Zechariah 13:6

[Rufus_1611]

From Deuteronomy 18:20 we know that false prophets are deserving of death by stoning...

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." - Deuteronomy 18:20​

We know from 2 Samuel 22:31 (and other verses) that God's ways are perfect...

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him." - 2 Samuel 22:31​

We further know that God is not the author of confusion...

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." - 1 Corinthians 14:33​

Below are samples of different renderings of Zechariah 13:6...

NIV
"If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body [a] ?' he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'"

NASB
"And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds (A)between your arms?' Then he will say, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'"

Message
"And if someone says, 'And so where did you get that black eye?' they'll say, 'I ran into a door at a friend's house.'"

Amplified
"And one shall say to him, What are these wounds on your breast or between your hands? Then he will answer, Those with which I was wounded [when disciplined] in the house of my [loving] friends."

KJV
"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

ESV
"And if one asks him, 'What are these wounds on your back?'[a] he will say, 'The wounds I received in the house of my friends.'"

CEV
"And if any of them are asked why they are wounded, [a] they will answer, "It happened at the house of some friends."​

Each example seems to be talking about divergent things in various degrees. One translation refers to injuries occuring to 'they' rather than the 'you" referring to Christ. The injuries range from wounds on the body, between the arms, black eye, on the breast, between the hands (what does that even mean?), in thine hands, on the back and general wounds.

Since God is perfect and does not err and since God is not the author of confusion. How does one explain that each of these Bibles are God-breathed? How do we go about being confident in determining which prophesy is accurate and which prophesies are deserving of having the author(s) stoned?

 

[Deacon]

How does one explain that each of these Bibles are God-breathed?

Simply that translations of God's word are inspired only to the extent that they correctly and accurately translate God's message to those who read them.

How do we go about being confident in determining which prophesy is accurate and which prophesies are deserving of having the author(s) stoned?

Personally, I think the time for stoning (or even burning) is past.

Here is a past thread about ZECHARIAH 13:6

Rob

 

[rbell]

You left out the Geneva Bible:

6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Thus was I wounded in the house of my friends.

Several logical mistakes; I'll focus on just a few:

1. You're underlying assumption is that the King James is correct, and you've verse-plucked to suggest that all other versions are written by "false prophets" and thus deserve stoning. But you haven't proven that the KJB is the only correct version. I listed the Geneva Bible to remind you that the KJV was not the first English Bible anyway...God somehow got His word out before 1611. Your basic premise/ulterior motive here remains unproven.

2. 1 Corinthians 14 is referring to orderly worship and tongues & interpretations, not translations of Scripture. Mis-applied.

3. Your insinuation that any translation other than KJV is from a "false prophet," besides being offensive, has no basis in Scripture. If I followed your logic...I might suggest that the KJV is a "false translation" because it didn't follow the Geneva Bible, which was an older translation. If Deuteronomy 18 was referring to translations/translators, it would have referenced scribes (those who transcribe God's message already given) not prophets (those who speak a "new word" from the Lord. Another verse mis-applied, IMO.

4. You're being a bit underhanded grouping valid translations (such as ESV, NASV, et al) with paraphrases (such as the Message). If your beef is with the Message, then focus on that. You're trying to condemn the whole based upon one--one in a different class of writings anyway. Let's be intellectually consistent here.

5. Since your insinuation of "confusion" would be "anything other than the KJV," then any changes whatsoever including word order would be "false prophecy."

6. Please tell me that you're not really suggesting that translators of other versions of God's word should be stoned. If you are...uh-oh.​

 

[Rufus_1611]

You left out the Geneva Bible:

I did not provide every English translation but a sampling. Pick out your favorite 7 and let's compare those.

1. You're underlying assumption is that the King James is correct, and you've verse-plucked to suggest that all other versions are written by "false prophets" and thus deserve stoning. But you haven't proven that the KJB is the only correct version. I listed the Geneva Bible to remind you that the KJV was not the first English Bible anyway...God somehow got His word out before 1611. Your basic premise/ulterior motive here remains unproven.

I am not endevouring to prove that the KJV is the only correct version. I am asking how every one of these Bibles can be God-breathed if they are saying different things. Why would God say one thing in one bible and something very different in another? Which contains the accurate prophesy?

