1 Samuel 6

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by ccrobinson, Oct 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's the portion I'm questioning in the the NIV:
    Here's the footnote referenced by [c].



    So, any idea why the NIV has only 70 when most manuscripts say 50,070? I haven't the slightest idea, but I heard a preacher use this to show how the NIV isn't a valid translation because it uses 70 instead of the 50,070 that evidently is found in the TR.

    In addition to that question, I have another. Are there any denominations that came about as a direct result of a specific Bible translation? I'm not aware of any, but it was implied that some various denominations are a direct result of a new Bible translation that was released.
     
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The NIV may get 'picked upon' because it has presented the greatest recent threat to the KJV's supremacy; but the NIV is not alone in its translation as "70": the RSV, ESV, ASV, Young, Darby, NLT, and perhaps others. The NLT's footnote reads: As in a few Hebrew manuscripts; most Hebrew manuscripts and Greek version read 50,070 men. Perhaps the text should be understood to read the LORD killed 70 men and 50 oxen.

    The manner in which the written Hebrew records numbers easily allowed for copyist error; therefore between the parallel accounts of Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel there is frequently disagreement. The exact number is not a matter of doctrine and Christians ought not to be dogmatic about them. The fifty thousand seventy is such a great number that it is doubted by many as being authentic.

    There are very good reasons to question the precise number at this particular verse. Matthew Henry's commentary: 2. Their punishment for this sin: He smote the men of Beth-shemesh, many of them, with a great slaughter. How jealous is God for the honour of his ark! He will not suffer it to be profaned. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Those that will not fear his goodness, and reverently use the tokens of his grace, shall be made to feel his justice, and sink under the tokens of his displeasure. Those that pry into what is forbidden, and come too near to holy fire, will find it is at their peril. He smote 50,070 men. This account of the numbers smitten is expressed in a very unusual manner in the original, which, besides the improbability that there should be so many guilty and so many slain, occasions many learned men to question whether we take the matter aright. In the original it is, He smote in (or among) the people three score and ten men, fifty thousand men. The Syriac and Arabic read it, five thousand and seventy men. The Chaldee reads it, seventy men of the elders, and fifty thousand of the common people. Seventy men as valuable as 50,000, so some, because they were priests. Some think the seventy men were the Beth-shemites that were slain for looking into the ark, and the 50,000 were those that were slain by the ark, in the land of the Philistines. He smote seventy men, that is, fifty out of a thousand, which was one in twenty, a half decimation; so some understand it. The Septuagint read it much as we do, he smote seventy men, and fifty thousand men. Josephus says only seventy were smitten.
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I assume that your "denominations" is restricted to Christian ones. In a sense, the Greek New Testament was responsible for the Reformation and all subsequent Protestant groups (Luther said he would not have challenged the Papacy if he had not read the NT in Greek first). The Roman Catholics stuck with Latin-based translations into the 20th century.

    I don't know of any denominational origins being a direct result of differences over Bible versions.
     
  4. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were no details given about which denomination(s) came about as a result of a particular translation, so I can't really say. I suppose the reference could have been to the JW's and their New World Translation, but I would think that the NWT was borne out of the JW's need to have a "Bible" that conforms to their beliefs, not that their cult was borne from the bad translation.
     
  5. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    I'm not aware of any sects that resulted from a new Bible translation. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own translation, but their beliefs long predate the new translation. The Adventists, Mormons, Christian Science and all the other groups that sprang from the second Great Awakening purported to draw their theology from the King James Version, as did American Unitarianism and the Worldwide Church of God (before its turn toward orthodoxy). The list can go on and on, which only proves that people can find a way to misuse just about any translation.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I wonder if there were 50K men in all Beth-shemesh.
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we were to throw away a translation because of an error in writing Hebrew numbers, the King James Version would have gone years ago......compare 2Ki 8:26 with 2Chron 22:2....We have Ahaziah older than his father.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    This has long thorny issue among serious biblical scholars, who have realized there are problems with the reading of "50,070." Both John Gill and Adam Clarke -- who can hardly be called modernistic Bible haters -- prefer the lower number.

    http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/1samuel/gill/1samuel6.htm

    So, is it 70 or 50,070? I don't know; the NIV and ESV opt for the former and the KNJ, NASB and NET (reluctantly) the latter. It seems to me that anyone who could junk an entire translation over this issue is not aware of the difficulties involved or is just regurgitating information from a handout or Web site, or both.
     
    #8 rsr, Oct 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 19, 2006
  9. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is also a problem in translating numbers in Hebrew...a silly little mark like an apostrophe can change the entire number. Many of these earlier translations were done under candlelight or at best lanterns. No where to plug the computer in with automatic corrections.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  10. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are a number of things that bother me about how this stuff in 1 Samuel was presented. Thanks to all who responded for your thoughts and sources on this.
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Some manuscripts must have had 70: Josephus used that number in 93 AD.

    Rob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...