Someone help me with this seemingly discrepancy - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 12:08 PM Thread Starter
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Someone help me with this seemingly discrepancy

....between translations.

KJV Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath,if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world


RSV Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "As in my anger I swore, "They shall not enter my rest,' " though his works were finished at the foundation of the world

When the SDA guys and me were talking this threw us both.

But when I researched what exactly the quote that this particular passage is refering to when it says "God has said" (Psalms 95:11) it is clear that "shall not enter" is the correct way to read Hebrew 4:3.

But when me and guys were talking they won that battle because of the seemingly difference in translations. WTHeck is going on with that? HELP!!!

All other translations have "shall not enter" only the KJV has the "shall enter"

Last edited by Monsoon X; 10-29-2002 at 12:36 PM.
Monsoon X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 12:43 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Interesting. Every translation says "they shall not enter" except KJV. I will look at the original greek and see what it says as far as how the KJV came up with "if they shall enter" and if it means the same thing. Very good question.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 02:13 PM
None
 
Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Anti-Newbie
Posts: 12,675
I don't have a james version, only New International.

What does it say in KGV for hebrews 4:5?

In mine:
4:3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.

4:5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest"

One phrase can mean one thing, but take it in accordance with others for further clarity. 4:5 may offer that clarity.
Jedi is offline  
 
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 04:25 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
The original greek, literally translated, reads:

"As I swore in the wrath of Me, If they shall enter into the rest of Me;"
KJV reads "...if they shall enter into my rest:"

Psalm 95:11 literally reads:

"I swore in My anger, If they shall enter into my rest."
KJV reads: "...they should not enter into My rest."

In the context that it is being used, it is my understanding that the two different translations mean the same thing.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 05:17 PM Thread Starter
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Question

I'm sure they would wind up meaning the same thing but I have yet to see how.

Maybe I need to really sit down and break each word down.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 06:11 PM
None
 
Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Anti-Newbie
Posts: 12,675
The word "if" in the KGV gives me the impession of "Remember what i said if they did this"

Kinda like a allusion to a previous threat/warning more than a direct command.
Jedi is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2002, 06:23 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Yes, it is difficult to see how the two mean the same thing. If no one comes up with a good explaination I will ask one of the pastors at church tomorrow. Maybe one of them can shed some light.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-30-2002, 07:33 AM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
I found this rather interesting. With the difference pointed out between the KJV and the other versions, I was doing some research and found this:

http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

It seams that there are more than just this one difference between the versions (this is a listing of just 300 of over 1000). I never really noticed this since I only read the KJV or a literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Interesting read.

Randy

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-30-2002, 12:05 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Discrepancies are to be expected when you're dealing with the written word of man.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but those two quotes do not seem to dispute each other, JC.

"As in my anger, if they shall enter into my rest" and "As in my anger, they shall not enter my rest" means about the same thing. He's gonna be pissed if you enter into his rest.

I'm going with MoonDog on this one.
46Tbird is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-30-2002, 12:21 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 46Tbird
Discrepancies are to be expected when you're dealing with the written word of man.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but those two quotes do not seem to dispute each other, JC.

"As in my anger, if they shall enter into my rest" and "As in my anger, they shall not enter my rest" means about the same thing. He's gonna be pissed if you enter into his rest.

I'm going with MoonDog on this one.
My point here TBird, as is spelled out in the link, is that the KJV is the inspired word of God but the other versions have changed or omited things and it is these that are considered inspired by man. When I read the KJV and a literal translation, they both read the same, nothing is changed or omited. The other versions differ.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-30-2002, 01:01 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
LOL - I just felt like giving the God Squad some hell today.
46Tbird is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-30-2002, 04:31 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
My point here TBird, as is spelled out in the link, is that the KJV is the inspired word of God but the other versions have changed or omited things and it is these that are considered inspired by man. When I read the KJV and a literal translation, they both read the same, nothing is changed or omited. The other versions differ.
The KJV is the inspired word of God? More like The Inspired word of King James. You are aware of the history behind the KJV, right?

The reason for differences in the various versions of the Bible, is exactly what I said looong ago ... no matter how divinely inspired, the Bible is written by man, and is subject to man's fallability.

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-31-2002, 03:19 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Yes, I know the history of the KJV do you?

The Bible is the verbally inspired Word of the living God and because the Authorised Version is a faithful English translation of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the original Greek of the New Testament, it is the very Word of God. Being a translation does not alter one iota of its integrity, inerrancy and infallibility as God's Word.

