Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 09-10-2005, 11:22 PM   #31
I love music!
 
Crazy4Christ14's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 61
Send a message via Yahoo to Crazy4Christ14
I find it interesting that you only managed to attack the one arguement that I didn't post any verses for, but simply ignored the others. So here it is again.

So, first verse.

1 Kings 4:26 in KJV
26And Solomon had forty thousand stalls OF horses FOR his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

The parallel verse in Chronicles is as follows: Chron 9:25
25And Solomon had four thousand stalls FOR horses AND chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen;

This supposedly is a contradiction, so some translations changed it. The NASV got it right, the NRSV got it wrong, and the NIV got it wrong. They changed it to as follows:

26 Solomon had four [a] thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses.

They changed it to four thousand, and used charioteers or chariot horses in both verses. However there is no contradiction here. There were 10 horses per chariot. So he had 40,000 stallls for the HORSES that are FOR the chariots, and therefore would need 4,000 stalls for horses AND chariots. No contradiction whatsoever.

Next verse.

2 Samuel 10:18 (King James Version)
18And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men OF seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

1 Chronicles 19:18 (KJV)
18But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand MEN WHICH FOUGHT IN chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

There is no contradiction here. Again, ten men and ten horses per chariot. David slew the MEN OF 700 hundred chariots, and therefore slew 7,000 men. BUT, if you read the NIV, it is a direct contradiction, this is how it reads:

1 Chronicles 19:18 (NIV)
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed SEVEN THOUSAND of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophach the commander of their army.

And here is the passage from 2 Samuel 10:18 (NIV)
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed SEVEN HUNDRED of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. [a] He also struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there.

If you were a new Christian reading the NIV and you discovered this contradiction it could raise serious doubt in you about the validity of God's word.

OH YEAH, the NIV is superiour even though it contains contradictions...

__________________
3El saber este primer, de que allí vendrá en los "scoffers" pasados de los días, caminando después de que sus propias lujurias... 5Por esto ellas sean dispuesto ignorantes de, (QUE es EL GRIEGO PARA "MUDO EN PROPÓSITO") eso por la palabra del dios los cielos estaba de viejo, y de la tierra que estaba parada fuera del agua y en el agua.
Crazy4Christ14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 09-10-2005, 11:26 PM   #32
Now what'd you break?
 
Godreignsoveral's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 1,061
Send a message via Skype™ to Godreignsoveral
So here's a thought on those "better" older manuscripts. Maybe they didn't carry over with the mass of other texts that we have because they were not as accurate or accepted. Any comments on that?

Mark
__________________
Quote:
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
Godreignsoveral is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-12-2005, 09:26 AM   #33
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy4Christ14
I find it interesting that you only managed to attack the one arguement that I didn't post any verses for, but simply ignored the others. So here it is again.

So, first verse.

1 Kings 4:26 in KJV
26And Solomon had forty thousand stalls OF horses FOR his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

The parallel verse in Chronicles is as follows: Chron 9:25
25And Solomon had four thousand stalls FOR horses AND chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen;

This supposedly is a contradiction, so some translations changed it. The NASV got it right, the NRSV got it wrong, and the NIV got it wrong. They changed it to as follows:

26 Solomon had four [a] thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses.

They changed it to four thousand, and used charioteers or chariot horses in both verses. However there is no contradiction here. There were 10 horses per chariot. So he had 40,000 stallls for the HORSES that are FOR the chariots, and therefore would need 4,000 stalls for horses AND chariots. No contradiction whatsoever.

Next verse.

2 Samuel 10:18 (King James Version)
18And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men OF seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

1 Chronicles 19:18 (KJV)
18But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand MEN WHICH FOUGHT IN chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

There is no contradiction here. Again, ten men and ten horses per chariot. David slew the MEN OF 700 hundred chariots, and therefore slew 7,000 men. BUT, if you read the NIV, it is a direct contradiction, this is how it reads:

1 Chronicles 19:18 (NIV)
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed SEVEN THOUSAND of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophach the commander of their army.

