PDA

View Full Version : Hosea 13:14 a blessing or a curse? Bible Babble Buffet



brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 05:11 PM
Hosea 13:14 "I will redeem them from death...REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."

One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions.

King James Bible - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."


Note the changing of the promise of God to redeem them from death into a Question and a Threat in the ESV - "I WILL redeem them from death" to " SHALL I redeem them from death?".

Then we have the textual change from "I WILL BE thy plagues...I WILL BE thy destruction" to "WHERE ARE your plagues...WHERE IS your sting?.

And last we have the total change in meaning from "REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes" (I will not change my mind, but will surely do it) to "COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."

The ESV reads exactly the same as the liberal RSV 1952 and the NRSV 1989, but it lacks some of the footnotes found in both the RSV and NRSV. The RSV, NRSV inform us that the textual reading of "WHERE ARE YOUR PLAGUES? WHERE IS YOUR DESTRUCTION? (Both the RSV and NRSV read "destruction" as the KJB has it, but the ESV changed this to "sting") comes from the Greek and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew text reads: "I WILL BE thy plagues...I WILL BE thy destruction."

The ESV conveniently left out this information. So right off the bat, the ESV is rejecting the clear Hebrew reading for something else. Not even the NIV rejected the Hebrew text in this passage, but several other modern versions have, as we shall see shortly.


The meaning of this promise is abundantly clear in the King James Bible. God has promised to redeem His people from death and destroy the power of the grave and He will not change His mind about doing this for us.

The word "repentance" here simply means a change of mind and is used in this way many times in Scripture when referring to God. Psalm 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Romans 11:29.

One would think the meaning of this precious promise is obvious.

John Gill comments: "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes; that is, the Lord will never repent of his decree of redemption from hell, death, and the grave; nor of the work of it by Christ; nor of the entire destruction of these things; which being once done, will never be repented of nor recalled, but remain so for ever."

Adam Clarke's Commentary says: "Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. On these points I will not change my purpose; this is the signification of repentance when attributed to God."

The Coffman Commentary on the Bible says: "Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes…The clear meaning of that is that God will not repent of his glorious promise. The immutable and eternal God will do what he promised!"

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary simply says: "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes--that is, I will not change My purpose of fulfilling My promise by delivering Israel."

John Wesley comments: "Repentance shall be hid - I will never, as a man that repents, change my word and purpose, saith the Lord. What a glorious promise is this, which is interposed in the midst of all these judgments!"

Matthew Henry comments: "This promise he has made, and it shall be made good to all that are his; for repentance shall be hidden from his eyes; he will never recall this sentence passed on death and the grave, for he is not a man that he should repent. Thanks be to God therefore who gives us the victory."

Matthew Poole comments:"Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes - this grace toward the godly, toward believers in Israel and in the church, throughout all ages, is unchangeable; I will never, as man that repenteth, change my mind and purpose, saith the Lord."

Not only does the King James Bible read this way but so do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1587 -"I will redeem them from the power of the graue: I will deliuer them from death: O death, I wil be thy death: O graue, I will be thy destruction: repentance is hid from mine eyes.", the Longman Version 1841, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Revised Version 1881, Noyes Translation 1869, the Sharpe Bible 1883, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society)- "Ho, thy plagues, O death! Ho, thy destruction, O nether-world! REPENTANCE shall be hid from Mine eyes!", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Green's literal translation 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, A Conservative Version 2011 and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "I will redeem them from the power of the grave....O grave, I will be your destruction. Repentance shall be hid from my sight."

The New Jewish Version 1985 is very similar in meaning to the KJB,with: - “From Sheol itself I will save them, Redeem them from very Death. Where, O Death, are your plagues? Your pestilence where, O Sheol? Revenge shall be far from My thoughts.”



Even a modern paraphrase like God's Word Translation 1995 agrees with the sense found in the KJB. It reads: - "I want to free them from the power of the grave. I want to reclaim them from death. Death, I want to be a plague to you. Grave, I want to destroy you. I won't even think of changing my plans."

