i'm confused about a verse

FIF4life · 09-11-2001, 05:27 PM

Hey everyone, i gotta question. One of my friends told me this and it was really confusing. OK, read Hosea 11:12 in the KJV, then read the same verse in NIV, i know it may not be of much importance, but it still confused me. Just wonderin what you guys thought..

Luke · 09-11-2001, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FIF4life
Hey everyone, i gotta question. One of my friends told me this and it was really confusing. OK, read Hosea 11:12 in the KJV, then read the same verse in NIV, i know it may not be of much importance, but it still confused me. Just wonderin what you guys thought..

Um...ok, yeah, the KJV has some strange wording there. And the NKJV translators probably didn't bother to go to the Hebrew when "retranslating" it, as it says the exact opposite of the NIV and NASB translations.

Where the KJV says "ruleth", the Hebrew word is ruwd, which means to ramble, kinda strage. Probably "ruleth" meant something different in 1611 than it does now.

I think this is just one of those places where the way it would have been taken in 1611 is quite different than how we read it now (although I bet even in 1611 this was horrible sentence structure...).

ChrisHarbison · 09-11-2001, 08:05 PM

I must concur with Luke on this one, I read them in NJV, NASB, and NIV.

Both NASB and NIV say Judah is unruly against God, where KJV says ruleth with God. On the surface this indeed does appear to contradict among translations, but as Luke said, if you do a word study on the original Hebrew word translated as ruleth and unruly you'll see what is meant. Ruwd literally translated means both to neglect and to rule over. This is a wonderful example of the complexity of the English language. Charles Manson was mad (crazy). President Bush is mad (angry). Two words used with differently with different meanings. The same thing's happened here, except the word ruleth is not exactly used in modern English anymore so it just gets confusing.

By the way, that was an excellent question! Keep up the good work, I would never have noticed that.

sillybob98 · 09-11-2001, 08:43 PM

First, let me say that this is why it is important to use more than one translation in serious Bible study.

From http://bible.crosswalk.com: and http://bible.gospelcom.net

These versions agree on what Hosea 11:12 says:
KJV, NKJV, New Revised Standard

These versions say the exact opposite:
NASB, NIV

And these versions say it could be either way in the footnotes, though they print the KJV stance in the main text
New Living Translation, The Darby Translation

Just 2 verses later, in Hosea 12:2, all translations listed here agree that God has a "charge to bring against", "a dispute with", "a controversy with" Judah. This seems to lend support to the stance taken by the NASB and NIV translations. Matthew Henry's commentary (published in the early 18th century) suggests that there is some time between the two verses, or rather that the two verses are referring to two different points in Judah's history.

Not knowing any hebrew, my instinct is that the grammatical structure of the verse in question is at best vague.

No conclusions, just information.

09-12-2001, 01:39 PM

I don't trust the niv anymore so I would have to go with either the kjv or Nkjv

why don't i trust the niv anymore? because bible verses are missing in the niv if you don't believe me look for yourself for these in the niv,new living and some of the other new versions

most of time they are missing in the text

Matthew 17:21, mark 9:44, luke 17:36, actc 8:37

these are only a few of them

jm

Luke · 09-12-2001, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered
I don't trust the niv anymore so I would have to go with either the kjv or Nkjv

why don't i trust the niv anymore? because bible verses are missing in the niv if you don't believe me look for yourself for these in the niv,new living and some of the other new versions

most of time they are missing in the text

Matthew 17:21, mark 9:44, luke 17:36, actc 8:37

Most times, the reason that verses are "missing" from the NIV was because there was sufficient question as to whether the verse actually was part of the Bible--i.e. it wasn't in the oldest documents, that sort of thing. Because of the proliferation of documents found since 1611, nowadays we are able ot making translations far more accurate than the KJV.

The main reason I find the KJV to be inferior to other versions is because of its lack of accuracy. They didn't have as much to go by in 1611, and the translation reflects this. And the NKJV is worse...they didn't even look up the verses most of the time, they just updated the KJV, which makes the NKJV ridden with error (like the verse that was in question).

FIF4life · 09-13-2001, 01:29 PM

Wow... i guess i know where to go to with a bible question! thanx a lot everyone!

Luke · 09-13-2001, 02:20 PM

Heehee, just beware--sometimes the answers aren't so cut and dry. Then you get to listen to us argue over it.

09-13-2001, 02:34 PM

The King James Version. Good news for 16th century man.
The flintlock was revolutionary!

Forsooth, thou makest to naught lest thee order thy thoughts unto the manner which thinkest I!
Naye, Heretick! Aye en gladden wd bey signate myne copye of Beowulf!

Icthemundis fereubundis?

Oops, forgot, you don't speak latin. (obscure Steve Martin reference, sorry.)

Remember how Nehemiah read the Law to the people and GAVE IT MEANING? What was he thinking? (Thinkest what he?)

Remember Wycliffe?

In a society where we're increasingly illiterate, finding accessible and understandable translations must be our great priority.

On the other hand, I can't seem to get a groove on with the Klingon Bible, so color me the hypocrite, eh?