Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

> From: Hedrick Gary Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 3:19 PM
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Would B-hebrew discuss the name Jehovah with a
> KJBO Christian?
> 
> KJVO ... now that's a term I haven't seen in a while!
> 
> This (that is, Matt. 1:22 and Isa. 7:14) is just one example of many.
> Just look at the numerous quotes from the Hebrew Tanakh in the KJV
> translation of the Book of Hebrews, for example, where the two (that
> is, KJV Hebrews and KJV Tanakh) don't agree. Take Heb. 8:8-12 and
> compare it with Jer. 31:31-34—that's a really easy one because it's an
> extended quote. Just lay them down side by side and compare them. If
> the KJV (that is, the Byzantine text type) represents the "perfect"
> Bible, the two should agree perfectly. (Otherwise, one or the other has
> preserved an imperfect text, which ultimately leads to a reductio ad
> absurdum situation for the KJVO position.) But they don't. It's obvious
> that Luke (or whoever wrote Hebrews) was using something like the LXX
> text, not a KJV or Received (Byzantine) text. There's no way around
> this if you're a KJV Only advocate. You can see it with your own eyes.

[SteveMiller:] Thanks Gary. That is a good example also. Too bad it is not
in DSS. The only discrepency that I see is a 1 letter difference between Jer
31:32 בעלתי "I married" or "I ruled over" (as in Jer 3:14) and Heb 8:9 "I
disregarded" בחלתי. However that is a big and obvious difference in meaning.
(1-letter discrepencies are the kind of differences you see between MT and
DSS.) The Heb 8:9 version supports the writer's argument slightly better
than Jer 31:32 does, but the little extra support is not needed. It would be
foolish for the writer to the Hebrews to support his argument with something
that was at variance with the Hebrew text that his audience had. I also
don't think that the Holy Spirit would quote such a mistake in the NT. In
the context, "I disregarded" makes more sense than "I am married to".

Also, the KJB translators themselves did not consider the MT to be the 100%
perfect representation of the word of God. They compared the MT to the LXX
and exercised judgment. At least in Ps 22:16, they went with the LXX.

> 
> It would actually be amusing if it wasn't so sad. KJVO excesses are
> particularly unfortunate because they reflect badly on perhaps the
> finest and most majestic translation that has ever appeared in the
> English language (the KJV). For instance, just read Psalm 23 in the KJV
> and then try to find any other translation that comes close to it (my
> two cents).
> 
> Gary Hedrick
> San Antonio, Texas USA
> 
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Steve Miller wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> > I do not personally know any KJBO Christians, but I do think KJB is
> an
> > excellent translation, better than any modern Old Testament
> > translation, but it is not perfect.  Here is an argument I would use
> > against the doctrine that KJB is a perfect translation:
> >
> > Foremost, it is extrabiblical doctrine.
> >
> > 2nd, an instance where KJB proves itself not perfect:
> > Matt 1:22 (KJB) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
> > forth a son, and *they* shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
> > interpreted is, God with us.
> >
> > This is a quote from
> > Isa 7:14 (KJB) ... Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
> > and ** shall call his name Immanuel.
> >
Sincerely,
-Steve Miller
www.voiceInWilderness.info
Detroit
TV article about my Dad for teaching math for 75 years and still teaching.
http://www.wbaltv.com/education/23857145/detail.html