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865, the Reina Valera of 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "De la mano del sepulcro los redimiré, los libraré de la muerte. Oh muerte, yo seré tu muerte; y seré tu destrucción, oh sepulcro; el arrepentimiento será escondido de mis ojos." = "repentance will be hidden from my eyes", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Je les rachèterais de la puissance du Sépulcre; je les garantirais de la mort. O mort! je serais ta peste. O Sépulcre! je serais ta destruction. Le repentir se cache à mes yeux!", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "Eu os remirei da violência do inferno e os resgatarei da morte; onde estão, ó morte, as tuas pragas? Onde está, ó inferno, a tua perdição? O arrependimento será escondido de meus olhos." = "repentance shall be hidden from my eyes", the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991, and Italian Riveduta 1927, 1994, 2006 - "Io li riscatterei dal potere del soggiorno de’ morti, li redimerei dalla morte; sarei la tua peste, o morte, sarei la tua distruzione, o soggiorno de’ morti; ma il lor pentimento è nascosto agli occhi miei!" = "the repentance is hidden to the eyes mine!", the Modern Greek translation - "Εκ χειρος αδου θελω ελευθερωσει αυτους, εκ θανατου θελω σωσει αυτους. Που ειναι, θανατε, ο ολεθρος σου; που, αδη, η φθορα σου; η μεταμελεια θελει κρυπτεσθαι απο των οφθαλμων μου." = "Repentance will be hid from my eyes".

In other words, God has promised to redeem His people from the power of the grave and and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose. Let's look at the verse once again as it stands in the King James Bible and so many others, and then compare it to many other versions around today to see the differences.

Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."


The NKJV keeps the verse as 4 statements but changes the meaning. It says: "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! PITY is hidden from My eyes."


The NIV and the Holman Standard change this verse by making it 2 statements and 2 questions and alter the meaning with: "I WILL ransom them from the power of the grave; I WILL redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction? I WILL HAVE NO COMPASSION." (NIV)

While versions like the RSV, NRSV and ESV have turned all 4 statements into 4 questions and again completely change the meaning of the verse. The ESV along with the RSV, NRSV change the 4 statements into 4 questions and alter the entire meaning of the verse, making it some sort of a threat instead of a comforting promise.

The ESV says: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES." The NASBs keep on changing their text and meaning.

The earlier NASBs of 1972, 1973 and 1977 all say: "I WILL ransom them from the power of Sheol; I WILL redeem them from death."

But the 1995 NASB now reads: "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from death?" Then it totally changed the meaning of the rest of the verse by saying: "O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION will be hidden from My sight."

NET version - Perhaps the worst of them all is Dan Wallace and company's NET version which has changed all 4 statements into exclamations, added words not found in any Hebrew text and turned the meaning completely upside down, making it a threat of doom rather than a promise of deliverance.

The NET version actually says: "WILL I DELIVER THEM FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL? NO, I WILL NOT! WILL I REDEEM THEM FROM DEATH? NO, I WILL NOT! O DEATH, BRING ON YOUR PLAGUES! O SHEOL, BRING ON YOUR DESTRUCTION! MY EYES WILL NOT SHOW ANY COMPASSION!"

Notice also the totally opposite meaning from the King James Bible that is found in what is called The Good News Bible (which turns out to be not good news at all) which says: "I will not save this people from the world of the dead or rescue them from the power of death. Bring on your plagues, death! Bring on your destruction, world of the dead! I will no longer have pity for this people."

Coffman's Commentary -

What I found to be of great interest is Burton Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament regarding Hosea 13:14. Please read it and pay close attention to what he says.

He comments: "Many have tried to pervert this precious promise into a threat of destruction by the rendition of it as an interrogative instead of a declaration; but we are compelled to reject this. The apostle Paul viewed the passage as a promise and quoted it in 1 Cor. 15:55; and thus inspiration from God provides the true meaning of it. What upsets the commentators is the totally unexpected appearance of a blessed promise like this in the midst of the most severe denunciations to be found in the whole Bible; but the setting is this: God had promised that through Israel "all the families of the earth" should be blessed, and Hosea had been charged with the task of revealing God's purpose of rejection and destruction of the very Israel through whom the blessing of all men was promised to be conveyed! Did that mean that the hope of human salvation was lost? Indeed no! The ultimate victory of God, upon behalf of men, over the consequences of sin would yet be achieved. "I will ransom them!" thundered from the throne of God as the answer for any doubt. God was not being defeated in the apostasy of Israel; it was Israel that was being defeated. God would yet achieve his purpose through the righteous remnant which would remain, and particularly through the True Israel, even Jesus Christ our Lord! How appropriately, therefore, do the words of this sublime promise shine like a blazing lamp in the midnight darkness of Israel's wretched apostasy.