2. 1 Corinthians 14 is referring to orderly worship and tongues & interpretations, not translations of Scripture. Mis-applied.

Oh. I should understand now that he is not the author of confusion in orderly worship and tongues and interpretations but he is the author of confusion relative to translations of scripture?

3. Your insinuation that any translation other than KJV is from a "false prophet," besides being offensive, has no basis in Scripture. If I followed your logic...I might suggest that the KJV is a "false translation" because it didn't follow the Geneva Bible, which was an older translation. If Deuteronomy 18 was referring to translations/translators, it would have referenced scribes (those who transcribe God's message already given) not prophets (those who speak a "new word" from the Lord. Another verse mis-applied, IMO.

Relative to Zechariah 13:6, the Geneva and KJV are aligned regarding where the wounds are to be found.

4. You're being a bit underhanded grouping valid translations (such as ESV, NASV, et al) with paraphrases (such as the Message). If your beef is with the Message, then focus on that. You're trying to condemn the whole based upon one--one in a different class of writings anyway. Let's be intellectually consistent here.

The Message is a very popular Bible used by very famous Baptists. As far as I am aware, there is no authority on what is "valid" vs. "invalid", accept for individual opinions.

5. Since your insinuation of "confusion" would be "anything other than the KJV," then any changes whatsoever including word order would be "false prophecy."

I did not provide that argument. I even included the KJV in the middle to not have it stand out. You can even remove it for all I care and the MV, "Valid" versions don't match up with each other. Which "valid" version contains the accurate prophesy?

6. Please tell me that you're not really suggesting that translators of other versions of God's word should be stoned. If you are...uh-oh.[/LEFT]

I said "deserving of".

 

[rbell]

the Geneva Bible and KJV are not identical in this verse; hence, "confusion" exists...what's that mantra: "Things that are different are not the same"?

I would hope you know the enormous difference between a translation (KJV, ESV, et al) and paraphrase (Message,the Living Bible). My teens even know that difference. By ignoring that there is a difference between the two, it gives the appearance of an agenda being pushed on your part.

THis passage is a difficult one; some think that verse 6 refers to the response of a false prophet; others disagree. So...a difficult passage, and a passage whose differing translations do not affect any significant doctrinal issue...you then determine that the KJV is correct and all others are "false prophecies?" On what basis?

As I read Zechariah 13, it seems that verse 6 is the response of a false prophet...verse 5 (KJV) reads:

But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.

That doesn't line up with any claims of Christ I'm familiar with.

So, we come back to the Message being the "translation" with the most differences. But even there...it's the response of a false prophet to questions in that. But once again...it's not a translation, but a paraphrase.

Yes, since you are quite KJVO, you have an agenda here. But you are not being intellectually consistent--as you try to prove issues about translations with a paraphrase.

I do not see confusion here. I see someone who wishes there to be confusion so his pre-suppositions might be reinforced.

I still stand by my first post: That many of your points were "proven" with out-of-context Scripture that was misapplied.

 

[Rufus_1611]

the Geneva Bible and KJV are not identical in this verse; hence, "confusion" exists...what's that mantra: "Things that are different are not the same"?

I would hope you know the enormous difference between a translation (KJV, ESV, et al) and paraphrase (Message,the Living Bible). My teens even know that difference. By ignoring that there is a difference between the two, it gives the appearance of an agenda being pushed on your part.

I'm aware that the Message is a paraphrase. I'm also aware that people of the "use any Bible that works for you" persuasion consider it to be a Bible. I am further aware that this paraphrase called a Bible says the Lord Jesus Christ got a black eye walking into a door.

THis passage is a difficult one; some think that verse 6 refers to the response of a false prophet; others disagree. So...a difficult passage, and a passage whose differing translations do not affect any significant doctrinal issue...you then determine that the KJV is correct and all others are "false prophecies?" On what basis?

This verse is a prophetical passage. Prophesy should be accurate. Whether the wounds are in the hands, between the hands, on the chest, between the arms, on the back or in the eye is relevant and only one of the prophesies can be accurate.

So, we come back to the Message being the "translation" with the most differences. But even there...it's the response of a false prophet to questions in that. But once again...it's not a translation, but a paraphrase.

You seem to want to target one of the examples I used. Let's drop that one from the discussion and focus on the other six if it enhances your comfort level you can pick your own 7 and we can discuss those.

Yes, since you are quite KJVO, you have an agenda here. But you are not being intellectually consistent--as you try to prove issues about translations with a paraphrase.

The paraphrase is still saying something and it is still called a Bible and it is still used and endorsed by popular Christian leaders such as Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Hybels and celebrities such as Bono, and Rebecca St. James

I do not see confusion here. I see someone who wishes there to be confusion so his pre-suppositions might be reinforced.

Fine. Clear it up for me...Where will the wounds be?

 

[rbell]

I'm aware that the Message is a paraphrase. I'm also aware that people of the "use any Bible that works for you" persuasion consider it to be a Bible. I am further aware that this paraphrase called a Bible says the Lord Jesus Christ got a black eye walking into a door.

This verse is a prophetical passage. Prophesy should be accurate. Whether the wounds are in the hands, between the hands, on the chest, between the arms, on the back or in the eye is relevant and only one of the prophesies can be accurate.

You are misrepresenting the Message. Verse 6 is not referring to Christ, but rather a false prophet answering questions. Read the whole chapter and it should make sense to you. Whether or not you agree with the Message in general, or this passage in particular, at least represent it accurately.

In looking at that passage across the different translations--I think that most, if not all, that I read are not referring to Christ in verse 6, but rather a false prophet.

Furthermore...the location of the wound is difficult to translate from the Hebrew--hence the differing interpretations. Somehow, I don't think Christendom will fall because of it.

Sorry if that messes up your indictment of other modern versions.

 

[AVBunyan]

I am not endevouring to prove that the KJV is the only correct version. I am asking how every one of these Bibles can be God-breathed if they are saying different things. Why would God say one thing in one bible and something very different in another? Which contains the accurate prophesy?

I had no problem understanding your intent - simple enough - good job.

God bless :wavey:

 

[Rufus_1611]

You are misrepresenting the Message. Verse 6 is not referring to Christ, but rather a false prophet answering questions. Read the whole chapter and it should make sense to you. Whether or not you agree with the Message in general, or this passage in particular, at least represent it accurately.

Fine, a false prophet got a black eye walking into a door. Can we conclude our Message dialogue now?

Furthermore...the location of the wound is difficult to translate from the Hebrew--hence the differing interpretations.

Umm, but isn't scripture inspired by God?

 

[Ed Edwards]

1. quoted by Rufus1611:

Zechariah 13:6 ... ESV
"And if one asks him, 'What are these wounds
on your back?' [a] he will say, 'The wounds
I received in the house of my friends.'"

checked by Ed, called verse checker and found wanting:

"And if one asks him, 'What are these wounds
on your back?' [a] he will say, 'The wounds
I received in the house of my friends.'"

Footnote:
Or on your chest; Hebrew wounds between
your hands

This clearly shows that 'on your back'
could be the literal Hebrew 'between your hands'
or the figurative Hebrew 'on your chest'
or 'on your back' (both locations or 'between your hands'.

2. quoted by Rufus1611:

Zechariah 13:6 ... KJV (?unidentified?)
And one shall say unto him,
What are these wounds in thine hands?
Then he shall answer,
Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

checked by Ed, called verse checker and found wanting:

Zechariah 13:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
And one shal say vnto him,
What are these wounds in thine hands?
Then hee shall answere:
Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

This clearly shows that the KJVs
vary in this verse, though not significantly

3. quoted by Rufus1611:

Zechariah 13:6 ... NIV
"If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds
on your body [a] ?' he will answer,
'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'"

checked by Ed, called verse checker and found wanting:

Zechariah 13:6 ... NIV
If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds
on your body [a]?' he will answer,
'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'

Footnote:
Or wounds between
your hands

The NIV correctly shows both the literal Hebrew
"between the hands" and the figurative Hebrew
'on your body'.

4. The use of multiple versions enhanses Spiritual
understanding.

5. The author of the opening post is not capable of adequately
quoting scripture - cutting & pasting just isn't that hard.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //Why would God say one thing in one bible
and something very different in another?//

God did not err. Rufus_1611 erred. God didn't say one
thing in one Bible and something else in another Bible.
Rufus_1611 misunderstood God.

