Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969

    Why King James translators chose the Masoretic Text

    Why is it that the King James translators chose the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament? The reason I ask this is because Psalm 40 has "Mine ear hast thou opened" instead of "A body hast thou prepared for me".

    Is there a forward or a book which explains why the KJV translators chose this way?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,337
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    Why is it that the King James translators chose the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament? The reason I ask this is because Psalm 40 has "Mine ear hast thou opened" instead of "A body hast thou prepared for me".

    Is there a forward or a book which explains why the KJV translators chose this way?
    What option did they have? There are not many ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanakh. As far as I know, the Masoretic text is what the Jews used and there really wasn't any other option.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    What option did they have? There are not many ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanakh. As far as I know, the Masoretic text is what the Jews used and there really wasn't any other option.
    The Septuagint. They could have compared it. And other old translations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,337
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    The Septuagint. They could have compared it. And other old translations.
    What makes you think they didn't compare with the Septuagint? It would have been a big mistake to try to translate directly from the Septuagint since that would have produced a translation of a translation but it also seems pretty stupid to ignore it altogetyer. And we also should remember that there are lots of obvious mistakes and mistranslations in the LXX.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    What makes you think they didn't compare with the Septuagint? It would have been a big mistake to try to translate directly from the Septuagint since that would have produced a translation of a translation but it also seems pretty stupid to ignore it altogetyer. And we also should remember that there are lots of obvious mistakes and mistranslations in the LXX.
    What do you think of Acts 12:4? Easter or Passover?
    Acts 12:4 KJV - And [3739] [2532] when he had apprehended [4084] him, he put [5087] [him] in [1519] prison [5438], and delivered [3860] [him] to four [5064] quaternions [5069] of soldiers [4757] to keep [5442] him [846]; intending [1014] after [3326] Easter [3957] to bring [321] [0] him [846] forth [321] to the people [2992].
    The Greek word for Easter is Pascha. But some reason the translators interpreted this as Easter rather than the usual Passover. But some explain this as actual pagan holiday because both Easter and Passover are known to be Pascha in Greek and the days of unleavened bread which begins on the 15th of the first month is past already. Passover would be the 14th of the 1st month which is past already.
    Acts 12:3 KJV - And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
    Acts 12:4 KJV - And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
    Acts 12:5 KJV - Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
    Then again the whole week is also considered Passover.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,337
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    What do you think of Acts 12:4? Easter or Passover?

    The Greek word for Easter is Pascha. But some reason the translators interpreted this as Easter rather than the usual Passover. But some explain this as actual pagan holiday because both Easter and Passover are known to be Pascha in Greek and the days of unleavened bread which begins on the 15th of the first month is past already. Passover would be the 14th of the 1st month which is past already.

    Then again the whole week is also considered Passover.
    I don't see any connection with either the LXX or "pagan holidays." The folks who claim things like "Easter is a pagan holiday" deliberately put in the Bible to worship the goddess Astarte are simply insane and should be ignored.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I don't see any connection with either the LXX or "pagan holidays." The folks who claim things like "Easter is a pagan holiday" deliberately put in the Bible to worship the goddess Astarte are simply insane and should be ignored.
    That's not what I meant. A possibility is that Herod was a worshiper of Astarte. But it could also be an error in the translation. Why would Luke speak of Easter if the recipient is God-fearing. The man who thinks that Easter is speaking of the pagan holiday is Sam Gipp a known defender of the King James. But his argument on this is still not clear to me.

    There was another man who had proven me on a few questionable things in the bible but I can't find his website anymore nor his email address:
    Dr Thomas Holland.

    He argued with James White on the Johannine Comma.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,337
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    That's not what I meant. A possibility is that Herod was a worshiper of Astarte. But it could also be an error in the translation. Why would Luke speak of Easter if the recipient is God-fearing. The man who thinks that Easter is speaking of the pagan holiday is Sam Gipp a known defender of the King James. But his argument on this is still not clear to me.

    There was another man who had proven me on a few questionable things in the bible but I can't find his website anymore nor his email address:
    Dr Thomas Holland.

    He argued with James White on the Johannine Comma.
    Luke didn't speak of "Easter" - as you know, the word he used was "Pascha" (Passover). The word "Easter" is an English word that refers to the Christian celebration of Christ's death and resurrection which happened during the Jewish festival of Passover. So the words are essentially synonymous.

    Obviously, the English translation of that word as "Easter" in the KJV has absolutely nothing to do with anything Herod was doing in the first century! He could have worshiped Astarte from morning to midnight - how would that have anything to do with a seventeenth century translation? Oh ... I get it now. This idea comes from the "King James Only" camp that thinks God Almighty inspired the translators to use "Easter" in that one verse to reveal the idolatry of Herod ... or some such nutty idea?

    The KJV Only folks seem to me to be utterly nutterly ...
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Luke didn't speak of "Easter" - as you know, the word he used was "Pascha" (Passover). The word "Easter" is an English word that refers to the Christian celebration of Christ's death and resurrection which happened during the Jewish festival of Passover. So the words are essentially synonymous.

    Obviously, the English translation of that word as "Easter" in the KJV has absolutely nothing to do with anything Herod was doing in the first century! He could have worshiped Astarte from morning to midnight - how would that have anything to do with a seventeenth century translation? Oh ... I get it now. This idea comes from the "King James Only" camp that thinks God Almighty inspired the translators to use "Easter" in that one verse to reveal the idolatry of Herod ... or some such nutty idea?

    The KJV Only folks seem to me to be utterly nutterly ...
    Well now that I refer back to Sam Gipp...he gave a good reason why the King James is superior to the modern translations.

    1. manuscripts;
    2. not copyrighted;
    3. second person in singular differentiated from the second person in plural (today you can be singular or plural. But thou, thy, thine are singular and you yours or ye are plural and are necessary for accuracy in the bible);


    But Thomas Holland had answered me by email concerning some passages when compared between the books of Samuel and Kings versus Chronicles it seems contradictory but not really when you pay close attention.
    2 Samuel 10:18 And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew [the men of] seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

    1 Chronicles 19:18 But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand [men which fought in] chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
    Now that I look at these verses they are self explanatory but the answer he had given was that the 7000 chariots (actually it says here 7000 men in brackets) but it could have been chariots outside the battle field.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,337
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    Well now that I refer back to Sam Gipp...he gave a good reason why the King James is superior to the modern translations.

    1. manuscripts;
    2. not copyrighted;
    3. second person in singular differentiated from the second person in plural (today you can be singular or plural. But thou, thy, thine are singular and you yours or ye are plural and are necessary for accuracy in the bible);
    I don't think those are good arguments.


    1. The manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was very poor compared with what we know no. Indeed, the final verses of Revelation did not exist in the manuscript they used, so Erasmus had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate! This one point destroys the KJV Only argument.
    2. Utterly irrelevant.
    3. That would be an advantage if people understood the details of the King's English. But they don't - modern folks are totally confused by the differences between thee and thou and ye and you. So rather than being a help, this is a great detriment to the KJV.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •