Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

genuineoriginal

New member
(Previous)

Second post in Round 4

Unofficial analysis of Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's response to brandplucked's fourth round questions.

Your results may vary.


WKQ14- So, Bob E. and Will D. Do you know which of the following historical facts is part of this “robust message” and “God’s perfect word that exists on Earth today” you told us you believe in?
- answer: none
Points go to brandplucked

WKQ15- The Lord Jesus said that heaven and earth shall pass away but that His WORDS would not pass away. These words of the Lord Jesus are only found in Matthew 23:14.Does this verse belong in your “robust message”, “God’s word in a 1000 tongues” and “the Perfect word of God that exists on Earth today” or not? If they are not found in a particular bible version, is that version then deficient and not “the Perfect word of God” you said you believe in?
- answer: The words are still in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

WKQ16 - Is 1 John 5:7, the strongest verse on the Trinity, as it stands in the KJB and in the NKJV you brothers “use” inspired Scripture and belongs in “the perfect word of God that exists on Earth today” or not? Yes or No?
- answer: The fraud in the Greek manuscripts was either in including or excluding the verse. The deity of Christ does not depend on the verse.
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

WKQ17- Here is one of the over 25 doctrinal issues I have with the modern versions. Which is the true doctrine? Does it matter to you? Is the fine linen the righteousness of the saints (that of Christ) or is the fine linen “the righteous acts” of the saints?
-answer: Both are good English translations
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy


tally for second half of the fourth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 3
brandplucked - 1

Running total at end of fourth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 25
brandplucked - 16

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____


(Next)
 

genuineoriginal

New member
(Previous)

First post in Round 5

Unofficial analysis of brandplucked's response to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's fourth round questions.

Your results may vary.

BWQ24: Will Kinney, regarding your utterly contradictory claim that God produced an inspired, 100% perfect, inerrant text from printers that you admit made errors, and from translators that you admit were not inspired, who brought about a text that you admit had errors, can you include these three underlined admissions of your in explaining how this all adds up to the world’s only supernaturally preserved inspired text?
- answer: The printing errors and translators inspired with nothing but understanding created the Cambridge KJV without errors.
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ25: Will Kinney (please try to understand this question before answering it; you are not good at hypotheticals), if in fact the New Testament records Jesus and the Apostles quoting from a popular but imperfect Greek translation of the Hebrew, rather than from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, would that demonstrate that unlike you and the KJO camp, God is not uptight about a perfect translation?
- answer: none
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ26: Will Kinney, please try to answer this question. Ruckman, Riplinger, others within the KJO camp, and you in your own article “No LXX” all reject that the Septuagint existed in the time of the Lord. So, did the 1611 translators agree with the opinion expressed today within the KJO camp that the Septuagint was not quoted within the New Testament, or do the translators by their preface in the 1611 KJ agree with KJO opponents who affirm the existence of the Septuagint in the time of the Lord?
- answer: none
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ27: When you claim that we have never seen the originals, you have never seen the originals, you claim they were burned in that London fire in, so how is it that more and more changes are being made to the text by printers, without those originals available to be accessed?
- answer: none
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy


tally for first half of the fifth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 4
brandplucked - 0

Running total at middle of fifth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 29
brandplucked - 16

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____


(Next)
 
Last edited:

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
This post cracked me up, as WK posted a verse from his inerrant version.
(Notice the yellow highlight done by me.)
Originally Posted by brandplucked:
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every many did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25
Tambora, this might be worth even more than a chuckle because it illustrates at KJO problem: What good is a 100% perfect book if you just can't keep ahead of the printing errors!

:)
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
George, I'm sure we must have been unclear, because we were making no guilt by association argument. (I asked you before, are you sure you read that correctly?)

Bob,
I am sure I did not read it incorrectly. Will did not mention Ruckman (unless I missed it). It was you who tried to tie Ruckman to Will and gain an emotional, public opinion advantage. " Will Kinney’s defense of the KJV’s contradictory “Thou shalt not kill/murder” (Ex. 20:13 / Mat. 19:18) led us straight to the KJO leader Peter Ruckman’s grotesque claim that...". I consider this very slimy and I would have bet you would never stoop to it. Again, if I am missing something, I apologize. If not, both you and Mr. Duffy have gone down several notches in my books and you owe Will an apology.

The Revelation verses were intended to rebut your argument. It doesn't matter if man changes the law against "adultery" to permit adultery, it is God's law, and meaning, that matters.

The same with stealing, bearing false witness, etc.

You completely misunderstood why I referenced marriage and abortion laws. These were for support for one thing and one thing only; laws change. It is clear that laws that govern people change and that murder is tied to laws given by man. Kill, on the other hand, has to be defined to be understood and it is so defined in scripture by God, not man.

That being the case, the first time this law is given, and considering God knows it will become universally known as an axiom and often quoted by all English speaking people, it must be first rendered as forever free and clear of any man-made law which is why "murder" is out of the question. How often, in this discussion, do we forget that this translation was specifically designed for English speaking people with all that that entails!

And, as I just wrote to "heir"...

the KJB inconsistently uses the word "murder" when Jesus quotes this same commandment in Matthew.

So which is correct, the KJB translation in Exodus, or the one in Matthew?

They are both correct. I am certain you know and appreciate the term "progressive revelation". From Moses to Jesus, "kill" has been introduced, explained and embedded in the collective theocratic psyche so that the concept of murder is now well established and can be used without fear that it will be misunderstood.

