A different question about Bible versions

AHA! Caught red-handed! Watson, come quickly!

 

I saw it in this dictionary. It does not match your comment concerning your dictionary's definition of forbid.

 

You mentioned John 10:10

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.


Not just life but eternal life, resurrection life.

But I can still say I don't know when my mortal life will end and in fact in reality it doesn't matter to me. But that's not the point. The point is that we all must die to this mortal life. We don't know when.

This is God's doing against all the descendants of Adam and I can say that and still look forward to eternal life and not "pit jesus against God".

Proverbs 27:1 Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.


HankD​

 

Aw shucks! Somebody done went and told!

Ed

 

Thank you for agreeing that the versions which declare "God" to leave all men unsure of life to be in error.

 

I don't believe it is right to accuse the LORD of being a tyrant, or theif, when it comes to "His" possibly being responsible for ensnaring men's leaves with trickery and deceit!

The "ideal" introduced by modern versions would even make those who've received Christ to think they might lose their salvation at the "rising up" of God to pour out His wrath upon sinful men who refuse to repent.

I sure am GLAD my BIBLE is in complete and PERFECT HARMONY!:sleeping_2:

 

The context fits the understanding of the Greek into English in Romans 6, just as the context refuses "God" from the Hebrew in Job 24:22.:sleeping_2:

 

I agree; "God forbid" is a perfectly sound translation of the Greek idiom into the British vernacular, perhaps even more precise during the 17th century.

Job is perhaps the oldest of our preserved Scripture, and it is primarily written in ancient Hebraic poetic form, making any certainty of interpretation very difficult. The context of Job 24:20-24 from the KJV--

The womb shall forget him; the worm shall feed sweetly on him; he shall be no more remembered; and wickedness shall be broken as a tree.
He evil entreateth the barren [that] beareth not: and doeth not good to the widow.
He draweth also the mighty with his power: he riseth up, and || no [man] is sure of life.
[Though] it be given him [to be] in safety, whereon he resteth; yet his eyes [are] upon their ways.
They are exalted for a little while, but are gone and brought low; they are taken out of the way as all [other], and cut off as the tops of the ears of corn.​

There is a translator's note in the AV of 1611 for the later phrase of verse 22 ("no [man] is sure of life") which states "|| Or, hee trusteth not his owne life." The word "man" is not in the Hebrew (so indicated by the brackets), it is supplied by the translators. The underlying Hebrew word behind "is sure of" or "trusteth" is 'aman (Strong's #0539) which has a range of meaning including: to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in. The KJV renders this word as "believe" 44 times, "faithful" 20 times, "sure" 11 times, "established" 7 times, and "trust" 5 times (others: "assurance", "verified", "stedfast", "continuance", "father", "bring up", "nurse", "be nursed", "surely be", "stand fast", "fail", and "trusty", for a total of 15 different renderings).

Many readers, scholars, and commentators interpret the first "He" in verse 22 to refer to God (KJV capitalization may be a result of being the first word of the sentence and not an indication of Deity). Who else can "draweth also the mighty with his power"? But the next "he" does not necessarily refer to God; the antecedant of that "he" may be the evil person of verse 21 and preceding. The "man", or third "hee", clearly is human and not divine.

On the other hand, depending upon how the verse is constructed the second "he" could be a reference to God also. Here is Job 24:22-23 from the NET--

But God drags off the mighty by his power; when God rises up against him, he has no faith in his life.
God may let them rest in a feeling of security, but he is constantly watching all their ways. ​

The NET's translator's note for the early part of verse 22 states: God has to be the subject of this clause. None is stated in the Hebrew text, but "God" has been supplied in the translation for clarity. Another note for the last portion explains--

This line has been given a number of interpretations due to its cryptic form. The verb yaqum means "he rises up." It probably is meant to have God as the subject, and be subordinated as a temporal clause to what follows. The words "against him" are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation to specify the object and indicate that "rise up" is meant in a hostile sense. The following verb vylo'-ya'amin, by its very meaning of "and he does not believe," cannot have God as the subject, but must refer to the wicked.​

