Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Craigbythesea posts: "
Mr. Kinney, you wrote,

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
God providentially guided the TEXT of the KJB. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What translation of the Bible did you get that from? My King James Bible sure doesn’t say anything like that. How can you say that God did something that the Bible does not say that He did? Did God call you up on the telephone and tell you that he “providentially guided the TEXT of the KJB”? I don’t think so. That is not even human wisdom; it is human foolishness bordering on blasphemy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Craig, it is my firm belief that the Holy Bible (KJB, of course) has God telling us in many different ways that He will preserve His inerrant, complete words. I am merely expressing where I believe these words of God are found today.

Would you care to give us your view of where exactly God's inerrant, complete, pure words are today? I'm sure many of us would be most interested to compare your thoughts with what the Bible says about itself.


One of the first things that must occur for someone to no longer believe in a complete, infallible, inspired Bible is to somehow not believe or explain away the following verses that the Holy Bible says about itself.

THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD


The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy Truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

Instead of believing God has preserved His infallible words in any single Book, the Bible of the Month Club member, who promotes a multitude of conflicting versions all based on different texts and changing the meanings of hundreds of verses, believes the true words of God are found "somewhere out there" in all the manuscripts, except where these have been corrupted by scribal errors.

Now Craig, if your view does not match this last paragraph, then please disabuse me of my foolishness and blasphemy, and tell me where you personally think God's pure words are today.

Thank you,

Will

 

Genesis 20:16

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Genesis 20:16 KJB - "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved."
NKJV: "INDEED THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was reproved."
---------------------------------------------------------------

Skanwmatos says:
A literal rendering of the Hebrew would read, "It is for you a covering of the eyes to all who are with you. And with all (this) you are justified."
I think the point here is the "covering" (which is also used in reference to the OT sacrifice) is a figure of speech called a "periphrasis" where a description is used in place of a proper name. Abraham is being ironic after she called him her "brother." And by that ironic figure of speech she is reproved. I think the NKJV captures the essence of the Hebrew phrase but the word choice may be confusing (as is the word choice of the KJV).

Skan, perhaps you made a mistake here. Did you mean Abraham was being ironic, or Abimelech?

Here are some additional thoughts on the passage.


Genesis 20:16

Chapter 20 presents us with another clear example of paraphrasing which misses the whole meaning of the passage and results in conflicting versions of nonsense.

Abraham had been told by God that He would give him a son by his wife Sarah. Yet again we see the faltering steps of faith in our spiritual father as he and Sarah sojourned in the land of Gerar. Upon entering the region of king Abimelech, Abraham thought "Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake." So, he told Sarah to say that he was her brother. The result of this was that Abimelech took Sarah into his house, thus putting her into a very precarious position. Then God came to Abimelech by night in a dream and told him that Sarah was Abraham's wife and that he was "but a dead man".

Abimelech arose early in the morning and called Abraham and asked him why he had done this. Then the king gave Abraham sheep, oxen, men and womenservants and restored him Sarah his wife and told him to dwell where he pleased. Then in verse 16 we read: "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."

"Covering of the eyes" is the literal reading of the Hebrew and is also found in the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Douay, Geneva and Spanish bibles. Even the NKJV shows in its footnote that the literal Hebrew is "covering of the eyes".


Some versions, like the RV, ASV read "IT is for thee a covering of the eyes". Those versions that read: "HE is to thee a covering of the eyes" are Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible 1599, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Webster's translation 1833, the KJV 21st Century Version, and Third Millenium Bible.


Abimelech is saying to Sarah that the truth is now known by all that her "brother" is in fact her husband and that Abraham will serve as a covering of other men's eyes so that they will not look upon Sarah as a potential wife. Thus she was reproved for her part in the deception that almost cost Abimelech his life.

However the NASB, NIV, and NKJV all miss this point and even contradict each other. Instead of "Behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved" the NKJV says: " INDEED, THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was REPROVED."

The NASB has: " Behold, IT IS YOUR VINDICATION before all who are with you and before all men YOU ARE CLEARED.", while the NIV reads: " THIS IS TO COVER THE OFFENSE AGAINST YOU before all who are with you; you are COMPLETELY VINDICATED."

So which is it- was she reproved as the KJB, NKJV and others say or was she cleared and vindicated as the NIV/NASB have it? And what on earth does "this vindicates you" mean?

The NIV omits the word "behold" three times in verses 15, 16, adds "offence" though it did get "cover" more or less right but yet the meaning is totally different than either the NKJV, NASB or the KJB.


Geneva Bible notes 1599

20:16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

God caused this heathen king to reprove her because she concealed her identity, seeing that God had given her a husband as her veil and defence.


Matthew Henry and John Wesley both say the same thing.

He gives to Sarah good instruction, tells her that her husband (her brother he calls him, to upbraid her with calling him so) must be to her for a covering of the eyes, that is, she must look at no other, nor desire to be looked at by any other. Note, Yoke-fellows must be to each other for a covering of the eyes. The marriage-covenant is a covenant with the eyes, like Job’s, ch. 31:1.

John Gill gives this suggestion:

"behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee; a protection of her person and chastity: so an husband, in our language, is said to be a cover to his wife, and she under a cover: thus Abraham being now known to be the husband of Sarah, would for the future be a covering to her, that no one should look upon her, and desire her, and take her to be his wife."

Adam Clarke notes that there are almost as many views of what this passage means as there are commentators.

And I might add that there are as many bible versions with different meanings as there are commentators.

Skan, the nkjv does not mean the same thing as the KJB, and that was and is my point. The nkjv is not just the old KJB with "updated language". Now, if you wish to get more technical with all these verses, and go with my scholar can beat your scholar, we can do that.

But my point is, the nkjv is NOT the same in meaning as the KJB in literally hundreds of verses. You asked me for some examples and I gave you some.

Will

 

Brian, I will ignore most of your post because it is useless to argue with you, and we have already done so at other boards. You have no inerrant Bible and it seems to really bother you that we King James Bible believers do.

Anyway, as for your one question: " By the way, the context explicitly says it IS about a king of Babylon (verse 4) and calls him a "man" (verse 16). Do you believe verse 4 is a mistake? Do you believe Satan is a "man"? Yes or no.

Yes Brian, Scripture refers to both God and Satan using the word "man". Check out your Hebrew text to be sure, because the new versions have mistranslated it, but Exodus 15:3 says "the LORD is a MAN of war; the LORD is his name."

Satan is referred to as a man by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 12:26-29 as the strong man whom He must bind.

Satan, the devil and Lucifer was the spiritual power behind the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14.

Ask any devil worshipper who Lucifer is. They know even if modern versionists are a bit confused.

Will

 

1 Kings 10:28 "And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and LINEN YARN: the king's merchants received the LINEN YARN at a price."


NKJV - "Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and KEVAH; the king's merchants bought them IN KEVAH at the current price."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skanwmatos posts; The Hebrew reads "And the horses that king Solomon had were brought from Egypt, and from Kue: the king's merchants received them from Kue at a price." The reference to "linen yarn" (Hebrew hwqm miqveh) comes from a word which means "collection" (as yarn is "collected" or "twisted together") and possibly refers to the means of bringing the horses out of Egypt, by leading them with "twisted together" bridles. A second possibility, and in my opinion, the better one, is that the horses were brought out of Egypt into Israel via the town of Kue which was a place of customs or "collection" of import taxes.
The Hebrew here is very difficult. The punctuation in the Masoretic text causes an error in the grammar opposing the accents.

Hi Skan, a guy called Al Maxey posted a bunch of stuff against the KJB.

This is number two on his hit list. #2 --- Mr. Maxey says: "In I Kings 10:28 the word "Kue" is translated "linen yarn" in the KJV. This is incorrect. Actually, "Kue" was a location in Cilicia where Solomon purchased his horses. This is a fact which has been verified by archaeologists, but of which the KJV translators were painfully unaware."

Here is a man who trusts the "archaeologists". Now they have been really consistent in their findings and opinions, haven't they? He accuses the KJB translators of being "painfully unaware", but he has the real explanation. Well, we shall see if other "scholars" agree with him. Again, there are a variety of opinions and translations.

John Gill

"And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt,.... To mount his horsemen with, and draw his chariots and linen yarn; the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price; or rather linen itself; or linen garments, as Ben Gersom; linen being the staple commodity of Egypt. The word rendered "linen yarn" signifies a confluence or collection of waters and other things; and the words may be rendered, "as for the collection, the king's merchants received the collection at a price"; that is, the collection of horses, a large number of them got together for sale."

Matthew Henry

"Linen Yarn in 2 Chronicles 1:16- It is the wisdom of princes to promote industry and encourage trade in their dominions. Perhaps Solomon took the hint of setting up the linen-manufacture, bringing linen-yarn out of Egypt, working it into cloth, and then sending that to other nations."

This site shows how noted scholars totally disagree with each other. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/2Ch/1/16.html

2Ch 1:16 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price... linen yarn. The word miqvˆ or miqvˆh is regarded by the ancient translators as a proper name: the LXX. have “from Tekoa,” the Vulgate, de Coa, ”from Koa,” which is adopted by Dr. Geddes; Bochart thinks it signifies a tribute; others suppose that it signifies a string or drove of horses, or as Jarchi says, what the Germans call Gtutte,a stud; but Houbigant supposes it to be a corruption for mercavah, “chariots”. Our English translation, however, which regards it as synonymous with tikwah, seems by far the best. According to Norden, linen yarn is still one of the principal articles of commerce in Egypt, and is exported in very large quantities, together with unmanufactured flax and spun cotton; and Sanutus, 400 years ago, remarked that though Christian countries abounded in flax, yet the goodness of the Egyptian was such, that it was dispersed even to the west.

This Bible corrector, Al Maxey, insists we shoud translate this word as "Kue", according to his own understanding. But apparently not all other "scholars" are in agreement with him about this.

The NKJV says KEVAH, the NASB has KOE, while the NIV does have KUE.

Others have translated this word in an entirely different manner. The Amplified Version, the Revised Version, ASV, Darby and Hebrew Names Version all say DROVES, not Kue or linen yarn.

The 1936 Jewish translation says TROOPS.

There are others who agree with the King James Bible reading of "linen yarn" including the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and 1960, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

My scholar can beat your scholar, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyaaah, nyah.

See how the game is played?

Will

 

Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." KJB.
NKJV "in their self will THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX."
------------------------------------------------------------------------Skanwmatos says: The Hebrew text reads "they lamed an ox." The Hebrew is a piel perfect of rqe‘aqar meaning "to cut." Even the KJV translates it as "hough" (modern spelling "hock" meaning the ham string of cattle) 4 times. Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint agree with that reading. I believe this may be an example of a gloss in the margin supplanting the actual Hebrew text.


Well, Skan, you are entitled to your beliefs, but there are others who disagree with you.

In 49:6 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read in the KJB "for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

"They digged down a wall" is the reading of the KJB, the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 and 1602, the Italian Diodati, the Douay Rheims of 1950, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Version and the modern Hebrew Names Version.

However the NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they eradicated a prince"! So what is going on here?

It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can have 3 or 4 different meanings, and if traced back to its root, as many as 9 or 10 different meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. I believe He has done this in the KJB.

The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen" is false. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. The KJB is right, as always.


Will Kinney