Also, just as all (true) crimes are sins but not all sins are crimes, likewise all murder is killing but not all killing is murder.

This goes without saying. This is why, when using this example of changing laws I said; "Abortion is most definitely killing but, according to many laws, is not murder. This can logically make those who commit such crimes against God feel justified. If the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder", then abortionists have not transgressed this commandment and are not guilty before Him."

Perhaps this is where I was not perfectly clear. Perhaps I should have said; then abortionists will think they have not transgressed this commandment and will incorrectly claim they are not guilty before Him.

When a man is accused of murdering his wife and denies being anywhere in the vicinity when she was stabbed to death, but then evidence shows that he was there, it is normal usage to say that it turns out that he did kill his wife.

It is also just as normal to say murder. But when it is used, it is understood to be relying on the rule of law, not necessarily the rule of God.

There is no requirement to say "murder" every time when describing a murder.

There is also no requirement not to say "murder", but when it is used it is referencing a trial and judgement by men.

But when God gave a prohibition against murder (His law, not man's law; just like with adultery, stealing, and bearing false witness), He was not saying, "Do not kill", for that would also mean (as interpreted by millions of Christians now) don't even kill a convicted murderer. However, God commands the execution of murderers in the very next chapter (but NOT of executioners of course). So God's meaning is perfectly clear, and the nicer-than-god tendency that softens translations has done great harm.

There are problems with this that have not been answered. First, why did God spend so much time explaining what kill/murder was if murder was already understood?
Second, those who want to understand the sixth commandment will research it properly. There will always be those who use it flippantly. This is not the driver of the translator's bus.
Third, is anger without a cause as explained by the Lord a type of murder in the same way that lust is the equivalent of adultery?
Fourth, you have stated; "God’s commandments are His commandments and the meaning doesn't change a whit regardless of how governments or cultures change". You say that and I say that, and so does Mr. Kinney, but the world believes that "murder" is defined by laws enacted by rulers or democratic processes. In fact, they are right. That is and has been the definition of the English word murder since it was first used. But they don't believe that "killing" is defined by anything changeable at all. "Thou shalt not kill" is always the same and directs the individual who wants to know what it means to God and not to men.

As a side note, you should drop the "nicer than God" accusations. We all know its just bravado intended to prop up the "errant Bible" image. We all agree on God's penalties for sin. Lenience is not on anyone's radar and there is no sense pretending it is.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
...they should have used word phrases in the way the folks of that time did.

But to say that those very word phrases themselves that were common then should never be altered for a future generation with a much different dialect is baloney.

is sausedge, is sausedge.

If we gotta use the king's englisc, then use the king's englisc.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Thank you for all that answered my question. I had asked if the Bishop's Bible had anything on Rom. 16:5 concerning "Achaia". The Critical text has "Asia" The Rheims 1582 has "Asia", but the King James Bible has "Achaia". I had a commentary tell me that the word "Asia" had better textual support. The Majority text by Hodges and Farstad supports "Achaia"
Thanks for that info ranecks. Asia in the N.T. refers to the Roman province of Asia, which was located in what today is Turtle.

Er, uh... I mean, voice of the turkey...

Or, ahhh, Turkey, that's it. Asia was located in modern day Turkey.

- Bob Enyart

p.s. Hmm. Come to think of it, maybe we should have turtle soup for Thanksgiving this year!

p.p.s. Sorry ranecks. All my stupidity has to do with other posts unrelated to your stuff.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
(Previous)

Unofficial analysis of Battle Royale

Your results may vary.

It has been noticed that there were questions asked and not answered in Round 3. See (Unofficial analysis of First post in Round 3)

The following questions were asked, but not answered:

BWQ4b: Please specifically indicate, by presenting the year published, which edition was the very first KJB that was free of any type of error.
- answer: none
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ18: Will Kinney, can you see from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible that the 1611 translators explicitly changed the correct word “repaired” to the incorrect word, “prepared”, by adding a “p” to the beginning of the word and then striking out the “i”?
- answer: none
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

The following question was answered but not asked

BWQ5: “Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?”
- answered question not asked in previous round
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

The following questions were asked again after they were answered in a previous round, but were not answered a second time.

BWQ9: [Please explain the KJO defense of the translators and criticism of the printers] “considering that the printers’ work would be read by millions, whereas the translators’ work was only read by the printers.”
- question asked in previous round after receiving answer
Points go to brandplucked

BWQ10: “In 1611... a minister could count and find literally thousands of differences in the new text as compared to the 1537 Matthew Bible that his great-grandfather had preached from. ...how would he have been able to refute the one who declared: “King James’ corrupt 1611 translation has hundreds of changes as compared to the Word of God”?
- question asked in previous round after receiving answer
Points go to brandplucked

BWQ11: “If the King James translators have taken a position on a matter regarding their work that differs from your position Will Kinney and that of the KJO camp, who would have more authority as to the truth of that particular matter, you and the KJO camp, or the translators themselves?”
- question asked in previous round after receiving answer
Points go to brandplucked



tally for corrections:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 3
brandplucked - 3

Running total after corrections at middle of fifth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 32
brandplucked - 19

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____


I have also gone back and added links to join each analysis the previous and next unofficial analyses and to the post in the Battle Royale that was being analyzed to make navigation between the posts easier.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 KJV reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
BP is right here. It seems to me that the other versions only translate Zedekiah because they don't like what the Hebrew text says. Most Hebrew mss read Jehoiakim. Chapter 28 Begins with a reference to the first year of the reign of Zedekiah 'in that year'. So it could be that Jehoiaim reigned only a part year and that Zedekiah became king in the same year. The situation is a mess date-wise but that is not a reason to change the text.

