Bible Problem

[farouk]

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

There are many other examples of textual variation in the Bible. The Lord promised to preserve His word forever:

Psalm 12:6 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

A natural question that comes to mind is which version or translation?

I want to preface something before I continue. 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness: [also note an italic].

As someone mentioned, italics in our Bible are inserted to make a comprehensive English sentence, or the exact word(s) could not be rendered. Translations can be subdivided into accuracy, ease of reading, ease of understanding, etc.

Regarding accuracy and the message, is it a coincidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, when and where they were discovered, and who copied and preserved them? Many of our Bible’s italics have been removed, and we know the correct wording.

Not that we need it, but this verifies which manuscripts used are the most accurate. Studying John, the Baptist, the DSS, and the Essenes is fascinating.

I favor this commentary:

21:19 This verse raises the question of who killed Goliath the Gittite. First Samuel 17:50–51 credits David, but this verse credits Elhanan. One interpretation suggests two different Goliaths, though the identical description of Goliath’s spear being like a weaver’s beam (cp. 1 Sa 17:7) makes this option doubtful. Another explanation is to understand Elhanan as David’s original name and David as David’s throne name, but this is not supported elsewhere in Scripture. By far the most likely explanation is that Elhanan killed not Goliath but Goliath’s brother, as 1 Ch 20:5 states, and that an early scribe simply miscopied the present verse. Although this verse and 1 Ch 20:5 read a bit differently in English, in the Hebrew text only a minor alteration is required to change from one reading to another.^[1]

Some translations use “descendant” of Goliath.

 

 

 

---

^[1] Beyer, Bryan E. “2 Samuel.” Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary. Ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Jeremy Royal Howard. Broadman & Holman, 2015. 342. Print.

In Psalm 12.6 the preservation refers to people, in the context.

[farouk]

On 7/3/2023 at 6:26 PM, Jayne said:

~le sigh~  I know I'm going to regret posting this, but......

Let me tell you first of all that I like the King James.  That's all we had growing up and it was the Bible preached from when I was saved.  It's not the Bible I read today, but I would never dismiss it nor trash it.

2 Samuel 21:19 - The King James has "the brother of" Goliath in italics.  That means the translators of the King James added these words for clarity's sake.  "the brother of" is not in ancient texts.  I have no answers for all of this as I have not studied it, but there has to be an answer other than just adding words.  I think I'll ponder on this a while.

You said you couldn't read from a Bible that has "Elhanan killed Goliath".

What if someone said, "I can't read from a Bible that has 8,000 marginal notes showing they had trouble translating words and passages".  That's the King James.  I understand this is true, as I have read many of those marginal notes and it does not make me reject the King James.  I just COMPLETELY understand that only the originals were inspired, everything else is "translated" or "tranliterated" and I completely trust the marjority of Bible I read.  

For example:  In Judges, when the Levites concubine leaves him - does she leave for 4 months or a year and 4 months?  the 1611 King James says 4 month, but in the margin the same KJV notes that the correct translation could also be a year and 4 months.  They just didn't know.  There are 8,000 of these notations.

My advice - choose the Bible you prefer and read it in peace.

Hi @Jayne I too like - and prefer - the King James.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, ISofSYRINX said:

It is believed by some scholars that the Masoretic text was intentionally altered by scribes/rabbis who wished to alter/remove many specific prophecies that might lead one to believe Jesus was the Messiah. They also adjusted more than 600 years of genealogy to attempt to prove Melchizedek was Noah’s son, Shem. They also removed the name that had identified someone else as Melchizedek. 
Is is alleged that many original scrolls were burned to prevent anyone from discovering the alterations. That may be speculation, but the older, complete manuscripts that have been found were not under the control of the rabbis & scribes. 

Online versions and apps alter words all the time. A number of churches have declared the Masoretic text as accurate and the final authority. Sadly for them, there’s so much to learn from the pre-altered texts. 

Hi, and thanks for the reply. The Masoretic text was only Hebrew of the OT. The Traditional Text used the Majority Text for their translation. It's nigh to impossible to change anything in the OT because the scribes counted every letter and word so it couldn't be corrupted. The Masoretic Text is actually the best unchanged source of the OT, as it was produced by faithful men of the Masorites.

[Guest]

On 7/4/2023 at 3:32 AM, Who me said:

So prove that these ' omissions ' change essential  doctrine.

Here's one of hundreds: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" Phl 2:6. This is saying that Christ did not consider it was stealing from God to consider He was equal with God. But he was equal with God in essence. The detractors use the opposite of this by, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." This is not even saying the same thing!

 

"On earth peace, good will toward men." Luk 2:14

They have something with a different meaning " on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

The prior translation wishes good will toward men. The other saying only to those who He favors. Not the same, and these are examples of many corrupted passages.

 

 

 

 

 

[Who me]

What you are quoting are alternatives  words, they are not missing words.

If you use sites like biblehub you can compare almost every different translation and paraphrase of any verse.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Who me said:

What you are quoting are alternatives  words, they are not missing words.

If you use sites like biblehub you can compare almost every different translation and paraphrase of any verse.

Here's and example of omissions in the modern translations (except NKJV):

 

I would rather trust a translation with many manuscript evidence (about 3,000 manuscripts, regardless the age) than only 2 or three. The antiquity of the copies are the reason why they are so venerated. They are only good as antiques for the archeologist; and the footnotes expressing the reason why they omit its not a good enough reason for taking away Scripture.

Act 8:37
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [entirely omitted].

1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.

Act 28:29 Entirely omitted.

Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.

I wanted to present 4 entirely omitted passages, and 3 partially omitted passages.

Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.

Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.

Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."

There are two passage needed to check to determine if the translation is from the detracted text or the Traditional Text: 2Sam 21:19 omits the phrase "the brother of" rendering a reading that says "Elhanan slew Goliath." the other passage is 1JN 5:7 omits the primary Trinity passage. If these are the translation readings they are from the detracted text and contain hundreds of omitted Scriptures.
 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, TheBlade said:

For me your making this in to something its not. Not going to dive in.. the textual issues here  can be very complex. If we go a tad farther in S2d Samuel 21:20-21 talks about another giant slain by Johathan whos name was not given. So a probable explanation is Elhanan the Bethehemite actually killed the bother of Goliath who was left unnamed. 

Some say that maybe the scribes made mistakes on both verse 2nd Sam and then in 1st Chron. There are other possible answers but its making something out of nothing. If you truly do want a answer seek ask wait on the one that spoke it.

Simply put, 1Chron 20:5 is merely a reiteration of 2Sam 21:19, but with the correct account; and none of it is italicized (like it is in 2Sam 21), which only the KJ translators used to inform others that they were not adding to the Word, for they are words that are not in the manuscript copies.

[Guest]

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect, the Word of God within the translation is; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!

Edited August 2, 2023 by WordSword

[enoob57]

Because of God’s warnings about His Word … I would think the last thing you would wish to do is to take anything away from God’s Word

Revelation 22:19 (KJV) [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The point being if God is about this in His last book of HIs Scripture I would conclude He is about the rest …. 

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Because of God’s warnings about His Word … I would think the last thing you would wish to do is to take anything away from God’s Word

Revelation 22:19 (KJV) [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The point being if God is about this in His last book of HIs Scripture I would conclude He is about the rest …. 

We want the best version of the original manuscripts. If things were added, no matter how well intentioned by subsequent scribes and translators, then they do not belong there.

Addition is no better or worse than subtraction.