Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | KJV question | Gen 34:19 | Thomas8 | 203566 | ||
This is for someone holding a KJV only position. The KJV says Shechem was 'more honorable' but that conflicts with v.2 and v5 where he defiled Dinah. The NAS 'more respected' seems reasonable as Shechem could have the respect of his tribe regardless of what he had done to Jacob's daughter. I would appreciate your reasoning on this issue. | ||||||
2 | KJV question | Gen 34:19 | lookinforacity | 203867 | ||
Thomas: Nice to find someone else that keeps to a KJV only opinion. Shechem was more honorable, because he said I love this girl, and I want to do the right thing, by marrying her. He knew he had done wrong, and had disgraced her. He wanted to make her his Queen, but in killing Shechem, and all the men, her brothers disgraced her by making her have a child out of wedlock, making her child a bastard. While her brothers, on the other hand, were treacherous, plotting to kill Shechem, and his men. Now remember that they both lost their inheritance, in the promised land. The Tribe of Simeon,was included into the tribe of Judah, and the Tribe of Levi became the Priests, thus becomming the servants to the whole tribe of Israel. Those 2 portions of land, were given to the sons of Joeseph. Ephraim, and Manasseth. |
||||||
3 | KJV question | Gen 34:19 | Hank | 203870 | ||
Dear Lookin :: To Thomas you write, "Nice to find someone else that keeps to a KJV only opinion." Evidently you read into Thomas' writings something I'm unable to find, for there is nothing in them that leads me to believe that he holds to a King James Only view. But from the "someone else" wording that you used, I incline to infer that you subscribe to the view commonly held by the advocates of the King James Only notion. But none of the points that have been advanced by the King James Only group in regard to the KJV's divine inspiration resulting in its infallibility as a translation, or its unique position of superiority and singular trustworthiness among all other English translations, are in any manner corroborated by the translators themselves in their preface called "The Translators to the Reader" which appeared in the original 1611 printing of the Authorized (King James) Version. In it the translators make no grandiloquent claims for their work such as the devotees to the King James Only position ascribe to it. On the contrary, they write in their preface, "We affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God, as the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace..." ..... I would venture to judge that not everyone who subscribes to the King James Only persuasion has heard of, let alone read, this preface that was appended to the publication of the Authorized Version in 1611, though it seems perfectly obvious that all who are tempted to espouse the King James Only position ought to read it and study it carefully before casting their lot with this group. Sadly, only a few editions of the King James Bible contain this preface called "The Translators to the Reader." Virtually all the King James Bibles published by the Cambridge University Press do have it. This preface is not to be confused with the dedicatory to King James which begins with "To the most high and mighty prince..." ..... Language has been of keen interest to me for many years, and it would follow, I suppose, that an equally keen interest in Bible translations would be a natural and logical by-product. Hence, I've done considerable reading on the subject and of particular interest to me has been the curious position taken by that group of Bible readers who have of late commonly been known as King James Onlyists. I've read with a mind as open as I can make it the reasons they set forth as cogent in support of their position. But I have found them essentially groundless and unconvincing. And in the process of foraging about in an effort to find something that has even the palest similitude of proof for their outrageous position, they cast some very mean and vacuous ad hominem slurs against the translators of some of the most accurate of the newer versions of the Bible in modern English -- which is something, I submit, that the gentle and venerable translators of the King James Bible would never do. --Hank | ||||||