Rufus_1611: //Which contains the accurate prophesy?//

Each of the Bibles you quoted had an accurate prophesy.

Rufus_1611: //As far as I am aware, there is no authority
on what is "valid" vs. "invalid", accept
for individual opinions.//

Yet you ignore that I showed right in this Fourm that
any group of Bible readers have the authority and
ability to determine what is 'valid' or 'invalid'.
Can you spell 'Soul Compentancy'?

Here is the topic:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611: //Why would God say one thing in one bible
and something very different in another?//

God did not err. Rufus_1611 erred. God didn't say one
thing in one Bible and something else in another Bible.
Rufus_1611 misunderstood God.

What did I misunderstand Ed. Eye, chest, between the hands, back, between the arms...which is it?

Rufus_1611: //Which contains the accurate prophesy?//

Each of the Bibles you quoted had an accurate prophesy.

You're saying they are all correct?

Rufus_1611: //As far as I am aware, there is no authority
on what is "valid" vs. "invalid", accept
for individual opinions.//

Yet you ignore that I showed right in this Fourm that
any group of Bible readers have the authority and
ability to determine what is 'valid' or 'invalid'.
Can you spell 'Soul Compentancy'?

Are we back to having spelling contests again Ed? I can not find the word 'compentancy' in any major dictionary, nor would I know what it means combined with the word 'soul' so...what are you talking about?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //I can not find the word 'compentancy'
in any major dictionary, nor would I know what
it means combined with the word 'soul' so...what
are you talking about?

Sorry to cause you so much distress,
if you had checked with a lists of Baptist doctrines
instead of a dictionary you probably would have found:

doctrine of soul competency

TeeHee, my question was: //Can you spell 'Soul Compentancy'?//
Obviously I can't That should be Soul Competency.

competency
noun
the quality of being adequately or well qualified physically and intellectually

as SBC.NET:

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssoul.asp

Soul Competency:

We affirm soul competency, the accountability
of each person before God. Your family cannot
save you. Neither can your church. It comes down
to you and God. Authorities can't force belief
or unbelief. They shouldn't try.

This and the 'Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer'
are often listed as BAPTIST distincitves: making
Baptists different from other Christian groups.

(still correcting spellin' 'stakes) ...

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //Which contains the accurate prophesy?//

Ed: //Each of the Bibles you quoted had an accurate prophesy.//

Rufus_1611: //You're saying they are all correct?//

Wow! you catch on quick.
All the Bibles you quoted correctly translate
Zechariah 13:6. However, the ESV is the best
correct translation. Collectively, the Bibles you quoted
explain the meaning of Zechariah 13:6 better than any
of these Bibles individually explain Zechariah 13:6.

God preserves His inerrant Written Words in ALL valid English Translations.

 

[AVBunyan]

God preserves His inerrant Written Words in ALL valid English Translations.

So, you folks here, and in other places, spend all your time deciding which versions are valid and then which words in those valid versions (that you decide are valid based upon your criteria and rules) are inerrant and then you run those words through your conflicting modern versions, lexicons, Greek/Hebrew concordances and dictionaries, then you put them out on these forums for open discussion, then you check to see if these words are in the Geneva, the Bishops;, the dead Sea Scrolls, then you check with your Greek/Hebrew professor, then you compare the different manuscripts and papyrus fragments, and then you forgot what you were doing and you have to start all over again at the top!

You folks hammer me and others on our view of believing the King James is the pure word of God and is God's standard for today and want me to provide "scriptural support" and then you folks make statements like, "God preserves His inerrant Written Words in ALL valid English Translations."! And you expect us to just sit back and accept this as truth because you all agree by your polls!?!?! In "all valild English translations"!?!?!?!?! Even though they all conflict in places, leave key verses out, pick at major doctrines, etc.? And they are ALL the word of God??? Insanity is reigning!!!

Lester Roloff was right when he said, "America is an insane asylum run by the inmates." I would add, "American christianity is an insane asylum run by..."
Absolutely amazing :laugh: :thumbsup: :tonofbricks:

No wonder this age of Christianity is a wipe out.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Insanity is reigning!!!

Lester Roloff was right when he said, "America is an insane asylum run by the inmates." I would add, "American christianity is an insane asylum run by..."
Absolutely amazing :laugh: :thumbsup: :tonofbricks:

No wonder this age of Christianity is a wipe out.

No, insanity is believing that God's Word was not available anyplace else before 1611, and then ONLY in English.

Insanity is claiming to use the KJV 1611 when you do not.

Insanity is believing that the KJV corrects the Greek, Hebrew, and all other languages into which the original languages are translated.

Insanity is telling a KJVO missionary in Japan (where that have no equivalent to the KJV) that he can preach from a Japanese translation and God will honor it as long as the missionary has a copy of the KJV on his pulpit and holds his hand on it as he quotes the Japanese translation. (True story- just ask John of Japan).

Insanity is calling the KJV 'God'.

Insanity is telling someone that they are not saved because they were not led to the Lord using a KJV.

Insanity is believing that others are insane because they dare to 'search the ScriptureS' like the Bereans of the New Testament did.

Insanity is refusing to accept the fact that God preserves His Word in spite of copyist's errors, translation difficulties, language meaning changes, paraphrases, and KJVOism.

This age of Christianity is a 'wipe out' because so many Christians are wasting time arguing about whose 'Sword' is sharpest instead of just using the Sword they have.

At the Bema seat there will be many crowns LOST because godly men and women wasted hours and dollars trying to prove that God only spoke through one version, instead of LIVING BY THE BIBLE THEY ALREADY HAVE. Someone has rightly said, "At the Bema seat it won't matter what translation you used if you didn't live by it!"

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother MexDeaf -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[Rufus_1611]

1. quoted by Rufus1611:


checked by Ed, called verse checker and found wanting:


This clearly shows that 'on your back'
could be the literal Hebrew 'between your hands'
or the figurative Hebrew 'on your chest'
or 'on your back' (both locations or 'between your hands'.

Footnotes are not inspired scripture.

2. quoted by Rufus1611:


checked by Ed, called verse checker and found wanting:


This clearly shows that the KJVs
vary in this verse, though not significantly

You are correct. There is not significant difference and you are reaching for things to murmur about by pointing it out.

3. quoted by Rufus1611:


checked by Ed, called verse checker and found wanting:


The NIV correctly shows both the literal Hebrew
"between the hands" and the figurative Hebrew
'on your body'.

Footnotes are not inspired scripture.

4. The use of multiple versions enhanses Spiritual
understanding.

In your understanding, where are the wounds Ed?

5. The author of the opening post is not capable of adequately
quoting scripture - cutting & pasting just isn't that hard.

The author of the opening post copied and pasted directly from Biblegateway.com. This author does not believe in the inspiration of footnotes and does not consider footnotes as being germain to a discussion of scripture.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611: //I can not find the word 'compentancy'
in any major dictionary, nor would I know what
it means combined with the word 'soul' so...what
are you talking about?

Sorry to cause you so much distress,
if you had checked with a lists of Baptist doctrines
instead of a dictionary you probably would have found:

doctrine of soul competency

TeeHee, my question was: //Can you spell 'Soul Compentancy'?//
Obviously I can't That should be Soul Competency.

competency
noun
the quality of being adequately or well qualified physically and intellectually

as SBC.NET:

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssoul.asp


This and the 'Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer'
are often listed as BAPTIST distincitves: making
Baptists different from other Christian groups.

(still correcting spellin' 'stakes) ...

How is soul competency relevant to the verse in question?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611: //Which contains the accurate prophesy?//

Ed: //Each of the Bibles you quoted had an accurate prophesy.//

Rufus_1611: //You're saying they are all correct?//

Wow! you catch on quick.
All the Bibles you quoted correctly translate
Zechariah 13:6. However, the ESV is the best
correct translation. Collectively, the Bibles you quoted
explain the meaning of Zechariah 13:6 better than any
of these Bibles individually explain Zechariah 13:6.

I'm not really as you quick as you give me credit for. For clarity...

The "best correct" translation is on the back?

However, the other translations that show the wounds being somewhere else, are also correct?

If I want to know which versions are "valid", which I should read to get the best collective understanding, I should go to your poll?