Freethought & Rationalism Archive

emotional · 05-31-2003, 11:18 AM

It is with great amusement that I look upon the "KJV Only" fundamentalists, at least as regards the Hebrew Bible. They say it's the most reliable translation ("God's Word in English", as I find at Jesus Is Lord). But in fact it's a sloppy translation if there ever was one. One feature of the KJV is that it depicts monsters, mythical creatures, where there aren't any.

A few examples:

Isaiah 13:21
ורבצו שם ציים ומלאו בתיהם אחים ושכנו שם בנות יענה ושעירים ירקדו שם
"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

The KJV translates the word se'irim (שעירים ) as "satyrs"; the actual meaning is "he-goats".

Isaiah 34:7
וירדו ראמים עמם ופרים עם אבירים ורותה ארצם מדם ועפרם מחלב ידשן
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

The word re'emim (ראמים ), translated as "unicorns", actually means "wild oxen" (of the species Oryx Leucoryx, according to my Encyclopedia of the Tanakh).

Jeremiah 8:17
כי הנני משלח בכם נחשים צפענים אשר אין להם לחש ונשכו אתכם נאם יהוה
"For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."

There are no "cockatrices" here. The word siph'onim (צפענים ) means "vipers".

And finally, "dragons":

Malachi 1:3
ואת עשו שנאתי ואשים את הריו שממה ואת נחלתו לתנות מדבר
"And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

"Dragons" is here the translation of tanoth (תנות ), which actually means "she-jackals".

KJV reliable? Don't make me laugh! The reader of the NIV (and other modern versions) is less likely to stumble than the reader of the KJV upon such passages.

Spaz · 05-31-2003, 12:23 PM

Prolly not the fault of the KJV, but: "and their dust made fat with fatness." sounds to me like it was written by a child

Yeah, I dunno why anybody really uses the KJV anymore, it sucks.

06-02-2003, 10:23 AM

Fun with the KJV:

Does anyone know that the K.J version was written in 1610.
Did you know Shakespere was 46 at the time? Connection?
Well, in Psalms 46, the 46th word is shake, from the end of the scripture, ignore Selah, count
backwards 46 words and the word is "spear".
Also, the 14th word is "will". Go to the rear and count back to words 32 and 31(14+32=46) and
get I am. Put them all together and get his signature,
"Will-I am Shake-spear.
Then check any decent encyclopedia and see where King James summoned the greatest writers
of the day to "translate" the Word.

Max

MortalWombat · 06-02-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWHtruth
Fun with the KJV:

Does anyone know that the K.J version was written in 1610.

Not quite. The translation was begun in 1607 and took about 3 years to complete, which was 1610.

Quote:

Did you know Shakespere was 46 at the time?

Shakespeare would have been from 43 to 46 during the whole process.

Quote:

Connection?

So my guess would be no.

emotional · 06-02-2003, 01:28 PM

I first read about this legend in Anthony Burgess' A Mouthful Of Air. Burgess himself says, "unfortunately there is little hope of this myth being true". And even if it is, it is akin to Ivan Panin's "findings" of the numerical miracles of the Bible:

Quote:

The number of words in the vocabulary will divide by the number seven.

The number of words beginning with a vowel is divisible by seven.

The number of words beginning with a consonant is divisible by seven.

The number of letters in the vocabulary of a subject (like the genealogy of Christ) is divisible by seven.

Of these letters, those which are consonants and those which are vowels both divide by seven.

The number of words occurring more than once is divisible by seven. Those occurring only once likewise divide by seven.

The number of nouns is divisible by seven. The number that are not nouns divides by seven.

The number of proper names divides by seven. The male names divide by seven. The female names divide by seven.

The number of words beginning with each of the letters of the alphabet is divisible by seven.

More here. There are similar miracles for the Qur'an. And equidistant letter sequences in Moby Dick.

In short, what's your point? That King James fudged the translation for Shakespeare's sake? Or that it's a divine miracle? What?!

06-02-2003, 02:31 PM

Mortal I have heard that story for years, maybe it has changed with me over the years

By condemning certain versions, are you not condemning God for his inability to maintain divine providence? The mindset of those who condemn the one version over another too often mirror the anti-intellectualism that runs rampant in the KJV-Only crowd. These people are not only anti-intellectual, they are anti-Bible and anti-God. It is these kinds of tactics, this kind of fear-mongering that brings out the worst in people of faith. It is okay to criticize certain elements of translation...I do it all the time. But I would never condemn the use of the King James Version, the New International Version and certainly not any Catholic version. They are all the word of God, and we can thank God for protecting his Word the way he has.

And we can then reduce this as a fallacy of implying improper motives where non-evangelical translators are concerned. I hear the Westcott and Hort bashers all the time.

Westcott and Hort were indeed Anglicans, as was Dean John Burgon, one of their biggest detractors....and Catholics consistently make better Bibles than Protestants do. So what?
One of my favorite translations is Hugh Schonfield's _Original New
Testament_ and he was a Jew who wrote a work of fiction called the Passover Plot. That does not mean he cannot make a good impartial translator. I see Protestants who want to imply bad motives on the part of Westcott and Hort, yet no one seems to argue that I use a Masoretic Text that comes from a group of men (Jews of course) that reject Jesus as Messiah and Savior.
A work should stand on its own merit.

06-02-2003, 02:36 PM

Mortal have you ever read the cotton patch version or the The Black Bible Chronicles ?

Excerpts from the 10 Commandments

"You shouldn't diss the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one another. It ain't cool and payback's a monster."
"You shouldn't be taking nothin' from your homeboys."
"Don't waste nobody."Don't mess around with someone else's ol' man or ol' lady."
Genesis 3
"And that bad old serpent told the sister, 'Nah, sister, he's feeding you a line of bull, You won't die. The Almighty just knows that if you eat from the tree you'll be hipped to what's going down."

LOL
Max

Mageth · 06-02-2003, 02:54 PM

Umm...that's not funny, YHWHtruth.

Spaz · 06-02-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWHtruth
Mortal have you ever read the cotton patch version or the The Black Bible Chronicles ?

Excerpts from the 10 Commandments

"You shouldn't diss the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one another. It ain't cool and payback's a monster."
"You shouldn't be taking nothin' from your homeboys."
"Don't waste nobody."Don't mess around with someone else's ol' man or ol' lady."
Genesis 3
"And that bad old serpent told the sister, 'Nah, sister, he's feeding you a line of bull, You won't die. The Almighty just knows that if you eat from the tree you'll be hipped to what's going down."

LOL
Max

good job jackass, but I guess it's a version of "god's word" so it's just as good as the kjv or anything else

06-02-2003, 04:53 PM

You will notice that SPAZ sarcasm is already IN the above responce. In fact, I don't think I'm out of line in stating that sarcasm forms the framework of SPAZ'S entire dialog; at least it is a prominent part of the admixture

Max

05-31-2003, 11:18 AM	#1
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	KJV Translation: Monsters It is with great amusement that I look upon the "KJV Only" fundamentalists, at least as regards the Hebrew Bible. They say it's the most reliable translation ("God's Word in English", as I find at Jesus Is Lord). But in fact it's a sloppy translation if there ever was one. One feature of the KJV is that it depicts monsters, mythical creatures, where there aren't any. A few examples: Isaiah 13:21 ורבצו שם ציים ומלאו בתיהם אחים ושכנו שם בנות יענה ושעירים ירקדו שם "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." The KJV translates the word se'irim (שעירים ) as "satyrs"; the actual meaning is "he-goats". Isaiah 34:7 וירדו ראמים עמם ופרים עם אבירים ורותה ארצם מדם ועפרם מחלב ידשן "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." The word re'emim (ראמים ), translated as "unicorns", actually means "wild oxen" (of the species Oryx Leucoryx, according to my Encyclopedia of the Tanakh). Jeremiah 8:17 כי הנני משלח בכם נחשים צפענים אשר אין להם לחש ונשכו אתכם נאם יהוה "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord." There are no "cockatrices" here. The word siph'onim (צפענים ) means "vipers". And finally, "dragons": Malachi 1:3 ואת עשו שנאתי ואשים את הריו שממה ואת נחלתו לתנות מדבר "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." "Dragons" is here the translation of tanoth (תנות ), which actually means "she-jackals". KJV reliable? Don't make me laugh! The reader of the NIV (and other modern versions) is less likely to stumble than the reader of the KJV upon such passages.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2003, 12:23 PM	#2
Spaz Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 6th Circle of Hell Posts: 1,093	Prolly not the fault of the KJV, but: "and their dust made fat with fatness." sounds to me like it was written by a child Yeah, I dunno why anybody really uses the KJV anymore, it sucks.

06-02-2003, 10:23 AM	#3
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	Fun with the KJV: Does anyone know that the K.J version was written in 1610. Did you know Shakespere was 46 at the time? Connection? Well, in Psalms 46, the 46th word is shake, from the end of the scripture, ignore Selah, count backwards 46 words and the word is "spear". Also, the 14th word is "will". Go to the rear and count back to words 32 and 31(14+32=46) and get I am. Put them all together and get his signature, "Will-I am Shake-spear. Then check any decent encyclopedia and see where King James summoned the greatest writers of the day to "translate" the Word. Max

06-02-2003, 02:31 PM	#6
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	Mortal I have heard that story for years, maybe it has changed with me over the years By condemning certain versions, are you not condemning God for his inability to maintain divine providence? The mindset of those who condemn the one version over another too often mirror the anti-intellectualism that runs rampant in the KJV-Only crowd. These people are not only anti-intellectual, they are anti-Bible and anti-God. It is these kinds of tactics, this kind of fear-mongering that brings out the worst in people of faith. It is okay to criticize certain elements of translation...I do it all the time. But I would never condemn the use of the King James Version, the New International Version and certainly not any Catholic version. They are all the word of God, and we can thank God for protecting his Word the way he has. And we can then reduce this as a fallacy of implying improper motives where non-evangelical translators are concerned. I hear the Westcott and Hort bashers all the time. Westcott and Hort were indeed Anglicans, as was Dean John Burgon, one of their biggest detractors....and Catholics consistently make better Bibles than Protestants do. So what? One of my favorite translations is Hugh Schonfield's _Original New Testament_ and he was a Jew who wrote a work of fiction called the Passover Plot. That does not mean he cannot make a good impartial translator. I see Protestants who want to imply bad motives on the part of Westcott and Hort, yet no one seems to argue that I use a Masoretic Text that comes from a group of men (Jews of course) that reject Jesus as Messiah and Savior. A work should stand on its own merit.

06-02-2003, 02:36 PM	#7
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	Mortal have you ever read the cotton patch version or the The Black Bible Chronicles ? Excerpts from the 10 Commandments "You shouldn't diss the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one another. It ain't cool and payback's a monster." "You shouldn't be taking nothin' from your homeboys." "Don't waste nobody."Don't mess around with someone else's ol' man or ol' lady." Genesis 3 "And that bad old serpent told the sister, 'Nah, sister, he's feeding you a line of bull, You won't die. The Almighty just knows that if you eat from the tree you'll be hipped to what's going down." LOL Max

06-02-2003, 02:54 PM	#8
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Umm...that's not funny, YHWHtruth.

06-02-2003, 04:53 PM	#10
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	You will notice that SPAZ sarcasm is already IN the above responce. In fact, I don't think I'm out of line in stating that sarcasm forms the framework of SPAZ'S entire dialog; at least it is a prominent part of the admixture Max

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.