Where Did the Name James come from?

All Dutch Bibles use either Jacob (or maybe Jakob), or more common Jacobus (possibly Jakobus).

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


Bro Tony,

Which Greek New testament are you referring to?

Your accusations against the KJV translators are revolting to say the least. Your disdain towards the KJV should actually be directed at the multiple of modern versions that just can't seem to get any of them right. Go figure.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The Greek is iacobus, so Jacob would be the actual transliteration. However, through the process of making things English, the name slowly changed to James by way of the Latin Jacomus. I doubt it has anything to with a political move by King James.

"A similar change happened in Italian, but without the loss of the medium consonant: Giacomo (James). In that language the Hebrew PN Ya'aqob became Giacobbe. An interesting change happens in other Romance languages. In Portuguese and Spanish the Ya'aqob is Jacó and Jacob respectively. And the Greek Iakobos is translated as Tiago (Portuguese and Galician) and Santiago (Spanish). This phonetic change is explained as Iakobus -> Santo (Saint) Iakobus -> Santiakobus -> Santiagobus -> Santiago. Then the prefix "san" was dropped in Portuguese and Galician. I don't know about Catalan but I guess they use either Tiago or Santiago. (In French Iakobos became Jacques, which can be easily explained.) " --- Marcio Redondo

 

Here's more stuff for you, Tony

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2002-02/9021.html

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2002-August/022057.html

 

Where Did the Name James come from?

Uhhh, from his Mom and Dad.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Bro Tony,

I am very sorry that my post offended you. But you are attacking the KJV by raising doubt in peoples minds, as to the absolute reliabity one has in God's preserved word. Many christians have trusted and learned of God through this very Bible for about 400 years, well before modern versions, and modern scholars have come around. It upset me, and I am sorry for reacting the way I did, I should have waited and thought before I said anything. But the accusation that the name James might have been purposely translated for the pleasure of the King is speculation at best. And if this is so, then we might as well throw out the rest of the KJV, for it has been tampered with - which I do not believe. This just really upset me, and I let my first reaction get the best of me - and you. Anyways, welcome to the boards!

I had recently heard that Jacob is the name for Jesus. Is this referring to the Hebrew or the greek? If it is the greek, how can Jacob then be James?

Love in Jesus Christ our Faithful Lord and Savior,
michelle

 

"Where Did the Name James come from?

Uhhh, from his Mom and Dad."

Johnv, you stole my line!!! Actually, I was going to say from my mom and dad.

I am so glad that the translators used the name James. I can't see myself being called Jacob.

I believe it is just a different interpretation. Perhaps to differentiate between the Greek and Hebrew? Anyway, the same could be said about Jesus. Why is it translated Joshua in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New? Was there some king named Jesus who wanted to see his name in print as well?

The same was done with many names from the Old to the New Testaments. Other than my explanation, I don't really know why it was done that way. Does it really matter? It would be like several people writing books about me. The older people all know me as James, so they call me James in the book. Yet, the younger people may know me by a nickname, so they may refer to me as Jim. I think we would all agree that calling me either James or Jim would be virtually the same thing, so why the big fuss? I still believe the KJV is the preserved word. However, I'm not bold enough to say, as some of my KJVO brethren, that we don't need to also read the Hebrew and Greek.

Shoot, when just having a normal conversation in modern language I sometimes need a dictionary to decipher some of the words.

 

Actually Jesus and Joshua come from the same Greek Word,
You see in Acts 7:45 there is a mistake in the KJV, It should read Joshua, not Jesus.

Act 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Most reference Bibles will note this in the center references.

It also happens again in Heb 4:8
Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Those two passages are clearly talking about the old testament Joshua, not Jesus.

If a new Christian were reading the KJV These passages could cause confusion, and we know that God is not the author of confusion. Except at the tower of babel where He confused our languages, and since that happened we have this great debate board at BB!!

 

tiny, that's why I stated that the different translation may be to differentiate between the Old and New Testaments. Here's a question for you, as I don't have my bible or concordance available for a quick browse, are the Greek names of both Joshua of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New the same name?

For instance, when the Bible refers to Yeshua, is it referring to both/either Jesus and Joshua, does it translate to be both/either names in English?

What is the original Greek word used in your quotes from Acts and Hebrews? What is the original Greek word used in other parts of the NT for the Savior Jesus? Is the Greek name the same?

Forgive me, for some reason the way I'm writing it just does not seem to me to be getting my point across. Please tell me if you don't understand what I'm asking.

"If a new Christian were reading the KJV These passages could cause confusion"

It could also confuse them when the OT talks of a coming Messiah called Emanuel and Joshua, but turns out he is called Jesus in the NT. That's the purpose of having teachers and preachers in the church. It's also the reason we need to have a good reference Bible/Concordance to go along with ANY Bible translation we use.

This is the first time I'm saying this, so write it down. I believe it is possible to have a better version than the KJV, but I do believe that it is the best translated English version that we have. I also do not believe there are any "mistakes" in the KJV. Just as with modern language, there are better ways of interpreting some words or phrases, but the overall meaning of the word or phrase is what's important.

For instance, you need both the phrase(the Bible passage) and the picture(the Hebrew/Greek text and literal translation of each word) to get an actual interpretation of the Bible.

I used to have a friend from Canada, and the first time I told her I was fixin to do something, she gave me the strangest look. I had to explain to her what I meant by fixin to.(Getting ready to...for all you non Texans) Was my phrase accurate? Yes, I and everyone else in the room knew to what I was referring. But, she needed to know the root meaning and further explanation of the phrase in order to understand exactly what I was saying.