I think the key to this interpretation is the last phrase of verse 23: "yet his eyes [are] upon their ways." To whom do the "eyes" belong? Who looks upon on "ways"? The "eyes" belong to a masculine singular subject ("his"); the "ways" belong to a group ("their"). But if this passage has been just about the wicked, is there another person or group being inserted here? The "ways" being discussed in this passage are those of the wicked. We know that God sees them. The statement does not seem to make sense using only 'the wicked' to substitute for the pronouns here: 'Though it be given to the wicked to be in safety, whereon the wicked resteth; yet the wicked's eyes [are] upon the wicked's ways.' Admittedly, this is a difficult passage with many pronouns, and changes in number.

 

The only problem is when one insinuates deity in these phrases, anywhere within these phrases that is key, is against the attributes of God.

The key to follow the harmony and flow of the poetic Hebraic tense is the conjunctive word "also".

Since when is it God has ever entreated the barren with evil and not done good to the widow? It is this person that "also" draweth the mighty with his power.

The sense of the entire passage is that this person has no regard for men or their lives, that is NOT ever the case with the Lord. So doctrinally, the interjection of deity as to refer to "God" being the precedent, antecedent, or anything else suggested is error.

The only arguement that would allow "God" to be proper would be that Job was accusing God of these things as to murmur against Him. But even though it seems that Job does this several times, it is best understood he uses this type of verbal exchange with his three "miserable comforters" as a form of reproof and rebuke, as if they know so much more than he about the LORD.

Job was suffering reproach and the attacks of satan, they , his "friends" were judgemental towards him and actually the devil's advocates.

 

To answer theHebrew yaqum as "he riseth up" would be best interpreted that one is rising above his estate to overpower others, that is not best suited to be the Lord either. Why, even satan as the King of Tyre knew that he could not be more than God, only that he wanted to exalt his throne above the throne of Most High. He said, "I will be like the Lost High, not above.

For the Lord to rise up, there must be something or some one above Him, error.

 

:laugh: I just caught what I said the other day, I meant "lives":godisgood:

 

Was Moses in error then to pray that the Lord "rise up" at Numbers 10:35?--

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.(KJV)​

The Lord also describes Himself as rising up --

Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself. (Isaiah 33:10)

Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination [is] to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, [even] all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. (Zephaniah 3:8)

For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 14:22)​

Did the prophet write an error under inspiration in Isaiah 28:21?--

For the LORD shall rise up as [in] mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as [in] the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (KJV) ​

I didn't check to see if the Hebrew words used for "rise up" in these verses are yaqum because it doesn't matter: the KJV clearly states in plain English that God does rise up.

 

There does not seem to be anything in the Hebrew text to support the word "also" in the KJV translation of verse 22. The conjuctive could be understood as 'But', 'Yet', or something else similar. I have not noticed any writer, scholar, or commentator that suggested that verse 21 or preceding is referring to God.

 

Better check the context there.

 

You were not specific; which ones of these five verses that I cited do you want us to check? I've checked the contexts, but if you want, I'll put them up here for all to see (why didn't you?). It will only take one of these verses to expose your prior erroneous statement. What's the matter, Sal? Are you to proud to admit when you've made a mistake? Why these games then?

 

Getting back to the original topic...

May I put this in slightly different terms? If the KJV/TR position is correct then the MV/CT has omitted much of the genuine text; conversely, if the MV/CT postion is correct then the KJV/TR has added to God's Word. One or the other is in violation of God's command to alter His scriptures. It would be sin for a born-again Christian to endorse a confirmed corrupt version.

Although it is possible that neither of these two texts accurately and completely represents the original words of God (which might lead to another alternative, like the MT), it seems illogical to hold that the KJV/TR and the much different MV/CT can both be the genuine text (even if they are 99% the same).