THE KJV WAS WRITTEN BY FORTY-SEVEN SCHOLARS UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF KING JAMES I, OF ENGLAND. THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS WERE STUDIED AND OTHER ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, WITH THE VIEW OF OBTAINING THE BEST RESULTS. NO OTHER TRANSLATION USED TODAY CAN SAY THIS.

If you do a search on all the other versions you will find out that they differ greatly from the KJV.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old 11-01-2002, 04:54 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
Let me quote something from the KJV:

"The HOLY BIBLE
Containing
The Old and New Testaments
Translated out of the original tongues
and with the former translations
diligently compared and revised

By His Majesty's special command"

Diligently comparing and revising previous translations ... interesting.

You can also read the dedication of the work to King James:
"And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby, we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal mover and author of the Work; humbly craving of your most Sacred Majesty, that, since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill-meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is; whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shal more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shal dismay us."

That's a run-on sentance if I've ever read one ... and it's a REALLY long way of saying "Thanks for letting us know what needed to be written, and what was right, and wrong from the original translations."

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old 11-02-2002, 09:11 AM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkWolf
Let me quote something from the KJV:

"The HOLY BIBLE
Containing
The Old and New Testaments
Translated out of the original tongues
and with the former translations
diligently compared and revised

By His Majesty's special command"

Diligently comparing and revising previous translations ... interesting.
I believe I said they also used other translations.

Quote:
You can also read the dedication of the work to King James:
"And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby, we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal mover and author of the Work; humbly craving of your most Sacred Majesty, that, since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill-meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is; whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shal more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shal dismay us."

That's a run-on sentance if I've ever read one ... and it's a REALLY long way of saying "Thanks for letting us know what needed to be written, and what was right, and wrong from the original translations."
All of the earliest attempts at translating the Bible into English were fragmented. For example, Bishop Aldhelm of Sherbourne translated the Psalms into Old English around 709. Venerable Bede, a monk at Jarrow, translated a portion of the Gospel of John. By 900 AD all of the Gospels and most of the Old Testament had been translated into Old English. The KJV is the first English version of the complete Bible.

The KJV (1611) was done during the reign of King James the I of England. 47 scholars, divided into 6 groups, worked on this translation. Based largely on the Bishop's Bible, Hebrew and Greek texts were studied as well as other available English translations, to insure the best results. By choosing men of many different theological and educational backgrounds, it was hoped individual prejudices of the translators could be minimized. Because it was small in size and in clear type, the KJV pleased clergy and congregation alike.

The origin of other English Bibles of today can be traced to a time when men, under the divine inspiration of God, first wrote the books of the Bible. This word of God was transmitted from generation to generation by handwritten copies and by word-of-mouth. As men began to realize how valuable these teachings were, attempts were made to collate these teachings into a single book.

Most of what we now know as the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament largely in Greek. Since no printing press existed until 1450, all of the original compilations of the Bible were done by hand.

John Wycliffe (1380) - John Wycliffe was the first to plan a complete English translation of the Bible from Latin. His translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. He completed the New Testament prior to his death, and his friends completed the work after his death.

William Tyndale ( 1525-1530) - Driven from England by persecution, William Tyndale, shared Wycliffe's desire to produce a Bible that the common English-speaking person could understand. Using the Latin Vulgate and other ancient sources, Tyndale was able to translate the New Testament and Pentateuch before he was martyred.

Miles Coverdale (1535) - A friend of Tyndale's, Coverdale was able to publish a complete Bible. It is generally believed Coverdale used Tyndale's work in producing his New Testament. This Bible was done to honor King Henry the VIII.

Matthews Bible (1537) - Despite the name, it is widely accepted that a friend of Tyndale, John Rogus, did most of the work on this Bible. Based largely on Tyndale's previous work, it also contains evidences of Coverdale's work as well. This might well be considered an updated Tyndale Bible.

The Great Bible (1539) - This Bible takes its name from its great physical size. Based on the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Matthews Bibles, it was used mainly in churches. Often chained to a reading desk in a church, people would come to listen as a minister read from the Great Bible.

The Geneva Bible (1560) - Produced in Geneva by scholars who had fled persecution in England under Queen Mary, this Bible was based not only on the Great Bible, but also on the other English translations of that day. Though very scholarly, it was a popular Bible because of its small size.