I do take exception to being called foolish, among other names I've been called, though no one has said any in this thread, because I believe in using the KJVO. As far as I am concerned, I have seen nothing in any newer translation that surpasses the KJV in it's translation, so I'll stick with the KJV. It's served us well for 400 years, and the church itself has not changed by way of the KJV, so I'll not be changing either.

BTW, I don't think we'll ever know for certain why it was translated one way here and another way there. The reasoning was not made known, so I'm happy just reading it like it is with my Concordance to back me up.

 

To the best of my knowledge Both Joshua and Jesus is spelled the same way in Greek.

Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8 are the only references to the old testament Joshua.

My point is this, if the God meant Joshua (which I beleive He does) in those two scriptures, then why didn't the KJV translators translate the name correctly according to context.

They translated according to context elsewhere.
Why did they drop the ball on this.

And stating that we need preachers to explain the Bible is akin to the RCC declaring we need priests to explain the Latin to us. That's a dangerous logical path to follow. Be careful.
It's the Holy Spirit's job to teach us.
Yes, He uses preachers, but be careful not to exalt a man to that level.

I beleive God wants his word read by new beleivers and let's face it, those two passages can be confusing. I have even heard a preacher try to preach Acts 7:45 using Jesus instead of Joshua because he beleives that the KJV is perfect! That's dangerous.

Either it's perfect or it's not.
If you claim it's perfect then you have to twist biblical history around until it becomes a lie to accept the name "Jesus" in these two passages.

But, if you accept the fact the the KJV is a great translation, but not perfect then you can preach the truth.

This Question is for all KJVO:
When preachin Acts 7:45, do you correct the KJB?
or do you say that Jesus led the children of Israel into Canaan?

If you tell the people that it "should read" or it "means" Joshua, then you correct the KJB, as the KJB states "Jesus".

 

"If you tell the people that it "should read" or it "means" Joshua, then you correct the KJB, as the KJB states "Jesus"."

Not necessarily. As I said in my second post, if you were to say, "a better way to translate it...", then you are not classifying the KJV as incorrect, just using a different word to mean the same thing.

Let me ask you this...does the English name Joshua appear in the NT? If not, then it would further confirm my thought that the translators may have wanted to differentiate bewteen O & NT. Just as Jesus was called Joshua in the OT, Joshua is now called Jesus in the NT. Do you object to the use of Joshua as describing Jesus in the OT? If not, then why the objection for the opposite, but really the same, translation in the NT?

"When preachin Acts 7:45, do you correct the KJB?
or do you say that Jesus led the children of Israel into Canaan?"

You preach just what it says...then you further clarify that it's referring to the person we commonly know as Joshua from the OT, not Jesus the Christ from the NT. This is not actually correcting. It is further defining.

For instance, a sentence may state the following:

I read the Bible.

What did I just say? Do I "reed" the Bible or have I "red" the Bible? It's the same word with two meanings, either past tense or present tense. My statement is absloutely correct, but if you're just reading it, you would need further information to determine what I actually mean. Same reason we need to study the Greek and Hebrew to go along with our Bibles...to compare words and phrases. There are many phrases in the Bible that are interpreted differently in different parts, though they were written the same in the original tongue. I leave it to the authors to determine which words they feel best to put there.

Let me show another example:

Predestination

Someone out in the world might think this word is confusing, as would someone new to the faith. The word needs further explanation. Man's predetermined destiny. Since I had to further illustrate does that make my original word, Predestination, imperfect? The word in its own actual meaning is correct. Just as Jesus and Joshua are both correct interpretations. We could just as easily be songs such as "Oh Joshua my Savior" or "Joshua, Lover of my soul".

In our church, someone might call my dad Brother Reed. They also might call me Brother Reed. Is either name incorrect just because it is the name of the other person as well? His name is actually Weldon and mine is James. We are both Brother Reed, but he is Weldon and I am James. Both names are correct, but calling out Brother Reed will need further clarification unless you want the both of us.

I see no problem with it myself, but I'm big enough to admit that I could be wrong. I'll continue reading my KJV until the Lord Himself shows me "the light". Or He may just show you.

BTW, it's nice to have a KJV discussion without name-calling and such. I just wanted to let you know, brother tim, how much I appreciate you civility and courtesy in this matter. Most people are too hung up on their "cause" to discuss things like Christians should.

God Bless. Bro. James

 

Jesus or Joshua?

Heb. 4:8 says "For IF Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

This "Jesus" did not give them rest. The Greek texts all literally have the name JESUS here, though it does refer to Joshua. Those versions that say JESUS like the KJB are the Geneva 1599 Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby's translation, and the 1950 Douay version.

Joshua was called by several names including Jeshuah Neh. 8:17; Joshua in Joshua 1:1; Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only once in the N.T. and in Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English. This is exactly the same way Jesus is spelled in every case.

Joshua was a type of the true Jesus who does give us rest from our own works. So in the KJB as well as in all Greek texts, the type and the antitype both have the same name.

But it is referring to Joshua who did not give them rest, and to Jesus who does.


Will Kinney

 

Tony posts: "I am glad the Dutch have remained faithful to the proper name and nor allowed an egotistic king to place his name in God's wonderful Word. "

Tony, you would do well to do a little research before sticking your foot in your mouth and showing yourself to be a fool.

If you look at James 1:1 "James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ...", you will see the word JAMES not only in the Holy Bible, aka King James Bible, but also in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1587. All of these English Bibles came out BEFORE the "egotistical king" who also was named James.

I suppose next you will be telling us about how the KJB translators put Shakespeare's name in Psalm 46, huh?

Will Kinney