"God Save the King"

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Johnv, May 9, 2003.

  1. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've come across a translational problem:

    Can anyone tell me why "God save the King" appears in the KJV in 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, and 1Kings 1:25?

    I looked up the Hebrew, and it appears that it should be translated, "let (or may) the King live".
     
  2. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about this;

    Saul no matter whether he was obedient to God, or not obedient to God, could only be temporary King. Judah was the one true tribe and that leads to the only true King Jesus Christ.

    Is this what you were looking for?

    [If you look at the word save (2421) it means to live, revive, keep alive, recover, repair,

    revive (X God) alive, life, lives, X surely be whole.]

    Sherrie
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably a phrase that was popular at the time of translation, an example of extraordinary dynamic equivalence.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    God forbid that the AV translators would do that! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Hebrew word behind the KJV's "God forbid" is chaliylah, which literally means "far be it from." Thus, for example, a literal translation of Genesis 44:7b is "Far be it from your servants to do according to this word," in contrast to the KJV's dynamic equivalence: "God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing." The two Greek words behind the KJV's "God forbid" are me genoito. The negative participle me means "none," "never," "not," "nor," "neither," etc. The verb ginomai (genoito being a form of the verb ginomai) means "to be," "to be caused to be," "to come to pass," "to happen," "to be performed." So me genoito literally means "it will never be,""it will not be," "may it never be," "may it not be," "let it never be," or "let it not be." It is the strongest of negations. Thus, for example, a literal translation of Galatians 6:14a is "But may it never be for me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," in contrast to the KJV's dynamic equivalence: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

    There is another set of passages in which the King James Version translators used a dynamic equivalence method in which they inserted God's name where it is not in the original. This is in the phrases "God save the king" and "God save king [king's name]" in 1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Kings 1:25,1 Kings 1:34, 1 Kings 1:39, 2 Kings 11:12; and 2 Chronicles 23:11. Again, we ask the readers to look in their Strong's Concordances under the word "God" and look up these passages. You will find that there is no Strong's number because the word "God" does not exist in these passages in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew words behind the KJV's "God save the king" are chayah melek. The verb chayah means "to let live," "to keep alive," "to preserve alive." The noun melek means "king." So chayah melek literally means "may the king live" or "let the king live." Thus, for example, a literal translation of 1 Samuel 10:24b is "And all the people shouted and said, May the king live," in contrast to the KJV's dynamic equivalence: "And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king."

    There are many things that are deplorable about the translations of the above passages. We have already seen the first, which is that a literal, word-for-word translation method was not used. This means that the translators of these passages did not think that the actual Hebrew and Greek words behind these translations were of utmost importance. They did not believe in the verbal inspiration of chaliylah, me genoito, and chayah melek. Instead of a verbal equivalence method, they employed a dynamic equivalence, "thought-for-thought" translation. This is the very thing that the KJV-Only advocates say they detest.

    The second deplorable thing about the above translations is that, in their dynamic equivalence, the translators used colloquialism and idiom. They translated the Hebrew and Greek words into the colloquial, idiomatic language of the day, with no regard for the original. "God forbid" and "God save the king" were common expressions of the day; the former was a common expression of strong negation, and the latter was a common expression of honor to the king. Instead of translating word-for-word, they used a common expression of strong negation to express the same idea as "may it never be" and used a common expression of honor to the king as something to express the same idea as "may the king live" without regard to the actual inspired words of the Hebrew and Greek. "God forbid" and "God save the king" are as repulsive as anything the wicked Living Bible came up with. The KJV-Only advocates talk much of the colloquial, idomatic language in decrying the "modern versions" and claim that the KJV does not stoop so low.

    The third deplorable thing about the above translations is that they deceive the reader into thinking that these words are in the original. The KJV translators claimed that whenever they added words that were not in the original, they italicized them. This claim is echoed by the KJV-Only advocates. Yet in these passages, there are no italics. Not only were the translators using dynamic equivalence to insert colloquial, idiomatic phrases of the day, they were engaged in deception, leading the readers believe that "God forbid" and "God save the king" are biblical phrases that come from the original texts. This is heinous and insidious.

    The fourth deplorable thing about the above translations is that they take God's name in vain. The translators inserted God's holy name where the Holy Spirit DID NOT put God's name, and that is serious business. God said (even in KJV English), "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7). This includes inserting the holy name of God into a passage of His Word where He did not put it, and it includes using the holy name of God in common, vulgar colloquialisms. And because there is no italicization, this taking of God's name in vain is seen as biblical adherence to the original Hebrew and Greek, and people are taking God's name in vain thinking that they are speaking the Word of God. The KJV-Only advocates will go after the "modern versions" regarding the deity of Christ and other passages about God, but they will not repudiate the passages in their own version that take God's name in vain.

    We repudiate and condemn the KJV translation of these phrases. They are evil and repugnant. They have no place in God's Holy Word. (And we have not even talked about the phrase "God speed," which is another colloquialism found twice in the KJV's translation of 2 John 10-11 - another passage in which God's name is inserted with no basis in the original Greek and is not italicized. This, too, has no place in God's Word.) This is one of the main reasons this author does not use the KJV as the basis for Scripture readings and sermons.

    END OF QUOTE

    The above was excerpted from an article named "KJV Only hypocrisy" by Marc C Carpenter.


    Harald
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Wow. That is a strong rebuke. :eek:

    Thanks Harald for sharing that with us.
     

Share This Page

Loading...