The MOST dangerous profession....

I think you don't quite understand what's going on with this issue. In Hebrew, there is one name, which transliterated is "Yahowshuwa". In Greek, there is one name, which transliterated is "Iesous". "Iesous" is the translation of "Yahowshuwa" into Greek. They are the same name, one in Hebrew and one in Greek. Now when we get to English, we have two names, "Joshua" and "Jesus", and etymologically they are the same name and technically can be used interchangeably.

So when Luke penned Acts 7:45, and wrote in Greek, he used "Iesous", he was simply using the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Yahowshuwa", which in English is "Joshua". "Iesous" all by itself can mean either "Jesus" or "Joshua", depending on context. Context of this verse shows who Luke has in mind.

The NT says "Iesous" in Acts 7:45, and I believe it!

 

HB you really believe this?

Say it isn't so.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I believe what the Bible says, you should try it, it really works.

 

I think you don't quite understand what's going on with this issue. In Hebrew, there is one name, which transliterated is "Yahowshuwa". In Greek, there is one name, which transliterated is "Iesous". "Iesous" is the translation of "Yahowshuwa" into Greek. They are the same name, one in Hebrew and one in Greek. Now when we get to English, we have two names, "Joshua" and "Jesus", and etymologically they are the same name and technically can be used interchangeably.

So when Luke penned Acts 7:45, and wrote in Greek, he used "Iesous", he was simply using the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Yahowshuwa", which in English is "Joshua". "Iesous" all by itself can mean either "Jesus" or "Joshua", depending on context. Context of this verse shows who Luke has in mind.

The NT says "Iesous" in Acts 7:45, and I believe it! </font>[/QUOTE]So if that is what its suppose to be, why didn't the translators put Joshua instead of Jesus?

 

Homebound,

The integrity of the KJV is in no way called into question because of this. It says "Jesus" which is the Greek for "Joshua." The KJV translators translated Joshua as "Jesus" because they were translating directly from the Greek. Jesus in Hebrew is "Joshua," or "Yeshua."

Jason

 

Thanks Jason. But, to say that Joshua would be a better word that Jesus, is to say the King James Bible is, as one said, confusing, which I know its not.

 

Read the entire chapter HB the context shows that "Jesus" has to be Joshua of the OT.

If you believe the Bible based upon your logic concerning the exact spelling of the names in the English 1611 KJB who is the prophet Esaias?

Matthew 3:3
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

I can't seem to find him in the OT.
This is confusing.

HankD

 

Read the entire chapter HB the context shows that "Jesus" has to be Joshua of the OT.

If you believe the Bible based upon your logic concerning the exact spelling of the names in the English 1611 KJB who is the prophet Esaias?

Matthew 3:3
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

I can't seem to find him in the OT.
This is confusing.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I get the point. So is Jesus an OT spelling of Joshua? I don't think so is it.? What I'm trying to say is that the King James Bible is not wrong in this rendering of these two verses.

 

The spelling of “Joshua” in the Greek OT (Septuagint) eek! Is the same as the spelling of “Jesus” in the Greek NT: “IHSOUS”.

See Joshua 1:10 in the LXX if you have access to one.

Also, do you trust Strong’s Concordance?
There are 5 persons in the NT named "Jesus".

Strong’s 2424
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)
4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)
5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)

HankD

 

Note that it says "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy" and NOT "take away words from the book of this prophecy" - these mean different things. The first, which the scripture has, deals with the meaning, while the second deals with the actual words themselves. What can you "take away from the words"? Meaning. It is possible to preserve the meaning with different words, thus a different translation that carries the same meaning is not taking away anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Alas, but different translations often carry different meanings. Example: Luke 2:33, "And Joseph and his mother..." In most modern translations this verse reads, "His father and his mother..." This is a change of meaning, regardless of whether Joseph was thought of by others in his culture as Jesus' father. This is an error at the very least, but more likely is a deliberate watering down of Jesus' diety. Strange how most modern versions carry this changed meaning consistently.

 

Does Mary "water-down" the KJV when she calls Joseph, in the KJV "Thy father"? (Lk 2:48)Consistency please.

 

No, Mary spoke to Jesus when He was a young boy. Luke 2:33 is where Luke wrote about Joseph; Luke 2:48 is where he wrote what Mary said to Jesus.

 

But the fact remains that Mary calls Joseph His father. Wouldn't you agree? So why didn't Mary say to Him, "Joseph and I have sought Thee sorrowing?"...BTW, does the KJV "water-down" His deity in John 1:45b? "...Jesus of Nazereth, the son of Joseph." (of course the KJV does not take away His deity, again, I'm asking for consistency).

 

The oral communication and the written communication are different. Mary's oral communication refers Joseph to Jesus'father. Luke's written communication does not refer Joseph to Jesus' father.

You confuse on what John 1:45 said.

 

Mary called Joseph his father because he was his father. What's so hard about that?

 

Askjo, I am confused how you can miss the plain English here of the KJV that calls Joseph the father of Jesus! Does this verse weaken His deity as you claim Lk 2:33 does? Don't you see the inconsistency here? Are you saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts?"

 

What did HomeBound say? Agree with him?

 

What did HomeBound say? Agree with him? </font>[/QUOTE]Of course Joseph was His step-father and God was His Father, my point is that the MV's call Joseph the father of Jesus, as does the KJV. I know the MV's call him His father numerically more than the KJV does, but once is enough. (I think if you and I sat down face to face maybe we'd understand each other better, oft times thoughts are lost in posting, which may be the case here)