And here is the passage from 2 Samuel 10:18 (NIV)
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed SEVEN HUNDRED of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. [a] He also struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there.

If you were a new Christian reading the NIV and you discovered this contradiction it could raise serious doubt in you about the validity of God's word.

OH YEAH, the NIV is superiour even though it contains contradictions...

you basically state its a better translation because these passages work better.

That isn't an argument. That's a smokescreen. I could doctor the Illiad to better harmonize certain passages in a translation, but that doesn't make the texts or translations superior. It just meen I doctored the text.

Your argument is invalid.
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-12-2005, 09:29 AM   #34
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral
So here's a thought on those "better" older manuscripts. Maybe they didn't carry over with the mass of other texts that we have because they were not as accurate or accepted. Any comments on that?

Mark

read a book on textual criticism please. Most of these older manuscripts were merely unknown at the time of the translation of the KJV.

Some of the issues are that you can clearly see copy errors and other things. Assuming the 17th century, which had access to less reliable manuscripts and fewer of them, had access to superior manuscripts is not even logical.
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-12-2005, 11:38 AM   #35
Gone Golfing
 
mlqurgw's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq
read a book on textual criticism please. Most of these older manuscripts were merely unknown at the time of the translation of the KJV.

Some of the issues are that you can clearly see copy errors and other things. Assuming the 17th century, which had access to less reliable manuscripts and fewer of them, had access to superior manuscripts is not even logical.
While I am at the moment doing some study of textual criticism your comments would seem to suggest that God didn't really preserve His Word in textual form until the earlier manuscripts were found. It is logicaly correct, at least to me, that the older ones could have been discarded copies because of errors. I am not saying they were but to simply rely on them because they are older is not necessarily right.
__________________
If you want someone to find Christ take them to where He has promised to be. Where two or three are gathered in His name.
mlqurgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-12-2005, 11:49 AM   #36
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlqurgw
While I am at the moment doing some study of textual criticism your comments would seem to suggest that God didn't really preserve His Word in textual form until the earlier manuscripts were found. It is logicaly correct, at least to me, that the older ones could have been discarded copies because of errors. I am not saying they were but to simply rely on them because they are older is not necessarily right.

actually if you do any research you will find that isn't the case. There are wide variants in the text. Most of them are relatively minor mind you, but some aren't. We can see from the dead sea scrolls that in some versions of Isaih, there is a copy error which resulted in a lot of manuscripts having several verses deleted. I am not stating that God did not protect his word, but I am stating that human copyists have made errors for several thousand years and that while the autographa are inerrant, the textus receptus has errors, the codex sinaiticus has errors, the dead sea scrolls have errors, etc. The variants make this an unavoidable conclusion.

The dead sea scrolls were not factory seconds of scrolls, yet they were unavailable in 1611. They may have contained the scrolls from the temple itself. (One theory of how the got to Qumran when taken in conjunction with the copper scroll)
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-13-2005, 10:18 AM   #37
Now what'd you break?
 
Godreignsoveral's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 1,061
Send a message via Skype™ to Godreignsoveral
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq
read a book on textual criticism please. Most of these older manuscripts were merely unknown at the time of the translation of the KJV.

Some of the issues are that you can clearly see copy errors and other things. Assuming the 17th century, which had access to less reliable manuscripts and fewer of them, had access to superior manuscripts is not even logical.
So could you answer the question brought up by mlqurgw a little more thoroughly about God's Word having been preserved? When God said He'd preserve it, did He mean it'd at least be buried somewhere... but you won't necessarily have My Word sometimes? I mean, I completely open to learning how the preservation of the Word promise was intended to be understood... but if it's what I've always had the impression of... that His true Word will always be kept from then until now... why wasn't accurate when KJV was made... and if it was at least accurate enough, other than updating the English to be understood today, why are we attempting to change it? It's already been successfully used to lead huge numbers of people to the Lord. It's a success... why fix it if it's not broken? Anyway, really, these are just questions. I don't really have time to read up on textual criticism at this time, for I have half a dozen other things to do between family, work, secular college, and a handful of personal biblical studies already. If you don't want to take time to answer these questions, I hope somebody in this forum will... I am curious, but I'm also busy. Thanks for thoughts ahead of time, Mark.

Mark
__________________
Quote:
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
Godreignsoveral is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-13-2005, 10:52 AM   #38
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral
So could you answer the question brought up by mlqurgw a little more thoroughly about God's Word having been preserved? When God said He'd preserve it, did He mean it'd at least be buried somewhere... but you won't necessarily have My Word sometimes? I mean, I completely open to learning how the preservation of the Word promise was intended to be understood... but if it's what I've always had the impression of... that His true Word will always be kept from then until now... why wasn't accurate when KJV was made... and if it was at least accurate enough, other than updating the English to be understood today, why are we attempting to change it? It's already been successfully used to lead huge numbers of people to the Lord. It's a success... why fix it if it's not broken? Anyway, really, these are just questions. I don't really have time to read up on textual criticism at this time, for I have half a dozen other things to do between family, work, secular college, and a handful of personal biblical studies already. If you don't want to take time to answer these questions, I hope somebody in this forum will... I am curious, but I'm also busy. Thanks for thoughts ahead of time, Mark.

Mark
The thing is, is without doubt there are a large group of manuscripts available today. They allow us to see through the past and see what copying errors were made sometimes. (And yes, without doubt, a lot of manuscripts cantain errors from copyists) The Masoretes are famous for their perfect copying, but they are relatively late comers on the scene as old testament copyists from the tenth and eleventh century AD.

Why fix it? Because in the effort of preserving God's word we should strive to be as true to the original manuscripts possible. Using late manuscripts and translations of translations is not the way to best preserve God's word. The KJV is broken in a lot of places where other variant texts should have been used. Is it worthless? BY NO MEANS! Is it the best translation of the best texts available? NO WAY ON THIS EARTH.

In addition, English has even changed, so hence we use better texts, into a modern dialect to get a better translation.
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 06:35 AM   #39
Now what'd you break?
 
Godreignsoveral's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 1,061
Send a message via Skype™ to Godreignsoveral
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq
The thing is, is without doubt there are a large group of manuscripts available today. They allow us to see through the past and see what copying errors were made sometimes. (And yes, without doubt, a lot of manuscripts cantain errors from copyists) The Masoretes are famous for their perfect copying, but they are relatively late comers on the scene as old testament copyists from the tenth and eleventh century AD.

Why fix it? Because in the effort of preserving God's word we should strive to be as true to the original manuscripts possible. Using late manuscripts and translations of translations is not the way to best preserve God's word. The KJV is broken in a lot of places where other variant texts should have been used. Is it worthless? BY NO MEANS! Is it the best translation of the best texts available? NO WAY ON THIS EARTH.

In addition, English has even changed, so hence we use better texts, into a modern dialect to get a better translation.
Thanks for the reply Bill. I completely agree with the need to keep the translation modern... it'd be like sticking with the latin because, at one time, that was considered a great translation. *shrugs* Anyway, I don't really understand though, how we've had God's true word this whole time if what we had in 1611 isn't exactly His word... it's only partially it. When God said He would preserve His word... did He mean He'd keep it in tact, but some multi-hundred year spaces would never get to see it, no matter how much they were seeking His truth?

Mark
__________________
Quote:
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
Godreignsoveral is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 09:36 AM   #40
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral
Thanks for the reply Bill. I completely agree with the need to keep the translation modern... it'd be like sticking with the latin because, at one time, that was considered a great translation. *shrugs* Anyway, I don't really understand though, how we've had God's true word this whole time if what we had in 1611 isn't exactly His word... it's only partially it. When God said He would preserve His word... did He mean He'd keep it in tact, but some multi-hundred year spaces would never get to see it, no matter how much they were seeking His truth?