The Bishops Bible (1568) - This was a revision of the Great Bible and Geneva Bible done under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Elizabeth.

Douay-Rheims Bible (1582-1610) - The New Testament was published in Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament in Douay in 1610. A revision of the Latin Vulgate, this has become the generally accepted English Version for the Roman Catholic Church.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #16 of 18 (permalink) Old 11-02-2002, 02:58 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
You seem to be missing the point. Yes, other translations were used, and revised. Not only were translations revised, but in their dedication, they acknowledge King James as "the principal mover and author of the Work". Ie: They acknowledge King James as the primary source of information to go into the KJV.

It doesn't matter how many scholars there were, and how many groups they were divided into, and how many theological backgrounds there were ... they were all commissioned by the king to do this. The KJV was compiled for political reasons, not because of "Holy Inspiration". If they refused to make the revisions that King James wanted, they would be executed for treason (don't deny it, it was most certainly a common practice).

You're ignoring actual, factual history, in favor of believing what you've been told is 'the' true divinely inspired translation of the Bible. Which is another thing I find hilarious ... that one translation of the Bible is considered more divinely inspired than all the rest. So when it's said "The Bible is the true and unquestionable word of God" ... try to be more specific and let us know what version of the Bible is being spoken of.

I missed this the first time reading your post:
Quote:
Miles Coverdale (1535) - A friend of Tyndale's, Coverdale was able to publish a complete Bible. It is generally believed Coverdale used Tyndale's work in producing his New Testament. This Bible was done to honor King Henry the VIII.
To honor King Henry VIII ... the same king who created the Anglican Church, so that he could divorce his wife, which at the time was illegal according to the Catholic Church. But at least now he could divorce them, instead of chopping their heads off

And this version of the Bible was a major source for the Great Bible ... which in turn was a major source for the Bishops Bible ... which in turn was itself a major source for the KJV.

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design

Last edited by DarkWolf; 11-02-2002 at 03:09 PM.
DarkWolf is offline  
post #17 of 18 (permalink) Old 11-02-2002, 11:49 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
And I repeat:

Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog

Based largely on the Bishop's Bible, Hebrew and Greek texts were studied as well as other available English translations, to insure the best results. By choosing men of many different theological and educational backgrounds, it was hoped individual prejudices of the translators could be minimized.
There is nothing that would indicate that King James put his .02 in. Like I have said, the KJV lines up with the original texts.

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkWolf

It doesn't matter how many scholars there were, and how many groups they were divided into, and how many theological backgrounds there were ... they were all commissioned by the king to do this. The KJV was compiled for political reasons, not because of "Holy Inspiration". If they refused to make the revisions that King James wanted, they would be executed for treason (don't deny it, it was most certainly a common practice).
Just because it may have been common practice to execute someone for not following the Kings order, you can not assume that the King told them what to write. Refer to my quote above. In fact, King James tried to be friendly with alot of the neighboring countries. He was not your usual king in that respect. Also once again, if you compare the KJV with a literal translation from the original Greek and original Hebrew you will see that it lines up perfectly. Nothing has been added and nothing has been omited.

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkWolf
To honor King Henry VIII ... the same king who created the Anglican Church, so that he could divorce his wife, which at the time was illegal according to the Catholic Church. But at least now he could divorce them, instead of chopping their heads off
And just what is wrong with this? Sounds like he knew what he was doing was wrong so he decided to make a change and divorce instead of killing them. Sound like a good man to me.

Mar 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

So there was something written about divorce. God hates divorce but He knew He had to give us a way out of marrige because of the hardness of our hearts. The Catholic Church still has a hard time with divorce and alot of times they still to this day kick people out of the church for doing it. So, IMO it is the Catholic Church that has to problem and not King Henry.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!

Last edited by MoonDog; 11-03-2002 at 09:04 AM.
MoonDog is offline  
post #18 of 18 (permalink) Old 11-03-2002, 03:01 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
And I repeat, for the third time:

Quote:
You seem to be missing the point. Yes, other translations were used, and revised. Not only were translations revised, but in their dedication, they acknowledge King James as "the principal mover and author of the Work". Ie: They acknowledge King James as the primary source of information to go into the KJV.
It's written in the KJV, you have no course of rebuttal on this issue. King James is acknowledged as the "principal mover and author of the Work" ... ie: the primary source of information for the Bible.

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome