Does this belong in our Bibles?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BWSmith, Jun 20, 2002.

  1. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    This paragraph was found at the top of 1 Sam 11 in the Qumran scrolls, and was also used by Josephus:

    "Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead. About a month later..."(cont. with 1 Sam 11:1)

    This paragraph is restored in the NRSV. Should it be in all Bibles?
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure that over the years, several verses that we're aware of have probably been dropped from the Bible we know today.

    As objectionable as a verse like this may be, if it's part of the original OT text, it should be included.
     
  3. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    So for those who believe that God "preserves His Word", and equates "His Word" with the words of the Bible, is the existence of these kinds of paragraphs a problem?

    [ June 20, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: BWSmith ]
     
  4. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Commentary on the NET Bible
     
  5. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    So at the very least, all Bibles should have it footnoted as the logical introduction to Nahash, the eye-gouger.

    Including it couldn't hurt any doctrines, because it echoes what we already know about Nahash in the regular text.

    Agree?
     
  6. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The short paragraph explaining the likely practice of Nahash is considered by virtually all commentaries as a gloss, a teaching note added above, below, or to the side of the canonical text to establish an historic context and clarification of the verse it is appended to. There is no reason, when looking at the Hebrew canon, to assume to gloss is canonical.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not as concerned about whether or not it was approved by the canonical council or not. I'm nore concerned with: was it in the text when Jesus was practicing Judaism? If it was, we should include it, unaltered. If not, then it should be left out.

    I haven't done much research on this subjust, but I'm inclined to believe that it was included during Jesus' time.
     
  8. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the translators of the NRSV didn't bother to check "virtually all commentaries" before including it?
    ;)
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    No, it shouldn't be included. We have the English Bible as God delivered it to us. Nothing is gained by inserting the aforementioned "verse," nor is anything lost by leaving it out.
     
  10. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does the NRSV not count as God-delivered?
     
  11. Moss

    Moss
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Call me a newbie at this, but I can't see why this passage needs to be in the Bible. It provides only a small intro to a historic event, and from what I see, (albeit, just now), I can't see it tying into any other part of the Bible, (metaphore wise or other). It could be in our Bible, but I see no need.

    This is just my personal opinion however. [​IMG]

    Jonny
    ^_^

    [ June 20, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Moss ]
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    AAAARRRRGGHHH!!! God didn't give us an English Bible. God inspired the Bible to people who wrote in Hebrew and Greek.

    There are inhierent problems with translating text from its original language to another. Not just in wording, but in getting inflection, context, and cultural scope correctly.

    On top of that, the usage of words and phrases has evolved over time. This isn't God's fault, it's our fault. We're the ones who modify language definitions and syntax, not Him.

    We err in our English understanding of the Bible all the time. That's why it's always important to do indepth study on a verse of chapter before making conclusions.
     
  13. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    He didn't?????

    You mean John Wyclife, William Tyndale and their disciples were hounded by the state and burned at the stake (well...Wyclife was burned posthumously), all for the work of man?

    You know little of the history of our English translation to say God did not give us an English Bible.

    [ June 21, 2002, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  14. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    If God didn't give us an English Bible who did?

    Have we no bible in the English language to guide us into all truth? Alas we are hopelessly at the mercy of men then, not God for we must go to learned men not God's Word for answers.

    Hog wash!!!!! God gave us an English speaking Bible that has served fine in revealing God's plan for mankind. It needs no improvement or revision.. It just needs to be read prayerfully and accepted!!

    Ernie
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my copy of the NRSV, the insertion is at 1 Sam 10:27.
    But the best mss and versions do not include it. Therefore, leave it out.
    No. Why should it be? Just because there are differences doesn't mean that God still didn't inspire the original.
    Too many are jumping on the first sentence without taking the context of the second.
     
  16. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron wrote:
    &gt; You mean John Wyclife, William Tyndale and their disciples were hounded by the state and burned at the stake (well...Wyclife was burned posthumously), all for the work of man?

    They died because of the ignorance of man, not out of martyrdom for any divine cause.

    &gt; You know little of the history of our English translation to say God did not give us an English Bible.

    By this logic, God has also given us an "English hymn book". Many have been saved after hearing the hymns from the "Broadman Hymnal" of the 1940's. Perhaps we were wrong to supplement that with new hymns and create the "Baptist Hymnal" of the 1950's?
     
  17. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ernie wrote:
    &gt; If God didn't give us an English Bible who did?

    Zondervan, I suppose...
    ;)

    &gt; Have we no bible in the English language to guide us into all truth? Alas we are hopelessly at the mercy of men then, not God for we must go to learned men not God's Word for answers.

    We would be at the mercy of men in all understanding if there were no Holy Spirit.

    The Spirit does not have a fixed text that can be controlled, nor does it speak the English language. Yet, it guides us to all truth.

    &gt; Hog wash!!!!! God gave us an English speaking Bible that has served fine in revealing God's plan for mankind. It needs no improvement or revision.. It just needs to be read prayerfully and accepted!!

    And that Bible is the NIV, right? (Or are you an NASB guy?)
    ;)
     
  18. BWSmith

    BWSmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    TV wrote:
    &gt;&gt;Johnv: As objectionable as a verse like this may be, if it's part of the original OT text, it should be included.

    &gt; But the best mss and versions do not include it. Therefore, leave it out.

    Why does 4QSam-a (c.~50 BC) not count as one of the "best" manuscripts, given that the passage in question is validated by Josephus? It's certainly the oldest witness.
     
  19. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    BW Smith said:
    I guess you haven't been reading Ernies post he is KJV just like me! If its not in the KJV then I don't even consider it. Is there a standing rule in translation that if the scripture offends someone that it shouldn't be included? Let me present the thinest and we mean thinest bible on earth... Brethren get your copy hot off the press of the newest bible to hit the market in ages for every taste... The NOB... The Non-Offensive Bible!... Brother Glen :eek: :eek: :eek:

    [ June 24, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...