It is a fact that, "Modern scholarship is virtually unanimous in taking this verse as a threat. God is summoning up the plagues of death to punish his recalcitrant people." Despite this, we are certain that the scholars are wrong here because they are blind to the crying need for just such a promise in this exact place. They are looking only at Israel; but God's purpose in Israel has always been a redemption planned for all men, and not for Jews only. Most of the so-called "modern translations" follow the lead of the scholars in perverting this blessed promise; and in this particular, they become not "translations" in any sense but commentary, and woefully ignorant and inaccurate commentary at that! The apostle Paul could not have used this passage as he did, unless it is a glorious promise. Many of the scholars, even some of them who accept the passage as a threat, have pointed out that there is no genuine authority whatever for their changing the meaning of this verse." (end of comments - Coffman's Commentary)

The Catholic versions are very much like today's NKJV, NIV, NASB. The 1610 Douay-Rheims reads: "I will deliver them out of the hand of death. I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite: COMFORT IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES."

While the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read basically the same with "Shall I save them from the clutches of Sheol? Shall I buy them back from Death? Where are your plagues, Death? Where are your scourges, Sheol? COMPASSION WILL BE BANISHED FROM MY SIGHT!"

It should be blatantly obvious that not all Bible versions teach the same things. Many of them teach the exact opposite from what is found in others. Is God this confused? Of course not. Who is the father of lies and confusion? Who corrupts and steals the words of God from the hearts of men? He's been at it since the garden of Eden. It is Satan, the devil and Lucifer who asks the very first question recorded in the Holy Bible way back in Genesis 3 - "Yeah, hath God said...?"

Get yourself a copy of the true words of God as found in the greatest Bible ever printed. The all time best seller in all of history and the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God - The Authorized King James Holy Bible.

All of grace, believing the Book,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

“If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.” Voltaire - ex French philosopher and FORMER unbeliever.

Bradley D
November 5th, 2015, 09:40 PM
Whereas Hosea 13 describes Israel's sins. Verse 14 God denies Sheol its death sting/reward. God has compassion on Israel as He has on us.

brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 09:46 PM
Whereas Hosea 13 describes Israel's sins. Verse 14 God denies Sheol its death sting/reward. God has compassion on Israel as He has on us.

And the KJB got it right, as it always does, and the ESV is totally wrong while the NKJV just muddies the waters and perverts it.

God's Book - the King James Holy Bible.

God bless.

dialm
November 5th, 2015, 10:57 PM
There are practical reasons why a conservative would be opposed to a change in the Text.

If the U.S. Constitution is based on the bible then a change in the Text would be a de facto change in the Constitution. This is one way to explain the change in American society.

genuineoriginal
November 5th, 2015, 11:34 PM
Hosea 13:14 "I will redeem them from death...REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."

One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions.
Most people listening to statements like that would not have the knowledge to question your bold assertions.

However, anyone with a beginners knowledge of Hebrew grammar would know that you are blowing smoke.

Unlike English where statements and questions are identifiable by the order of the words, in written Hebrew, there is no difference in the statement phrase for "Israel, thy perdition is of thee; thine help is only of me" and the questioning phrase for "Israel, thy perdition is from me; now who can help thee?"

But, you neglect to mention things like this, along with any actual concern regarding the grammar of the original language and any possible translations of the individual words and phrases.

Instead you mock the KJV and other translations by putting them side by side and claiming, "see? see? that proves it!" when you have proven nothing but your lack of sense.

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 12:19 AM
What does ESV stand for ?

genuineoriginal
November 6th, 2015, 12:24 AM
What does ESV stand for ?
English Standard Version

chair
November 6th, 2015, 12:25 AM
Guess what? Biblical Hebrew is not always clear to us today. The text is sometimes corrupted, and the KJV isn't any better than other translations- and sometimes worse.

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 03:03 AM
Most people listening to statements like that would not have the knowledge to question your bold assertions.

However, anyone with a beginners knowledge of Hebrew grammar would know that you are blowing smoke.

Unlike English where statements and questions are identifiable by the order of the words, in written Hebrew, there is no difference in the statement phrase for "Israel, thy perdition is of thee; thine help is only of me" and the questioning phrase for "Israel, thy perdition is from me; now who can help thee?"

But, you neglect to mention things like this, along with any actual concern regarding the grammar of the original language and any possible translations of the individual words and phrases.

Instead you mock the KJV and other translations by putting them side by side and claiming, "see? see? that proves it!" when you have proven nothing but your lack of sense.

Hi go. Sir, you are nothing more than a puffed up bible agnostic who has made your own mind your "final authority".

Anybody who actually read the article would see all the Bible versions listed, both in English and foreign languages, and several of them done by native Hebrew speakers who probably know just a bit more about their own language than you ever will, and all the commentators who totally disagree with your view and agree with the reading found in the King James Bible.

You are just one more guy who thinks he is smarter that the 47 giants God used to give us His masterpiece, plus all those other Bible translators and commentators I listed in the article.

And you STILL have NO inerrant Bible in any language to believe in, except maybe your own peculiar version you might be working on, which will of course, differ from everybody else's.


Bible correcting wannabe's like you are like those described in the book of Judges -


"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

Have a lovely day.

genuineoriginal
November 6th, 2015, 07:14 AM
Hi go. Sir, I am nothing more than a puffed up bible elitist who has made my own mind my "final authority".
FTFY
and you are welcome
:)



Anybody who actually read the article would see all the Bible versions listed, both in English and foreign languages, and several of them done by native Hebrew speakers who probably know just a bit more about their own language than you ever will, and all the commentators who totally disagree with your view and agree with the reading found in the King James Bible.
I see you didn't actually read what I said.
You always do that.
It is because you are too puffed up in your own mind.

Brother Vinny
November 6th, 2015, 07:18 AM
There are practical reasons why a conservative would be opposed to a change in the Text.

If the U.S. Constitution is based on the bible then a change in the Text would be a de facto change in the Constitution. This is one way to explain the change in American society.

That's a mighty big "if", there.

JonahofAkron
November 6th, 2015, 07:22 AM
Most people listening to statements like that would not have the knowledge to question your bold assertions.

However, anyone with a beginners knowledge of Hebrew grammar would know that you are blowing smoke.

Unlike English where statements and questions are identifiable by the order of the words, in written Hebrew, there is no difference in the statement phrase for "Israel, thy perdition is of thee; thine help is only of me" and the questioning phrase for "Israel, thy perdition is from me; now who can help thee?"

But, you neglect to mention things like this, along with any actual concern regarding the grammar of the original language and any possible translations of the individual words and phrases.

Instead you mock the KJV and other translations by putting them side by side and claiming, "see? see? that proves it!" when you have proven nothing but your lack of sense.

Hahaha. Nicely done.

JonahofAkron
November 6th, 2015, 07:24 AM
FTFY
and you are welcome
:)



I see you didn't actually read what I said.
You always do that.
It is because you are too puffed up in your own mind.

He escalated that quickly. Ad hominem because you struck a nerve.

genuineoriginal
November 6th, 2015, 07:42 AM
He escalated that quickly.

We have gone head to head a few times on the Battle Royale discussion thread.

He has done an incredible amount of work in comparing hundreds of different translations, but it has not been with a mind open to the message that is written in any of the translations, including the KJV.


Ad hominem because you struck a nerve.
If you read what he writes on his website, he starts with the ad hominem argument.

He likes to accuse others of being Bible Agnostics (agnostic = do not know), which is a term he created for people that do not know that the KJV is the only correct version like he does.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work on me because I know that the KJV and all the rest of the translations are the correct ones and any differences in the translations come from the translators.

dialm
November 6th, 2015, 09:27 AM
That's a mighty big "if", there.

The word 'if' is for arguement's sake. The Constitution is based on the bible. The Protestant bible to be exact.

User Name
November 6th, 2015, 09:39 AM
The Constitution is based on the bible. The Protestant bible to be exact.

"No Religious Right figure, Hagee and DeLay included, has ever explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles without so much as mentioning God, Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments. They have not explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles when it in fact enshrines English Common Law, which owes more to Pagan Roman civil law than the Bible." -- http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/31/time-constitution-based-bible.html

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 09:53 AM
We have gone head to head a few times on the Battle Royale discussion thread.

He has done an incredible amount of work in comparing hundreds of different translations, but it has not been with a mind open to the message that is written in any of the translations, including the KJV.


If you read what he writes on his website, he starts with the ad hominem argument.

He likes to accuse others of being Bible Agnostics (agnostic = do not know), which is a term he created for people that do not know that the KJV is the only correct version like he does.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work on me because I know that the KJV and all the rest of the translations are the correct ones and any differences in the translations come from the translators.

"genuine original". Sir, IF you are not a bible agnostic (and I know that you are), then take The Bible Agnostic Test and let us know if you know what historic facts God recorded in His Book.

My bet is that you (like most bible agnostics who are too dishonest to admit it) will simply dodge the test. Your only "final authority" is your opinion, subject to change at any moment.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing.

*
Do you believe "the Bible" IS the inspired and 100% true and inerrant words of God or not?*

*http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm

The Bible Agnostic Test (This is just part of it)


I hear from many unbelievers in the existence of a complete and infallible Bible when they say: "I'm not a bible agnostic! You don't know my heart. How can you say I am a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible? How dare you? You are being judgmental."

So I ask them if they are willing to take The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book. Just pick one example if you like and let us know. OK? Most bible agnostic simply dodge the whole test and refuse to answer it. What about you? Willing to take the Test?

The Bible Babble Buffet Versions


Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)


Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?

KJB - "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

ESV (NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/juds1830manassehmoses.htm

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)



or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Look at the new "revision" of the ESV 2011. It came out in 2001 and they revised and changed about 300 verses in 2007 and then they revised it again in 2011. Take a look at what they have done with 1 Samuel 13:1.

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (C...omplete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

Can you guess which other bible version reads like the latest ESV? You got it. The Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Douay Version 1950 - "Saul WAS A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."

By the way, here is a more in depth study showing why the King James Bible got it right, as it ALWAYS does.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.

Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.

However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."

Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?

For more information on this see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/scatterbrainseptuagint.htm


2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Luke 10:1,17 were there 70 sent out to preach (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) or 72 sent out? (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times? (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or “today I have become your Father”? (NIV, Holman, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem).


If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible “agnostic” who doesn’t know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 10:02 AM
He escalated that quickly. Ad hominem because you struck a nerve.


Hi Jonah. Yes, he did strike a nerve. I get tired real fast of phonies who profess to be Bible believers, when they are not. "genuine original" is his own authority. All he as to give us are his own personal opinions about what should or should not be in this mystical "bible" he professes to believe in. But he will NEVER come right out and show us a copy of what he honestly and consistently believes it the complete and inerrant words of God Bible in ANY language.

As for your "ad hominem" thingy (since this comes up all the time from the bible agnostic crowd) I have some thoughts about it.


Ad hominem

At this point in the argument I usually hear from other "Bible agnostics" (they don't know for sure what God may or may not have written) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language comments like - "Hey, you're using "ad hominem" arguments and I'm not going to listen to you."

The fancy Latin words "ad hominem" simply mean "against the man" and are usually used by those who cannot answer your arguments to mean "You are attacking the man and not his arguments" and it is appealing to a person's feelings and prejudices rather than his intellect.

I think this whole "ad hominem" argument that has infected much of the professing Christian church today and people resort to calling you when they can't win the argument is nothing more than carnal, humanistic, worldly philosophy that turns men into wimps. The Bible itself, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ would ALL be accused by today's compromising, "tolerant" Christians as being guilty of "ad hominem".

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matthew 23:14

"Ye fools and blind" Matthew 23:19

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John8:44

"Go ye, and tell that FOX, Behold, I cast out devils..." Luke 13:32 (Jesus speaking of Herod)

"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:8

"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2:12 (Peter speaking of the false prophets that would enter the church)

"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." Isaiah 56:10

"The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 12-13

"...thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Revelation 2:2

Note - After I wrote this article a brother posted an interesting article called The Virtue of Name Calling. The man uses one of the modern bible versions in his article, but what he says is right on. See his article here -
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=8


In the ongoing discussion about the Bible Version issue many Christians come up with an empty and meaningless statement like the one found in the well known Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

See http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm

“Translations of Scripture ARE the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” Pious sounding statements like this are absurdly hypocritical on several levels.

First of all, they have never seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives and the originals never did make up a 66 books in one volume Bible to begin with. Secondly, it is absurd to affirm that "translations are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original", when they HAVE no original to compare ANY translation to! So how could they possibly know if what they have come up with at their Bible of the Month Club “represents the original” or not?

They try to give you the impression that they have “the originals” or a copy of them right there in front of them and they’re looking to see if their “late$t and be$t ver$ion” matches the originals or not. THEY ARE LYING.

To take the position of “ONLY the originals ARE inspired and inerrant” is to leave the Christian with no inerrant Bible NOW, and there is no getting around this obvious truth.

A far more honest “statement of inerrancy” based on what they really believe (and most other Christians today too) would go something like this: “IF the originals had survived and WOULD HAVE BEEN placed into a single volume consisting of 66 inspired books, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant and 100% historically true Bible we could have believed in. Unfortunately God did not do it this way and so we just have to do the best we can with what we have and nobody is really sure about or in total agreement with everybody else about what any particular reading or text might be. So, go with God and hope for the best.”

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 10:08 AM
You know brand plucked, if you put KJV behind any scripture it comes up as KJV - right now the scriptures you post come NKJV by default. I think you already know that but I always put KJV after any book and verse. Ephesians 1:13 KJV -

Ephesians 1:13 - Ephesians 1:13 ASV - Ephesians 1:13 NIV -

JonahofAkron
November 6th, 2015, 10:26 AM
Hi Jonah. Yes, he did strike a nerve. I get tired real fast of phonies who profess to be Bible believers, when they are not. "genuine original" is his own authority. All he as to give us are his own personal opinions about what should or should not be in this mystical "bible" he professes to believe in. But he will NEVER come right out and show us a copy of what he honestly and consistently believes it the complete and inerrant words of God Bible in ANY language.

As for your "ad hominem" thingy (since this comes up all the time from the bible agnostic crowd) I have some thoughts about it.


Ad hominem

At this point in the argument I usually hear from other "Bible agnostics" (they don't know for sure what God may or may not have written) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language comments like - "Hey, you're using "ad hominem" arguments and I'm not going to listen to you."

The fancy Latin words "ad hominem" simply mean "against the man" and are usually used by those who cannot answer your arguments to mean "You are attacking the man and not his arguments" and it is appealing to a person's feelings and prejudices rather than his intellect.

I think this whole "ad hominem" argument that has infected much of the professing Christian church today and people resort to calling you when they can't win the argument is nothing more than carnal, humanistic, worldly philosophy that turns men into wimps. The Bible itself, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ would ALL be accused by today's compromising, "tolerant" Christians as being guilty of "ad hominem".

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matthew 23:14

"Ye fools and blind" Matthew 23:19

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John8:44

"Go ye, and tell that FOX, Behold, I cast out devils..." Luke 13:32 (Jesus speaking of Herod)

"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:8

"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2:12 (Peter speaking of the false prophets that would enter the church)

"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." Isaiah 56:10

"The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 12-13

"...thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Revelation 2:2

Note - After I wrote this article a brother posted an interesting article called The Virtue of Name Calling. The man uses one of the modern bible versions in his article, but what he says is right on. See his article here -
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=8


In the ongoing discussion about the Bible Version issue many Christians come up with an empty and meaningless statement like the one found in the well known Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

See http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm

“Translations of Scripture ARE the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” Pious sounding statements like this are absurdly hypocritical on several levels.

First of all, they have never seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives and the originals never did make up a 66 books in one volume Bible to begin with. Secondly, it is absurd to affirm that "translations are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original", when they HAVE no original to compare ANY translation to! So how could they possibly know if what they have come up with at their Bible of the Month Club “represents the original” or not?

They try to give you the impression that they have “the originals” or a copy of them right there in front of them and they’re looking to see if their “late$t and be$t ver$ion” matches the originals or not. THEY ARE LYING.

To take the position of “ONLY the originals ARE inspired and inerrant” is to leave the Christian with no inerrant Bible NOW, and there is no getting around this obvious truth.

A far more honest “statement of inerrancy” based on what they really believe (and most other Christians today too) would go something like this: “IF the originals had survived and WOULD HAVE BEEN placed into a single volume consisting of 66 inspired books, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant and 100% historically true Bible we could have believed in. Unfortunately God did not do it this way and so we just have to do the best we can with what we have and nobody is really sure about or in total agreement with everybody else about what any particular reading or text might be. So, go with God and hope for the best.”

I appreciate that you took the time to type all of this out. I have a couple of questions about your inerrant KJV: What did the people of the years previous to 1611 do for inerrant Scripture? How is it that you can make claims of inerrancy in that text, but not in the preceding texts? Or is that your claim? I'm sort of new to this 'KJV only' discussion and haven't actually heard answers to these yet.

genuineoriginal
November 6th, 2015, 10:41 AM
"genuine original". Sir, IF you are not a bible agnostic (and I know that you are), then take The Bible Agnostic Test and let us know if you know what historic facts God recorded in His Book.
I took the test.

Here is the results:

Like all believers, brandplucked does not know exactly what God said (hence he is a Bible agnostic according to his own criteria) because brandplucked was not there to hear God speaking.

However, brandplucked is under the delusion that he, and he alone, knows what God said.

brandplucked often feasts at the Bible Babble Buffet Versions, and this is proven by the many translations he displays on his websites.

However, brandplucked is afraid that he can't be a self-appointed authority on what God said if he doesn't pick a single version and stick with it, even knowing it has errors in translations.

So, brandplucked decided that one version, the KJV, was the one to use by virtue of the KJV having been around the longest and printed the most times.

brandplucked has gone so far in making himself believe that the KJV is the only bible to use that he has become created a shrine to the KJV and invites people to come and worship the KJV at his shrine.

When God Himself says that He did not say what is written in the KJV, brandplucked tells God that the KJV is correct.

_______


As you can clearly see, I passed the test with flying colors.

genuineoriginal
November 6th, 2015, 10:44 AM
Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God?
Here is the answer:

As it is written, let God be true, but every man a liar.

If you can't understand that simple sentence, you have no reason to claim to be an authority on any Bible translation.

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 02:00 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to type all of this out. I have a couple of questions about your inerrant KJV: What did the people of the years previous to 1611 do for inerrant Scripture? How is it that you can make claims of inerrancy in that text, but not in the preceding texts? Or is that your claim? I'm sort of new to this 'KJV only' discussion and haven't actually heard answers to these yet.



Hi Jonah. This question comes up a lot and it is a good question. But I have never found anybody from the modern versionist side who asks this question who has ever really thought through their own position.

I do not believe there was a perfect and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible. There was a purification process going on. The printing press wasn't even invented till around 1450 and the Reformation has not yet taken place.

The previous bibles that were translated from the different Hebrew and Greek texts were the Reformation Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. The 7th one was the KJB. The KJB translators used these 6 previous English bibles in their translation. They come right out and mention them by name. Plus they compared several foreign language bibles - all of the Reformation type.

But I do not believe that any of them were the inerrant words of God. They all have faults, either textually or in translation.

But when I say that I do not believe there was an inerrant Bible before the KJB the bible agnostics raise a big stink about this. What they are totally missing and usually never even stop to think about, is the FACT that not one of them really believes there was such a thing as an inerrant Bible either. Not before and they sure don't believe in one now.

All you have to do is ask them to show you a copy of this inerrant Bible they PROFESS to believe in (and lie about) from either before or after the KJB. Not one of them will do it.

Not Bob Enyart (that is why he continually dodges the question), nor James White, Dan Wallace, Rick Norris, James Price, Doug Kutilek, R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur. Not one of these men will EVER tell you what this inerrant Bible is many of them lie about believing in.

Now, if you know of a provable error, either textually, doctrinally or in meaning, then go ahead and let us know what your Number One All Time Big Hits "error" is and we can take a closer look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own understanding.

It is also highly significant that NOBODY seriously defends any version like the ever changing NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman etc. or any specific Hebrew and much less any specific Greek text as being the inerrant words of God.

