Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.


DaveW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mr Roby is clearly only here to cause trouble, and he is making hollow claims about errors in the KJV. If he has as he has implied many errors in the KJV why is it that he has now been more than 24 hours since posting his next error?

If there are so many (as he implies) then it should be a simple matter to just list them off - shouldn't take any great amount of time to find the next one and present it - since he has spent 40 years ridiculing the KJV (note the use of "goofs and booboos" - which sounds very much like what he accused NoNics of in another thread) he should be an expert on such things.

Then again, if he really has investigated the matter, he would have thoroughly studied the matter of the Passover, which it is evident that he has not from his poor counter to the answer presented here on that point.

No, I doubt very much that he has any good intent - he is here to damage the faith of some, which is the result that comes when people are driven to the MV's by such as he - so many doctrines are softened or removed by the MV's, and the simple fact that many MV's promote doubt of God's Word ("not found in the better manuscripts") damages men's faith in the Word of God.

This is my assessment of this man - he has lied, he has misrepresented, he has ridiculed, he has stated that he will not give plain respect, and yet he DEMANDED respect from us.

Let me make this plain - I am NOT AFRAID of any so called "proofs" that he can post here, because I know that they can all be answered.

I am also confident that no matter how solid the proof against him, he will not accept it.

The matter of Easter/Passover has been answered - you refuse to accept what is presented, and we refuse to accept your mispresentation of Scripture.

Later readers can assess for themselves what has been presented on that matter and decide that Mr Roby is wrong for themselves.

It is time to move on to the second error of the implied many that there are...…..

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
19 hours ago, Jerry said:

 

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. 😉

Jerry! It's SO good to "see" you again as well! I hope you're here to stay for a while? I've thought about and prayed for you often. Are you still in the same place? If so, we aren't too far from your neck of the woods now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I moved to Abbotsford, BC (near Vancouver) in October 2011.

As for sticking around, we will see. I am not fighting depression like I was when I last visited, so I am willing to give these boards a try again. I look forward to fellowshipping over the Word of God and helping others dig into the Scriptures to answer issues we face here and in our own lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...