Which Bible Version can you recommend (KJV, NIV, NKJV, etc)

[ghtan]

5 hours ago, Word-Sword said:

Look at 2Sam 21:19 and see if it reads that Elhanan killed Goliath, which would conflict with 1Chron 20:5.

And your point is...?

[Sister]

1 hour ago, ghtan said:

And your point is...?

Hi ghtan

His point is everyone knows that David killed Golliath.  The modern translation says it was someone else, and doesn't harmonise with scripture.  There is a flaw there not based on truth.

[ghtan]

33 minutes ago, Sister said:

Hi ghtan

His point is everyone knows that David killed Golliath.  The modern translation says it was someone else, and doesn't harmonise with scripture.  There is a flaw there not based on truth.

Is this really a 'flaw' in the modern translations? Why then does the KJV have the words in italics? 

[opportunitykenny]

1 Samuel 17:50 

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.  

 

17:51 

Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

 

2 Samuel 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 Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.   

 

1 Chronicles 20:5  

And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

Do we have any problem that David killed Goliath and that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath in the light of the biblical verses plainly stated above?

 

[Deborah_]

3 hours ago, Sister said:

Hi ghtan

His point is everyone knows that David killed Golliath.  The modern translation says it was someone else, and doesn't harmonise with scripture.  There is a flaw there not based on truth.

The NIV of II Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. Which version says otherwise?

A footnote informs me that the word 'brother' is absent from the Hebrew manuscript, but is included in the I Chronicles account of the same incident. 

[ghtan]

1 hour ago, opportunitykenny said:

1 Samuel 17:50 

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.  

 

17:51 

Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

 

2 Samuel 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 Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.   

 

1 Chronicles 20:5  

And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

Do we have any problem that David killed Goliath and that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath in the light of the biblical verses plainly stated above?

 

If that is the answer to my question, it misses the point. Maybe I phrased it poorly. Let me try again. Why then does the KJV put the words "the brother of" in italics?

[Sister]

1 hour ago, ghtan said:

If that is the answer to my question, it misses the point. Maybe I phrased it poorly. Let me try again. Why then does the KJV put the words "the brother of" in italics?

ghtan

KJV

 2 Samuel 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 Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
 

The italics are inserted so there is no confusion.  Do you think that when they inserted the words "the brother of" in italics that it should of been left alone?

 

Ok,

lets go here then;

KJV

1 Chronicles 20:5   And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

No italics here.  Clarification they inserted the correct words into 2 Sam 21:19, and knew what they were doing.  They were accurate.

The other versions can be confusing, even if they do have footnotes, but some don't read the footnotes.  I think footnotes are a hindrance whereas if we read it with the italics, we can read a full sentence flowing without interruptions. 

If the italics of the KJV contradict, then we have a problem, but so far they don't.

 

[WordSword]

Everybody is on target here, but for a while I was wondering if this translation error meant anything to anyone. As it has been mentioned, the manuscript copies of this passage do not contain the words "the brother of" (a scribal error) so many modern Bible translators decided to leave it as it is found (because of the antiquity of the manuscript copy), which renders nearly all modern translations not only errant here but also leaves the translation in contradiction with the correct reading. The KJ translators thought it wise to italicize words to indicate to the reader that they are not contained in any manuscript.

This is the careless mindset of contemporary scholars who have not been concerned with the Word of God as they are supposedly with scholarship, for as it can be rightly assumed, no translation can be perfect but the Word of God within it is--that is, if it is "plenary" (complete; entire).  This willful mistake is about the only one in the Hebrew OT but it's a good eye-catcher to many and far greater errors of which they have performed concerning the NT, which is omission of content.  

One of Jesus' most profound declarations was, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," and in the early days of the Church during the time translations were being formed from all available manuscript copies (no original autographs of the Bible writers exist due to usage wear) the copiers would reject the use of manuscripts which did not sufficiently agree with the majority of existing copies.

There are not many manuscripts which disagree and the scribes had no concern for these in their time, but now since their recent discoveries (circa mid 1800's) they are highly prized, but mostly for their contribution to antiquity. With many recent translators, concern for their significance to the Word of God is not an issue, as seen above with their mistreatment of the OT. There was not much others could do to corrupt the OT because of the dedications of the scribes counting every letter and word, but this was not the advantage of the NT as Paul even warned of others attempting to counterfeit his writings (2Th 2:2). 

The reason why the most antiquated manuscripts were in good condition is because they were not used frequently for copying as were most, and did not have to be recopied like most. Plus these copies were abandoned to areas that were climate-friendly to the materials on which they were written, i.e. arid climate. These copies laid perdue for about 1500 years.

Some of the examples of these errant manuscripts (which is self evident mostly due to omissions) which have been carelessly utilized for most modern Bible translations concerns omissions (along with transpositions and interpolations), and the following are just a minute example of the hundreds of omissions in the NT:

1John 5:7: mostly omitted and there is much debate as to the validity of this verse due to it being absent in the Greek texts, but if we notice, the KJ translators did not italicize this passage because it is found in quite a few translations, probably because earlier translators did see enough codex evidence to include it.

Eph 3:9: should render that God created everything through Jesus Christ but the words "who created all things by Jesus Christ" are omitted.

 

I can show many more significant passages that are omitted if anyone is interested to see more.

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Word-Sword

[ghtan]

12 hours ago, Sister said:

ghtan

KJV

 2 Samuel 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 Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
 

The italics are inserted so there is no confusion.  Do you think that when they inserted the words "the brother of" in italics that it should of been left alone?

 

Ok,

lets go here then;

KJV

1 Chronicles 20:5   And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

No italics here.  Clarification they inserted the correct words into 2 Sam 21:19, and knew what they were doing.  They were accurate.

The other versions can be confusing, even if they do have footnotes, but some don't read the footnotes.  I think footnotes are a hindrance whereas if we read it with the italics, we can read a full sentence flowing without interruptions. 

If the italics of the KJV contradict, then we have a problem, but so far they don't.

 

2 Samuel was probably written around 1,000 BC. Readers were not confused for 2,600 years before the KJV came along. Why should they be confused now?

I prefer my bible to tell me what the original text said and leave the resolving of difficulties to us. Thanks for bringing up this verse though; I was not aware of the difference. I now have more confidence in the modern translations.

Oddly, there was someone on this thread who protested that modern translations have no business adding or removing words from the text. That principle is fair. Only thing is it now appears the main culprit is the KJV.

[WordSword]

I think the problem in the NT with most modern translations are insignificant to most because most do not read enough of the NT anyway!