Mark

its a matter of accuracy and readability. Don't get me wrong, the KJV isn't hideous, its just not the best available today. (ESV tends to have a lot of variant readings noted which I like) Every translation has flaws. Every translation of every book ever translated has these. Now that doesn't mean its not preserved very well. But the fact is, as much as we hold to innerancy, we have to wrestle with the translation and copyists errors in manuscripts.

KJV isn't the best available anymore.
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 10:53 AM   #41
Registered User
 

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridley's Own
I didn't say it was written badly. I said that it's not very readable for oral proclamation, ie., reading it out loud, which is not why the NASB was created.
Sorry I wasn't clear...I was referring to what BillSPrestonEsq said about a perticular verse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By reading the diff. posts that all of you have made, I'm a little confused at what you think makes a good translation. Do you think a good translation is one in which it is translated into modern day english, or one in which is every word is as is was in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/?
I'm taking my first hermeneutics class right now, so I don't have a wealth of knowledge.....but I can say that it is already confusing. I think the book that we're using is a pretty crappy if you aske me though. It's called A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert Stein.
Anyone recommend any better books???
rheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 11:24 AM   #42
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by rheo
Sorry I wasn't clear...I was referring to what BillSPrestonEsq said about a perticular verse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By reading the diff. posts that all of you have made, I'm a little confused at what you think makes a good translation. Do you think a good translation is one in which it is translated into modern day english, or one in which is every word is as is was in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/?
I'm taking my first hermeneutics class right now, so I don't have a wealth of knowledge.....but I can say that it is already confusing. I think the book that we're using is a pretty crappy if you aske me though. It's called A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert Stein.
Anyone recommend any better books???

One which conveys the original meaning of the text. Obviously, it isn't going to be word for word. Greek gramatical structure would prevent that as would Hebrew's structure. Accuracy to the meaning of the originals.
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 12:09 PM   #43
Registered User
 

Joined: Sep 2004
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 422
Bill hit it on the head. Look for a thought for thought translation. Also called a dynamic translation. It doesn't translate each word into english, but rather translates the thought. This valuable because, latin and greek are more eastern in their origin then english, English is a germanic language and highly technical. Greek and Latin and Hebrew are eastern in style and paint word pictures. I like the CEV version put out by the ABS
milkmandog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 12:15 PM   #44
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmandog
Bill hit it on the head. Look for a thought for thought translation. Also called a dynamic translation. It doesn't translate each word into english, but rather translates the thought. This valuable because, latin and greek are more eastern in their origin then english, English is a germanic language and highly technical. Greek and Latin and Hebrew are eastern in style and paint word pictures. I like the CEV version put out by the ABS

I avoid the CEV as taking too many liberties, I have not researched it very thoroughly, but thats the buzz my profs gave about it, and honestly, I found stuff I liked and didn't go looking too deep into that one. What I would go for is not the "dynamic" translations, but more balnced ones. They tend to take a bit too much liberty, but a true word for word would be uninteligible.

I like ESV best because I think it has the best balancethere, though NASB is very good for the most part. (My major issue with 1 Corinthians 7 in it aside)
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-14-2005, 12:25 PM   #45
Gone Golfing
 
mlqurgw's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,539
I have been reading both sides of the issue and have found no satisfying answer to the question. KJV supporters contend that Wescott and Hort were heretics and thier rules of textual criticism are still used by textual critics. The Modern translation supporters contend that the Textus Receptus was flawed to start with. At the moment I tend to agree with the KJV supporters. The view that older is better doesn't stand up to God's preservation of His Word nor to majority agreement in the texts. While, as I have already said, I do not hold to KJV only I still believe it to be a decent translation and it is still my preference. I think it reasonable to study from several translations (not paraphrases).
__________________
If you want someone to find Christ take them to where He has promised to be. Where two or three are gathered in His name.
mlqurgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2