*Or whether 2 Samuel 21:8 KJV reads MICHAL (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or MERAB (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)
The Hebrew manuscripts conflict here. It could be one or the other. BHS, which is based on the Leningrad Codex, reads Michal so that is what I would follow as it is my chosen preference.

or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 KJV (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
The mss literally says 'seventy men fifty thousand men' (or 50 leaders of men depending on the different possible meaning of the word eleph, which could mean thousand or leader). My conclusion: the text is untranslatable as it stands so I would not blame any of the versions cited here.

Or 1 Samuel 13:1KJV 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" (Complete 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."!
I already referred to this in an earlier post. The KJB is obviously wrong, as are most other translations.

My conclusion from the above is that the KJB is a respectable translation but not a perfect one. Which is about what can be said for all the others. I have just taken the first few of the list that BP gave. I don't see it would be helpful to look further. We know where this is leading before we get there.
 
Last edited:

brandplucked

New member
1 Samuel 6:19 - How many men slain?

1 Samuel 6:19 - How many men slain?

Hi Desert Reign. I want to thank you for at least looking into these examples. Since I believe the KJB is always right, then I agree with you when you agree with the KJB, and disagree with you when you don't.
Quote:
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 KJV (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

Desert Reign says: "The mss literally says 'seventy men fifty thousand men' (or 50 leaders of men depending on the different possible meaning of the word eleph, which could mean thousand or leader). My conclusion: the text is untranslatable as it stands so I would not blame any of the versions cited here."

I disagree. The KJB got it right, as always.

1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man?

1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."



ESV - "And he struck SOME of the men of Bethshemesh, because they looked UPON the ark of the LORD. He struck SEVENTY MEN of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame and meaningless recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.”

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names recorded as literal historical events, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?

1 Samuel 6:19 presents us with a clear example of how many modern Bible translators presume to alter the Hebrew text and "correct" the King James Bible. These “good, godly, evangelical scholars” reveal their unbelief, and their willingness to altar the inspired text.

How do we explain this large number -50,070 - of men slain by the Lord in the context of this event of the ark of the LORD having been taken captive and then recovered?

The first six chapters of 1 Samuel relate the events surrounding a series of battles between the children of Israel and the Philistines, the capture and subsequent return of the ark of the covenant, and the LORD’S slaying of 50,070 people.

The King James Bible reads at 1 Samuel 6:19: “And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”

Many modern commentaries cast doubt on the accuracy of the Hebrew reading here, and display their unbelief. This is best exemplified by Gleason Archer, one of the translators of both the NASB and the NIV. In his book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, on page 169, Mr. Archers says: “But there is strong evidence to indicate that the original text of 1 Samuel 6:19 read a much lower number”...”a very justified suspicion that the text was inadvertently garbled in the course of transmission.”

Mr. Archer’s book is full of statements like this concerning many passages of Scripture. He says things like “these transmissional errors, as we believe them to be”, “quite possible to commit an error in textual transmission”, “has undoubtedly undergone multiplication by ten because of an obscurity or misunderstanding” and “the alleged desire to embellish the record and exaggerate the glory of the past must have been a very modest one on the Chronicler’s part.”

This book by Gleason Archer, of the NIV, NASB translation committees, is a Trojan horse of faith destroying, scholar-speak Baloney that is so highly recommended by Hank Hannegraf - another professional bible agnostic.



The Bible Commentaries

Many Bible Commentaries come up with some pretty loopy ideas as they cast doubt on God's words. Just to give you a general idea of how a man's mind can turn to mush when he doesn't believe, here are just a few.

The Pulpit commentary notes: "In this verse also THE TEXT IS UNDOUBTEDLY CORRUPT. The numbers, however, are evidently wrong."

John Gill rambles on with 5 or 6 different opinions and never does tell us which is right. But one of them is pretty close to what I think is the correct explanation. I will get to that in a moment.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wildly opine: "he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men—Beth-shemesh being only a village, THIS TRANSLATION MUST BE ERRONEOUS, AND SHOULD BE, "HE SMOTE FIFTTY OUT OF A THOUSAND," BEING ONLY FOURTEEN HUNDRED IN ALL WHO INDULGED THIS CURIOSITY." Huh??

Barne's Notes on the Bible - "Fifty thousand and three score and ten - Read "three" score and "ten", omitting "fifty thousand", which appears to have crept into the text from the margin."

Matthew Henry, who usually is pretty sound, says: "The number smitten is expressed in an unusual manner in the original, and it is probable that it means 1170." Ooookaaay....

This blatant unbelief is not just limited to commentaries about the Bible, but is also found in the text and footnotes of many modern bible versions themselves.
The NIV 1978, 1984 and 2011 editions say: "putting SEVENTY OF THEM to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD." then they tell us in a footnote that the reading of SEVENTY OF THEM" comes from “A few Hebrew manuscripts; MOST HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS AND SEPTUAGINTS READ 50,070. This number is generally considered to be a scribal error. Some discrepant statements concerning numbers are found in the extant Hebrew manuscripts. Error by scribes in transmission of Hebrew numbers was easy, whereas preservation of numerical accuracy was difficult. Inspiration extends only to the inerrancy of the original autographs.”

This blasphemous view of preservation is that held by most of today’s “Christian scholars” and it is stated in black and white right there in the NIV.

In a note on 1 Chronicles 11:11 the NIV 1984 edition has this statement: “Many disagreements between numbers in Samuel and Kings, and those in Chronicles, are alleged. Actually, out of the approximately 150 instances of parallel numbers in these books, fewer than one-sixth disagree. GOD GAVE US A BIBLE FREE FROM ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. IN ITS PRESERVATION through many generations of recopying, HE PROVIDENTIALLY KEPT IT FROM SERIOUS ERROR, ALTHOUGH HE PERMITTED A FEW SCRIBAL MISTAKES."

There you have it. This is the view of all modern Bible translators. “Only the originals were inspired, text garbled, error in transmission, desire to embellish the record, no serious error, a few scribal mistakes”. Mr. Archer does not dispute the Hebrew reading of 50,070, but he says it is an error, and thus we have the reading of "70 of them" in the NIV.

"He struck SEVENTY MEN of them" is the reading of the RSV, NRSV 1989, ESVs 2001, 2007 and 2011 editions, NEB 1970, Darby 1890, the Living Bible 1971, Amplified bible 1987, Easy To Read Version 2006 (Hey, it's WRONG, but at least it's "Easy to Read", right?) Expanded Bible 2011 (Thomas Nelson), the 2011 Names of God Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, and the New Living Translation 2013.

The footnotes found in the RSV, NRSV and ESV all tell us: "Hebrew - of the people seventy men, fifty thousand men". They all admit that this is the number found in the Hebrew texts.

The absurd paraphrase called The Message says simply: "Seventy died."

The New Life Version 1969 has: "He killed 70 (50,070) men." Huh?

Lamsa’s 1933 translation from the Syriac, (the NIV, NASB, RSV and ESV frequently follow the Syriac versions and reject the Hebrew texts - but not this time) says: “ he smote 5000 and 70 men”.

Young’s "literal" translation reads: “He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN”.

The Jubilee Bible 2000 says: "he smote FIFTY THOUSAND OF THE PEOPLE AND 70 PRINCIPAL MEN."

Green’s “literal” 2004 and the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 are different still, reading: “Yea, He struck SEVENTY among the people, FIFTY OUT OF A THOUSAND MEN.” (What does that even mean???)

The NKJV reads the same as the KJB in the text, but it has a ridiculous footnote that reads “OR, He struck SEVENTY men of the people AND FIFTY OXEN OF A MAN.”!

The New Living Translation of 2013, whose text reads "The Lord killed 70 men", also mentions in their footnote: "Perhaps the text should be understood to read 'The LORD killed 70 men and 50 oxen.'"

But the modern scholars are not done yet.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 2009 has come up with a reading that is different from them all. The HCSB now says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."

And The Voice of 2012, one of the new Critical Text versions, actually says: “God struck down 75 men” and then Footnotes “50,000 and 70 men”!!!

Do you think there may be a chance that modern version translators are losing their minds because they keep messing with The Book?

Dan Wallace's NET Version

Surprisingly, even Daniel Wallace and Company's generally goofy NET version also follows the Hebrew texts here and says 50,070 men slain. Then they give us this interesting footnote: "The number 50,070 is surprisingly large, although it finds almost unanimous textual support in the MT and in the ancient versions. Only a few medieval Hebrew mss lack “50,000,” reading simply “70” instead. However, there does not seem to be sufficient external evidence to warrant reading 70 rather than 50,070, although that is done by a number of recent translations (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). The present translation (RELUCTANTLY) [Note - he actually puts the word "reluctantly" there in his footnote] follows the MT and the ancient versions here."

The Bible versions that correctly read that God struck down 50,070 men are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "And he slue of the people fyftyethousand and thre skore & ten persones.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 -"he slue among the people fiftie thousand and three score and ten men", the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the King James Bible, Webster's 1833, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917, Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, Hebrew Names Version, the 2004 Hebrew Complete Tanach, the NASB 1972 - 1995, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - "He killed 50,070 of the people.", the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the International Standard Version - "He struck down 50,070 men among the people" and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "He struck FIFTY THOUSAND AND SEVENTY MEN OF THE PEOPLE."



Other English translations that follow the Hebrew text and tell us that "God stuck 50,070 men" are God's First Truth 1999, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Conservative Bible 2011 - "even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men”, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), World English Bible 2012 - "he struck fifty thousand seventy of the men", the International Standard Version 2014 - "He struck down 50,070 men", and the Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014.



Among foreign language Bible that correctly have the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Biblia de las Américas 1997, Reina Valeras of 1909-2011 - "Hizo morir a CINCUENTA MIL SETENTA HOMBRES del pueblo.", Luther's German Bible of 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Und er schlug des Volks fünfzigtausend und siebenzig Mann.", the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and the Almeida Actualizada "CINQUENTA MIL E SETENTA HOMENS", the Italian Diodati of 1649 -"percosse ancora del popolo CINQUANTAMILA E SETTANTA UOMINI.", the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald of 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007 - "Il frappa 50'070 hommes" and Rumanian Cornilescu and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible , the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Megvere pedig a nép közül ötvenezer és hetven embert.", the Russian Synodal Bible - " и убил из народа пятьдесят тысяч семьдесят человек" = 50,070 men, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - "sa makatuwid baga'y pumatay siya sa bayan ng pitong pung lalake at limang pung libong tao.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, and the Modern Greek bible - "και επαταξεν εκ του λαου ανδρας πεντηκοντα χιλιαδας και εβδομηκοντα·"



The Catholic Connection

The Catholic bibles are in their usual disarray. The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 followed the Hebrew reading and agree with the King James Bible by telling us that God smote 50,070 men, but then the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 now read like the NIV, ESV, RSV and say God "struck down 70 of them". Then the New Jerusalem bible gives this totally false and faith destroying footnote saying - "70 following Greek, Hebrew adds a gloss 'fifty thousand men'."

These are flat out lies. First of all, the Greek Septuagint as well as the Modern Greek both say 50,070 men, not 70. And secondly, the Hebrew reading is not a "gloss" (a false interpretation, or a scribal error) but is in fact the true, God inspired text!

But all apostate roads lead back to the whore of Babylon and the new "evangelical" bogus bibles are well on their way down this road to full blown apostasy. See Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Dan Wallace's NET version, Holman Standard are the "new" Vatican versions here -

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



The Explanation of the large number 50,070 men.

I know of two possible explanations for this high number of 50,070 slain. Rather than assuming the Hebrew text is in error, as Mr. Gleason, a host of modern Bible commentators, and the NIV, NET, ESV, Holman and modern Catholic version committees, let's attempt the novel approach of believing God and His promises to preserve His words, as He has so faithfully done in the King James Bible.

One possibility, suggested by Mr. Peter Ruckman in his book Problem Texts on pages 171-173, is once the ark had been recovered from the Philistines, it became a sort of tourist attraction for the surrounding Israelites. At this time the population of Israel was some 3 million people. There are within 20 miles of the Levitical city of Bethshemesh, the cities of Zanoah, Jarmuth, Gibeah, Zoreah, Kirjath-jearim, Ajalon, Timnah, Libaah, Gedor, Nezib, Chephirah, Gezer, Chesalon and Ekron. Mr. Ruckman suggests that many came from these nearby towns and cities to view the ark and presumptuously looked into it, and so the LORD smote them.

Another possibility is that the number of 50,070 is the total number of all the people, both Israelites and Philistines, that were slain by God from the time the ark was first taken to this final day of death when the men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark.

In 1 Samuel 4:2,3 we read: “And when they joined in battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: and they slew of the army in the field about FOUR THOUSAND MEN. And when the people were come into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the LORD smitten us to day before the Philistines?” Notice it was the LORD who smote them.

In verse 10 we read of another battle in which “and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel THIRTY THOUSAND FOOTMEN.” In 5:6,9,11,12 and 6:9 we read of additional men being slain by the LORD. It was God Himself who was behind this great slaughter of both the children of Israel and the Philistines. Four thousand, thirty thousand, and easily a few thousand more in the succeeding battles; thus the figure of 50,070 total men slain by God is quite believable.

Notice the wording of 1 Samuel 6:19 “And he smote of the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”

It is possible to read this with the understanding that God smote the men of Bethshemesh because they looked into the ark, and the total number of people slain, both Jews and Philistines, throughout this whole episode with the ark of the covenant being taken and its recovery was 50,070.

Matthew Henry also notes: “Some think the seventy men were the Beth-shemites that were slain for looking into the ark, and the 50,000 were those that were slain by the ark, in the land of the Philistines.”

John Gill and another commentator also mention the view that the number of 50,070 includes both the large number of people killed during the battles that occurred during this event of the taking of the ark and when the men of Bethshemesh looked into it.

The modern bibles are riddled with false readings, false statements and unbelief. They are false witnesses to the truth of God, and they are translated by men who do not believe God has been able to preserve His words for us today.

I and many other Christians believe God Almighty has preserved His inerrant words and we have them today in the King James Holy Bible.

To see many more concrete examples of wrong numbers in today's bogus "Catholic" bibles like the NIV, NASB, ESV see the following article

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

Will Kinney
 

ccfromsc

New member
I have one simple question: IF the KJV is the ONLY version of the Bible, 1) why was it revised over 20+ times? 2) Why was the apocrypha removed? IF the Apocrypha was included, then that should be part of the Bible, cause by removing it you are removing part of the Bible!
 

brandplucked

New member
1 Samuel 13:1

1 Samuel 13:1

---Quote---
Or 1 Samuel 13:1 KJB 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" (Complete 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."!
---End Quote---


Desert Reign says: "I already referred to this in an earlier post. The KJB is obviously wrong, as are most other translations.

My conclusion from the above is that the KJB is a respectable translation but not a perfect one. Which is about what can be said for all the others."

Nope. The KJB got it right, as always. Here is why it is right and the bogus bible versions got it wrong.


1 Samuel 13:1

Have some of God's inspired words been lost? The modern version proponents would have us believe that such is the case. We will consider one specific passage of Scripture to illustrate this point and will also hear from one of the NIV translators regarding a few others.

One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is 1 Samuel 13:1. We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."


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" (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete 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 "Saul was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!

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 ESV? You got it; the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Catholic Douay version 1950 which read: "Saul was A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."


"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..."

This is the reading of the KJB 1611, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "Saul had bene kynge one yere (whan these thynges came to passe) and he raygned two yeares ouer Israel.", Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599 - "Saul nowe had beene King one yeere, and he reigned two yeeres ouer Israel", the Bill Bible 1671, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, the Longman Version 1841, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Ferrer Fenton translation 1903, the NKJV 1982, the Jewish School & Family Bible Volume 2 by Abraham Benisch, The Urim-Thummin Version 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Natural Israelite Bible English Version 2008 by Ed Schneider, the Hebrew Names Version of 2014 - "Saul reigned a year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel," the 2008 Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scripture - "Shaul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Yisrael...", the 2008 World English Bible by Michael Johnson, the 2012 Interlinear Hebrew- Greek Scriptures by Lanny Mebust - "Shaul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Yisrael", Green's literal translation 2005, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the New Heart English Bible 2010, the New Berkeley Version 1969, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, the KJV 21st century version 1994, and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.



Other English Bible that read like the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "Sha'ul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Yisrael...", The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 has: "Saule was A YEAR in his reign, and he reigned TWO years over Israel." , The New European Version 2010 and The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013.


The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “It was in the first year of Sha’ul’s reign, and when he had reigned [his first] two shanim over Yisroel,"

and this Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "one year...two years"

http://studybible.info/IHOT/1 Samuel 13:1



Foreign Language Bibles

Among foreign language Bible that read the same way are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1960 and 1995, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible -"Había ya reinado Saúl un año, y cuando llevaba reinando dos años sobre Israel, escogió a tres mil hombres de Israel", the Portuguese de Almeida 1681, the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese O Livro of 2000 -"Saul reinou un UM ANO; e no SEGUNDO ANO do seu reinado sobre Israel", the Italian Diodati version of 1649 - "SAULLE avea regnato un anno, quando queste cose avvennero; e poi, dopo aver regnato due anni sopra Israele,", the French Martin 1744, the 1906 La Bible du Rabbinat, and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Saül avait régné UN AN ; et quand il eut régné DEUX ANS sur Israël, Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Saul war EIN JAR Konig gewesen / vnd da er ZWEY JAR vber Jsrael regiert hatte." = "Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB.



The Swiss Zurcher 1531 says exactly the same thing, as does the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - "Saul was een jaar in zijn regering geweest, en het tweede jaar regeerde hij over Israel." and the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselkap of 1930 - "I ett år hadde Saul dengang vært konge; og da han hadde vært konge over Israel i to år," and the Polish Biblia Gdanska - "Saul tedy pierwszego roku królowania swego (bo tylko dwa lata królował nad Izraelem,) and the Russian Synodal Version of 1876 - "Год был по воцарении Саула, и другой год царствовал он над Израилем, как выбрал Саул себе три тысячи из Израильтян:",



the Afrikaans Bible 1953 -"Saul het 'n jaar geregeer. En toe hy twee jaar oor Israel geregeer het," - "Saul had reigned a year. And when he was two years reigned over Israel,", the Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 - "SAUL domnea de UN AN de zile; si dupa ce a domnit DOI ANI peste Israel"

and the Modern Greek Bible! - "Ο Σαουλ ητο βασιλευς ενος ετους· αφου δε εβασιλευσε δυο ετη επι τον Ισραηλ," = "Saul was king ONE year, and when he reigned TWO years over Israel..."

and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "בן שנה שאול במלכו ושתי שנים מלך על ישראל׃" = "Shaul year and two years reigning king over Israel"


There is a fairly recent Hebrew-English translation put out in 2004 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

In 1 Samuel 13:1 it reads as does the King James Bible: "Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel..."


The Modern Greek translation is the same as the King James Bible reading, even though the so called Septuagint is entirely lacking the verse. The Modern Greek text reads: Ο Σαουλ ητο βασιλευς ενος ετους· αφου δε εβασιλευσε δυο ετη επι τον Ισραηλ

The Modern Greek text can be found at this site here - http://unbound.biola.edu/

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, the New Scofield KJV and the Catholic St. Joseph NAB, and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (FORTY) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

But the English Revised Version of 1881 differed from not only the KJB but also the ASV and read: "Saul was THIRTY YEARS OLD when he began to reign; and he reigned TWO years over Israel."

Young's tells us: "A SON OF A YEAR is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel", while Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "And when Saul had reigned ONE OR TWO years in his kingdom over Israel..."

Then we have the recent 1989 The Revised English Bible, and it reads differently than them all saying: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for TWENTY-TWO years."

When we get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV and the Common English Bible say: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years."

But wait. There's more to this Bible Babel. The 1970 New English Bible actually says: "Saul was FIFTY YEARS OLD when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FOR TWENTY TWO years."!!! So was Saul 30 or 40, or perhaps 50? And did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 22 years as the NEB, REB say, or 32 as some NASBs have it, or was it perhaps the 42 of the NIV?

The Knox bible of 2012 says: "Saul was (SO MANY) years old when he began to reign, and he had reigned for TWO years over Israel."

The misnamed "The Message" avoids the number problem by just omitting them altogether in this paraphrase - "Saul was a young man when he began as king. He was king over Israel for many years."

The Good News Bible ... This version omits the verse altogether.

Arno Gaebelein's Annotated Bible actually says: "Omit the first verse of this chapter as it does not belong in the text."!!

Not only do the NIV, ASV, NEB and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.

Dr. Daniel Wallace and company, of Dallas Theological Seminary, are creating their own personal bible version called the NET Bible. It frequently departs from the Hebrew texts. They have come up with a reading in 1 Samuel 13:1 that is even different than all the others.

The NET bible reads: "Saul was THIRTY (1- footnote) years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for FORTY (2 - footnote) years."

Then in the footnote the NET tells us: The Hebrew Masoretic Text does not have "thirty." A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, "a son of a year") must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! Although most LXX mss lack the entire verse, some Greek mss have "thirty years" here (while others have "one year"). The Syriac Peshitta has Saul's age as twenty-one... The present translation ("thirty") is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal.

Regarding the change from "when he had reigned TWO years" to "he ruled over Israel for FORTY years" Wallace and company say: The MT has "two years" here. If this number is to be accepted as correct, the meaning apparently would be that after a lapse of two years at the beginning of Saul's reign, he then went about the task of consolidating an army as described in what follows."

(Note: What a shocker! If we follow what the Hebrew text says, the King James reading is correct! But Dr. Wallace can't seem to accept this.) So he continues:

"But if the statement in v. 1 is intended to be a comprehensive report on the length of Saul's reign, the number is too small. According to Acts 13:21 Saul reigned for forty years. The NIV, taking this forty to be a round number, adds it to the "two years" of the MT and translates the number in 2 Sam 13:1 as "forty-two years." While this is an acceptable option, the present translation instead replaces the MT's "two" with the figure "forty." Admittedly the textual evidence for this decision is weak, but the same can be said of any attempt to restore sense to this difficult text. The Syriac Peshitta lacks this part of v. 1."

There you have it - the ramblings of America's foremost Evangelical textual scholar. Small wonder that 85% of the students in America's largest Evangelical seminary say they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

Have some of God's words been lost or dropped out of the text? Or has God been faithful to His promises to preserve His words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away? Jesus said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This is either a true statement or Jesus lied to us. The modern version translators imply that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't really mean what He said.

One of the members of the NIV translation committee has written a book called The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. His name is Gleason Archer and his book is highly recommended by Hank Hanegraaff, the so called "Bible answer man". Regarding this passage in 1 Samuel 13:1 Mr. Gleason tells us on page 171 "the Masoretic text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript." Gleason Archer goes on to tell us: "the REIGNED of the KJV is not justifiable, for the Hebrew text does not say "reigned" but "he became king".

Now this is interesting. Here is a scholar telling us emphatically that "reigned" is not justifiable, yet the NASB has "reign" and has translated this same word as reign or reigned some 144 times and even his own NIV has translated this word malak as "reign or reigned" 117 times.

So, how do we explain the passage in 1 Samuel 13:1?

Have God's words been lost in the shuffle, as Gleason Archer and Hank Hanegraaff tell us? Absolutely not. The King James Bible is 100% correct. What the NASB, NIV translators missed here is a Hebrew idiom. Nothing has been lost; it has been there all the time.

The Hebrew text in question translated in the KJB and many other versions as "ONE year" consists of two words, ben (Strong's # 1121) and shanah (Strong's #) 8141. The "problem" is how the word ben is translated. Hebrew words often have multiple meanings, depending on the context. The NIV and NASB concordances tell us they have translated this one word as: "age, aliens, arrow, afflicted, beast, bought, child, bulls, calf, builders, breed, father, fellow, foal, fools, foreigner, grandchildren, heir, kids, lambs, low, man, mortal, nephew, offspring, old, ONE, ONE born, ONES, opening, overnight, people, scoundrels, son, troops, warriors, whelps, young, and youths."

Both the NASB and the NIV have translated this same Hebrew word in other places just as it stands in the KJB's "ONE" year. In Leviticus 12:6 we read: "she shall bring a lamb of the FIRST YEAR for a burnt offering." The NASB reads: " a ONE year old lamb," the NIV "A year old lamb." In Exodus 29:38 "Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the alter; two lambs of the FIRST YEAR day by day continually." The NASB has: "a lamb of the FIRST year" while the NIV has: " she is to bring A year old lamb."

In 2 Samuel 17:10 the NASB reads: "Even the ONE (ben) who is valiant...will lose heart." In Genesis 15:3 both the NASB and NIV read: "ONE (ben) born in my house is my heir." The same thing occurs twice in Nehemiah 3:8 and 31 where the NASB, NIV have "ONE of the perfumers...ONE of the goldsmiths", and the NIV has "ONE of the wise men" in Isaiah 19:11. Again, both the NASB and NIV translate this same word ben as ONES in Zechariah 4:14 "Then said he, These are the two anointed ONES, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth."

Other well known Bible commentators, who certainly are not King James Only, also agree with the KJB reading in 1 Samuel 13:1. Here is what a few of them have to say.

Matthew Henry

"But we take it rather, as our own translation has it, Saul reigned one year, and nothing happened that was considerable, it was a year of no action; but in his second year he did as follows -1. He chose a band of 3000 men, of whom he himself commanded 2000, and his son Jonathan 1000, v. 2. The rest of the people he dismissed to their tents."

Jamieson, Faussett & Brown

Saul reigned one year-- The transactions recorded in the eleventh and twelfth chapters were the principal incidents comprising the first year of Saul's reign; and the events about to be described in this happened in the second year.

Adam Clarke

These things (related in 1 Samuel 12:1-25) took place in the first year of Saul‘s reign: and then he proceeds in the next place to tell us what took place in the second year, the two most remarkable years of Saul‘s reign.

John Gill

Bible commentator John Gill offers this commentary on the meaning of 1 Samuel 13:1 - “he was but a year old with respect to his kingdom: the inauguration of a king is "natalis imperil," the birthday of his kingdom, and therefore the words are well enough rendered by us, "Saul reigned one year".

