displaying the integrity of the KJV translational process.

Not really sure what he was trying to achieve with this last one?????

For those who don't know, the passage he has pointed to about Goliath, in many versions credits someone else with killing Goliath, when the KJV, because of the words added for clarity AND italicized to show such, clarifies the point by pointing out that in that passage it was "the brother of" Goliath.....

2 Sam 21

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

to leave out the italicized phrase "the brother of", would appear to credit Elhanan with killing Goliath, but as we all know David did that. 

So which is right?

He talks elsewhere about ease of understanding, then tries to use this against the KJV?

How much explanation would have to be done to give a proper understanding of this matter when 1 Sam 17 says one thing and 2 Sam 21 says another. Yet a KJV reader would read the two passages and understand instantly and clearly.

Again we have a contradiction of this man - you cannot use both sides of the same argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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.

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

12 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

When I was first saved over forty years ago, I was taught first the basics of reading and studying the Bible. One of the first basics I remember is being taught that the italicized words were words that were added to facilitate the readers understanding. Silly me I thought everybody knew this, but I guess I was wrong.

Now, for someone to come along at this late date and insist that this basic feature of italicized words is adding to Scripture, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at the worst.

  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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well brother, from the way he has been talking, I was expecting lots of errors to be pointed to and difficult things to answer (but I am confident that a suitable answer could be found), and yet all we have had is a couple of instances which are answered easily, and the second of which actually points to errors in other version whilst displaying the integrity of the KJV translational process.

Not really sure what he was trying to achieve with this last one?????

For those who don't know, the passage he has pointed to about Goliath, in many versions credits someone else with killing Goliath, when the KJV, because of the words added for clarity AND italicized to show such, clarifies the point by pointing out that in that passage it was "the brother of" Goliath.....

2 Sam 21

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

to leave out the italicized phrase "the brother of", would appear to credit Elhanan with killing Goliath, but as we all know David did that. 

So which is right?

He talks elsewhere about ease of understanding, then tries to use this against the KJV?

How much explanation would have to be done to give a proper understanding of this matter when 1 Sam 17 says one thing and 2 Sam 21 says another. Yet a KJV reader would read the two passages and understand instantly and clearly.

Again we have a contradiction of this man - you cannot use both sides of the same argument.

  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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes 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...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


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, 21 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...