1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The problem of Acts 13:17-20 in the modern english translations

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by RAdam, Apr 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I answered this on the other thread, which you so conveniently ignored:

    From http://www.kjv-only.com/2sam21_19.html:

    Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics. The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. These words were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to eliminate a perceived contradiction. However, according to Rev. Tom Weaver's quote, then even the Hebrew from which the KJV was translated contains a lie and therefore cannot be God's word.


    This is a serious problem, and raises some other very serious questions that don't bode well for KJV-onlyism:
    [SIZE=+1]
    [/SIZE]
    1. Since the Hebrew is therefore lying as well, why was it used for generating the KJV?
    2. Since the Hebrew appears this way, there must not have been any inerrant Scripture until the KJV came out in 1611. What then of inspired inerrant Scripture prior to the KJV?
    3. Why are "corrections" to the KJV labeled as heresy while "corrections" to the Hebrew scripture that's been around much longer accepted as inspired scripture? Couldn't God get it right the first time?


    However, if the Hebrew is the way God intended it to be, other serious questions arise that also don't bode well for KJV-onlyism:


    1. Why are versions like the NIV and NASB, which accurately follow the Hebrew God inspired, criticized so strongly when in fact it's the KJV that has deviated from the Hebrew?
    2. If the Hebrew is the way God intended it to be, how can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when versions like the NIV and NASB, have translated more accurately on even a single phrase? (ie. How can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when it deviates from the "inerrant and infallible" manuscripts it was translated from?)
     
    #81 Mexdeaf, Apr 13, 2010
  2. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    The words in italics are not changes to scripture, but are put there for clarity. For instance, every single english translation I've ever seen adds "is" to Psalm 23:1. They all faithfully translate the text. Now, the KJ tells you they added that word, which is something lacking in modern english translations in my view.

    Similarly the KJ translators didn't change or fix 2 Samuel 21:19, they cleared it up. The Geneva translators did the same thing:

    "21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] p Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

    (p) That is, Lahmi the brother of Goliath, whom David slew, (1 Chronicles 20:5)."
     
    #82 RAdam, Apr 13, 2010
  3. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is true that in the footnotes most MVs will refer a person to 1 Chronicles 20:5, but not all. The NASB does not which would cause a person to believe there was a contradiction in scripture.

    All English versions add words for clarity. This is not adding to the word of God, because some verses would be unintelligible without these added words.

    As proof that the KJV translators did an excellent job of adding words to give the full meaning of a verse, look at the example of 1 John 2:23. Now this came from Chick publications and attacks the MVs, that is not the point I am trying to show. But it was confirmed later that the words the KJV translators added were correct.

     
    #83 Winman, Apr 13, 2010
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Yet it is being argued that the modern translations are in error in the passage because they do not include "the brother of". However, the KJV translators ADDED those words which have not one shred of manuscript support. So, as Mexdeaf asked: was there no inerrant Word of God before the KJV translators made their translation? Since "the brother of" is proof of inerrancy and it is not found in the Hebrew manuscripts, that means the Hebrew manuscripts are errant. So God was sleeping for those first 1500 years?
     
    #84 annsni, Apr 13, 2010
  5. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    But to add words to the Word of God is a sin, is it not?

    Wow - so there is a double standard. The KJV translators can make a decision and put a part of a verse in question by putting it in italics but the modern versions can't do that because it's questioning the Word of God. The KJVO camp is quite funny - [snipped]
     
    #85 annsni, Apr 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2010
  6. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I can't help believe you are being a little disingenuous here. It is absolutely necessary to add words when translating from any language to another to give the full and proper understanding. The MVs all add words just like the KJV for the same exact reason. The KJV translators did add words, and they italicized them so the reader could recognize them as added words.

    That is not the difference between the MVs and the KJV. The MVs add words that change the understanding of a verse.

    1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    The KJV clearly identifies that Jesus was God himself manifest in the flesh. The MVs only say he appeared in a body. That is a huge difference in understanding. Everybody appears in a body, there is nothing special about that. But that God was manifest in a fleshly body is an incredible statement.

    NIV

    1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [fn] appeared in a body, [fn] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

    ESV

    1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He [fn] was manifested in the flesh, vindicated [fn] by the Spirit, [fn] seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

    By the way, if you had your kids memorize 1 Timothy 3:16, would you have them memorize the footnotes as well?
     
    #86 Winman, Apr 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2010
  7. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    KJVO= arguing about words to no profit.
     
    #87 Mexdeaf, Apr 13, 2010
  8. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did I make that argument? I didn't say those versions that do not include those words were in error. I say they are unclear. The Geneva and KJ are clearer here. And no, I don't believe the Hebrew was errant because it didn't have "the brother of" included in the text, and I don't believe the KJ fixed anything. I know some make that argument, I don't.

    The KJ translators here added the words "the brother of" to clarify the text. They put these words in italics so that you, the reader, would know they are not supplied by the original text. They didn't change God's word or try to fix God's word, they clarified the text and let you and I know exactly what they added for clarification. The text was accurate in Hebrew and it is accurate in the KJ as well as other english translations, but the KJ and Geneva are clearer.

    This is not the same as purposefully changing a number based upon a perceived error in the text. The Hebrews clearly has an 8 or a 42 in it, and modern translators change those numbers to 18 and 22. They have no authority to do that. Clarifying a text (while marking the words used to clarify) is not equivalent to changing a text.

    I don't begrudge the difference in how a translation renders a particular word unless doing so introduces a contradiction. When they render Acts 13:20 or Exodus 12:40 in such a way that it contradicts scripture is when I get angry. When they render a word in the plural in the OT but the NT writer is basing his argument on that word being singular, that is a problem and shows either lack of dilligence or lack of faithfulness in translating the bible.
     
    #88 RAdam, Apr 13, 2010
  9. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    So God was not clear when He inspired His Word and we need to help God to make it more clear?

    No one changed a perceived error. There was a copyist error. Simple.

    And I wholly disagree. Of course your measurement is the KJV, which is not a valid measuring stick since it's been shown to have errors. If there had never been errors, or if it were perfect, there would be no need for further editions or changes. Acts 13:20 and Exodus 12:40 do not contradict Scripture. Why don't you get angry when the KJV contradicts itself? It seems that every person who stands on the KJV over other versions (not preferred but that the modern versions are all perversions and purposefully mis-translated with some great conspiracy behind it) has such a double standard it is shocking. Seriously. Point out the exact same issue in the KJV and we're wrong. Have it in the modern versions and we're wrong. That shows a serious lack of scholarship, IMO.
     
    #89 annsni, Apr 13, 2010
  10. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know there was a copyist error? Have you ever seen the originals? How do you know God didn't want it that way? The author of Chronicles several times measures times in a different manner than the Kings author. I have shown this already.

    If there was a copyist error in Chronicles, how do we know there aren't other copyist errors in scripture? How do we know that whole sections of scripture weren't deleted or forged? How can we trust anything in scripture if a scribe copying the scriptures forever messed them up?

    The better question is, if they are errors, why didn't anyone fix them? Am I to believe that no Jewish scribe caught the error? Am I to believe that classic english translators missed it too, because they didn't "fix" the perceived error?

    That's the problem with modern scholarship. They say they believe in preservation of scripture out of one side of their mouth and then turn around and set themselves as judge of what should be changed or fixed in the bible when translating it. They don't know if that was an error or not and have no authority to change it.

    I keep hearing about contradictions in the KJ but haven't seen one yet. Meanwhile the modern english translations do contradict themselves. Paul said in Acts 13:20 that the period of the judges is 450 years, which is absolutely correct according to Judges and 1 Samuel. Modern translations change this to say that from the Exodus to the division of the land is 450 years, which is dead wrong. Again, scholars who know so much about the Greek, translate this verse differently than Tyndale, the Geneva, and the KJ and introduce a contradiction into God's word. In Exodus 12:40 it says the whole period of the sojourning of Israel, including their time in Egypt, was 430 years. This is confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3 when he states that from Abraham to the Law (same year as Exodus) was 430 years. Modern translations change this by having Exodus 12:40 say that the sojourning of Israel in Egypt was 430 years. Again, they introduce another contradiction. Worse yet, they further confuse folks because God told Abraham his seed would sojourn 400 years and this is confirmed by Stephen in Acts 7. So from Abraham to Exodus is 430 years, from Isaac to Exodus is 400 years, but modern translations say that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt. How confusing!

    Again, the classic english translations are better.
     
    #90 RAdam, Apr 13, 2010
  11. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    You and I are on a somewhat similar page. I think the KJVOs talk out of both sides of their mouths on the inerrancy, preservation, inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. They use the atheist polemic about "where are the originals" and "where is a perfect Bible", denying a cardinal tenet of our faith - the very existence of the precious Word of God.
     
    #91 TomVols, Apr 13, 2010
  12. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    I agree with Tom - the KJVO have a double standard.

    How can we know what are errors? By looking at ALL of the evidence. ALL of it. In the last 400 years, there have been many MANY manuscripts discovered. Should we just toss them away? No. God has used many men with hearts filled with the Holy Spirit to be able to find what is most likely our best translation. The manuscripts have mostly supported what we have today and they have clarified the truth in a few cases. To say that the KJV is inerrant and the modern translations are wrong is to say that God turned His back on the English speaking world, which I will never agree with.
     
    #92 annsni, Apr 13, 2010
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    10 page limit - trying to enforce this so that the last XX pages aren't just trash talking (as is typically the case if allowed to go longer)
     
    #93 Dr. Bob, Apr 13, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...