John Gill also comments; "The sense Ben Gersom gives is best of all, that one year had passed from the time of his being anointed, to the time of the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then he did what follows, chose 3000 men. In the first year of his reign was done all that is recorded in the preceding chapter; and when he had reigned two years, not two years more, but two years in all, then he did what is related in this chapter."

Matthew Poole

In his Bible commentary Matthew Poole notes: SAUL reigned one year ; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, ." Reigned one year, i. c. had now reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in which time these things were done, which are recorded chap, xi., xii."

1 Samuel 13:1 Commentary by Kimchi from Judaica Press Complete Tanach

"It may also be interpreted thus: Saul was a year in his reign, i.e., in the first year in which he was made king (and he reigned two years over Israel), and in the first year, immediately, Saul chose for himself three thousand."

"Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel."

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15842#showrashi=true
It may also be interpreted thus: Saul was a year in his reign, i.e., in the first year in which he was made king (and he reigned two years over Israel), and in the first year, immediately, Saul chose for himself three thousand.



So you see, God has not lost any of His words at all. The modern bible translators set themselves up as the final authority and they want you to come to them, buy their books and their "bibles" so you too can doubt God's ability to preserve His inspired words. No thank you, Mr. Archer. I choose to believe God and His infallible words as found in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

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

brandplucked

New member
The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.

The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.

I have one simple question: IF the KJV is the ONLY version of the Bible, 1) why was it revised over 20+ times? 2) Why was the apocrypha removed? IF the Apocrypha was included, then that should be part of the Bible, cause by removing it you are removing part of the Bible!

cc, try to get your information right. The KJB has never been "revised". They changed from Gothic print to Roman, corrected some printing errors and updated the spelling of words like sinne to sin, yeares to years, Sonne to Son, but the underlying texts have never changed.

And when you bring up this Apocrypha issue, you show that you really haven't looked into this in much depth. Want to learn more about this? Are you sure? You will see what a useless argument this is.

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

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
BP, I am not interested in responding to all your prepared answers. I gave you a comment based on the Hebrew text of certain verses. If you want to respond in kind instead of just citing more supposed authorities, by actually discussing the issue, then I would be happy. Merely denying my position doesn't help. I mean - it doesn't help your case and it doesn't help engender fruitful discussion.
 

brandplucked

New member
Desert Reign is his own "final authority"

Desert Reign is his own "final authority"

BP, I am not interested in responding to all your prepared answers. I gave you a comment based on the Hebrew text of certain verses. If you want to respond in kind instead of just citing more supposed authorities, by actually discussing the issue, then I would be happy. Merely denying my position doesn't help. I mean - it doesn't help your case and it doesn't help engender fruitful discussion.

Sir, you are your own "final authority", subject to change at any time.

All you have to give us are your own personal opinions, and many other Bible translators do not agree with you. You are just like so many others today who think they are "experts", and yet you all differ from each other.

By the way, not that you would care one way or the other, but I just got done looking at some more Bible translations on 1 Samuel 6:19 and LOTS of them agree with the Hebrew text and the King James Bible.


50,070



The Bible versions that correctly read that God struck down 50,070 men are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "And he slue of the people fyftyethousand and thre skore & ten persones.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 -"he slue among the people fiftie thousand and three score and ten men", the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the King James Bible, The Bill Bible 1671, Webster's 1833, The Lesser Bible 1853, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917, Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, the 2004 Hebrew Complete Tanach, the NASB 1972 - 1995, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - "He killed 50,070 of the people.", the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the International Standard Version - "He struck down 50,070 men among the people" and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "He struck FIFTY THOUSAND AND SEVENTY MEN OF THE PEOPLE.", The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and The New English Septuagint Translation 2014.



Other English translations that follow the Hebrew text and tell us that "God stuck 50,070 men" are The New Jewish Version 1985, God's First Truth 1999, The World English Bible 2000, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Word of Yah 1993, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Complete Apostles' Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The New Heart English Bible 2010, the Conservative Bible 2011 - "even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men”, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), World English Bible 2012 - "he struck fifty thousand seventy of the men", the International Standard Version 2014 - "He struck down 50,070 men", and the Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014. And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament

http://studybible.info/IHOT/1 Samuel 6:19



Among foreign language Bible that correctly have the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Biblia de las Américas 1997, Reina Valeras of 1909-2011 - "Hizo morir a CINCUENTA MIL SETENTA HOMBRES del pueblo.", Luther's German Bible of 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Und er schlug des Volks fünfzigtausend und siebenzig Mann.", the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and the Almeida Actualizada "CINQUENTA MIL E SETENTA HOMENS", the Italian Diodati of 1649 -"percosse ancora del popolo CINQUANTAMILA E SETTANTA UOMINI.", the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald of 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007 - "Il frappa 50'070 hommes" and Rumanian Cornilescu and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible , the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Megvere pedig a nép közül ötvenezer és hetven embert.", the Russian Synodal Bible - " и убил из народа пятьдесят тысяч семьдесят человек" = 50,070 men, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - "sa makatuwid baga'y pumatay siya sa bayan ng pitong pung lalake at limang pung libong tao.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible,

and the Modern Greek bible - "και επαταξεν εκ του λαου ανδρας πεντηκοντα χιλιαδας και εβδομηκοντα·"
 

genuineoriginal

New member
God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 KJV (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
You know this was just a printing error.
So, why are you getting upset?
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
my favorite bible has this passage
it has the word tested
we are being tested
and
you won't find this in any other bible

Daniel 12:10New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

10 Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; the wicked shall have no understanding, but those with insight shall.
 
Top