God bless.

dialm
November 6th, 2015, 02:08 PM
"No Religious Right figure, Hagee and DeLay included, has ever explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles without so much as mentioning God, Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments. They have not explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles when it in fact enshrines English Common Law, which owes more to Pagan Roman civil law than the Bible." -- http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/31/time-constitution-based-bible.html

If you mean the ancient Roman law that prohibited things like theft and murder then I will give that to you. The Romans didn't need Moses to tell them things like that were wrong. But

Your point is not so great after all. The ancient Roman Empire's laws were completely Christianized by 1776. Those laws were Christianized by the Roman Church. And while I'm not all that happy with the Roman church it does preform an extremely important service for the Body of Christ. It filters out the poison. And the Roman law that you seem so proud of was full of poison until the Roman church eliminated it.

As a matter of fact the Coliseum was protected by Roman law. Would you to have the Christian once again enter the Coliseum?

JonahofAkron
November 6th, 2015, 02:39 PM
Hi Jonah. This question comes up a lot and it is a good question. But I have never found anybody from the modern versionist side who asks this question who has ever really thought through their own position.

I do not believe there was a perfect and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible. There was a purification process going on. The printing press wasn't even invented till around 1450 and the Reformation has not yet taken place.

The previous bibles that were translated from the different Hebrew and Greek texts were the Reformation Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. The 7th one was the KJB. The KJB translators used these 6 previous English bibles in their translation. They come right out and mention them by name. Plus they compared several foreign language bibles - all of the Reformation type.

But I do not believe that any of them were the inerrant words of God. They all have faults, either textually or in translation.

But when I say that I do not believe there was an inerrant Bible before the KJB the bible agnostics raise a big stink about this. What they are totally missing and usually never even stop to think about, is the FACT that not one of them really believes there was such a thing as an inerrant Bible either. Not before and they sure don't believe in one now.

All you have to do is ask them to show you a copy of this inerrant Bible they PROFESS to believe in (and lie about) from either before or after the KJB. Not one of them will do it.

Not Bob Enyart (that is why he continually dodges the question), nor James White, Dan Wallace, Rick Norris, James Price, Doug Kutilek, R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur. Not one of these men will EVER tell you what this inerrant Bible is many of them lie about believing in.

Now, if you know of a provable error, either textually, doctrinally or in meaning, then go ahead and let us know what your Number One All Time Big Hits "error" is and we can take a closer look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own understanding.

It is also highly significant that NOBODY seriously defends any version like the ever changing NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman etc. or any specific Hebrew and much less any specific Greek text as being the inerrant words of God.

God bless.Excellent. Thank you for the answer. I think that I see what you're getting at, but if you don't believe that there was inerrancy in original writing or in it's transmission, how did the KJV get the stamp of approval? How is the KJV inerrancy verified by scholarship and how could get to inerrancy without an inerrant predecessor?

dialm
November 7th, 2015, 12:13 AM
Inerrancy does not equal superiority.

brandplucked
November 7th, 2015, 01:03 AM
Inerrancy does not equal superiority.

This is classic, dialm. I can see you have gone a long way in your spiritual journey. But I think you just maybe have been going in the wrong direction for quite some time to reach where it appears you are now.

dialm
November 7th, 2015, 05:20 AM
Where I am now? Why I'm in your presence. Is that what you mean?

The prior Reformation bibles are superior in many ways. Just like those Pilgrims were superior to the Christians of today. But it was a different world back then. The Pilgrims were stripped of their earthly possessions for believing in their Bishop. While Christians today are paid a fee to take up for their's.

dialm
November 7th, 2015, 08:21 AM
It is unreasonable to think that the KJV is superior to the Others. That would be like stating that King David was superior to Abraham.

Besides, when the Holy Spirit withdraws I'm going with Him. Every physical item is passing away.

(And to you Pate, these Others are my Brothers.)

patrick jane
November 7th, 2015, 08:25 AM
It is unreasonable to think that the KJV is superior to the Others. That would be like stating that King David was superior to Abraham.

Besides, when the Holy Spirit withdraws I'm going with Him. Every physical item is passing away.

(And to you Pate, these Others are my Brothers.)

That's pretty goofy, do you say all Bibles are equal ? None is better than the other ? Ridiculous !

JonahofAkron
November 7th, 2015, 08:28 AM
Brandplucked , could you hook it up with some answers for post 25? Disregard if you've already go the answers in the works.

dialm
November 7th, 2015, 09:34 AM
The enemy has always opposed the Others. And the reason is simple

The others made no bones about Calvinism.