- This topic has 63 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ed J to another: “You have yet to show any discrepancies between the AKJV Bible and any of the biblical texts found in the dead sea scrolls; do you have any?” unquote.
Yes.
Wikipedia: “The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in the Jewish scriptures as Yahweh rather than as Lord or Jehovah. Further, this decision is based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE. Coincidentally, the Qumran text often agrees with the Septuagint, from about the same period, rather than with the later Masoretic text.”
Discrepancy?
Quote (Ed J @ July 21 2013,18:58) Quote (david @ July 21 2013,14:23) Quote “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee:
he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, AND upon a colt the foal of an ass.” (Zech 9:9)The KJ seems to be about the only bible with the “and” in there. It doesn't seem to be in the Hebrew. That “and” does make it seem more like two.
And there of course certainly were both. (Mat 21:2). An (she)-ass and a colt with her.
Matthew 21:7:
They brought the ass and the colt, and they put upon these their outer garments, and he seated himself upon THEM.”Most bibles say “them,” as if he sat on both.
Matthews account mentions the two animals.
Mark, Luke and John me ton only one animal and they refer to it as both an ass and a colt.
It seems the animal Jesus road on could be identified by either term.
(There's another apparent co tradition where one bible writer says “scarlet” and another “purple.” It's just a matter of perspective. Scarlet and purple are very similar, and depending on lighting, can look the same.)
I sometimes think that in our times, riding on such animals seem so unfamiliar that anything like that is worthy of note.
Matthew added the extra detail that there was a second ass, and it seems his garments and such were thrown on both of these, but of course he only road the one. And the other three gospel writers only mentioned the one, perhaps not seeing the need to mention the second.
Adding extra detail isn't a contradiction. It's just more detail.
Two accounts of same crime:
“he picked up an orange and thre it at the man.”
“He picked up a couple of oranges and thre one at the man.”
The second is more detailed but the first focuses on what is considered more important. But they aren't contradictory.
Hi David,If you believe there were two, and the “AND” also indicates
there were two donkeys, why do you consider this a problem?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee:
he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, AND upon a colt the foal of an ass.” (Zech 9:9)I consider it a problem because it says he was “riding” upon an ass AND upon a colt, as though he rode both. Most bibles (and the Hebrew they are translated from) do not have an “and” in there.
They say something like: riding upon an ass, upon a colt
Quote (2besee @ July 21 2013,22:41) Ed J to another: “You have yet to show any discrepancies between the AKJV Bible and any of the biblical texts found in the dead sea scrolls; do you have any?” unquote. Yes.
Wikipedia: “The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in the Jewish scriptures as Yahweh rather than as Lord or Jehovah. Further, this decision is based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE. Coincidentally, the Qumran text often agrees with the Septuagint, from about the same period, rather than with the later Masoretic text.”
Discrepancy?
So you don't have any then, right?Quote (Ed J @ July 22 2013,08:06) Quote (2besee @ July 21 2013,22:41) Ed J to another: “You have yet to show any discrepancies between the AKJV Bible and any of the biblical texts found in the dead sea scrolls; do you have any?” unquote. Yes.
Wikipedia: “The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in the Jewish scriptures as Yahweh rather than as Lord or Jehovah. Further, this decision is based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE. Coincidentally, the Qumran text often agrees with the Septuagint, from about the same period, rather than with the later Masoretic text.”
Discrepancy?
So you don't have any then, right?
Hebrew doesn't have a “W” sound.Quote (t8 @ July 21 2013,19:31) Ed J. Copied this from:
Hi T8,Thanks for the link!
I will examine what's on
there when I get some time.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd,
Your…”AKJV ONLY” movement (no different to the KJV only movement) is LACKING something very significant in its translation —
The name.
Wikipedia says:
The term tetragrammaton (from Greek τετραγράμματον, meaning “four letters”) refers to the Hebrew theonym (Hebrew: יהוה) transliterated to the Latin letters YHWH. It may be derived from the verb that means “to be”, and is considered in Judaism to be the proper name of the God of Israel used in the Hebrew Bible.The table below considers the vowel points for (Yehowah) and (Adonai), respectively:
Hebrew Word #3068
ה Heh H ד Daleth D Holem O Holem O ו Waw W נ Nun N Kametz A Kametz A ה Heh H י Yod Y
The Dead Sea Scrolls and other Hebrew and Aramaic texts write (only) the tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script, showing that the name was treated specially. A Greek fragment of Leviticus (26:2-16) discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) has ιαω (“Iao”), the Greek form of the Hebrew trigrammaton YHW.
The historian John the Lydian (6th century) wrote: “The Roman Varo [116–27 BCE] defining him [that is the Jewish god] says that he is called Iao in the Chaldean mysteries”. (De Mensibus IV 53) Van Cooten mentions that Iao is one of the “specifically Jewish designations for God” and “the Aramaic papyri from the Jews at Elephantine show that 'Iao' is an original Jewish term”.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B.D. Eerdmans:
Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) writes Ἰαῶ (Iao);
Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) writes Ἰαοὺ (Iaou)—see also below;
Origen of Alexandria (d. c. 254), Ἰαώ (Iao);
Porphyry (d. c. 305) according to Eusebius (died 339), Ἰευώ (Ieuo).
The New Jerusalem Bible (1966) uses “Yahweh” exclusively.
The World English Bible (WEB) [a Public Domain work with no copyright] uses “Yahweh” some 6837 times.
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible retains “Yahweh” throughout the Old Testament.
The Anchor Bible retains “Yahweh” throughout the Old Testament.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
Yahweh (Iao) is all through my Bible, and it makes a huge change in the understanding of what is being read, IMO.
Edit: paragraphs.
Quote (Ed J @ July 22 2013,10:11) Quote (Ed J @ July 22 2013,08:06) Quote (2besee @ July 21 2013,22:41) Ed J to another: “You have yet to show any discrepancies between the AKJV Bible and any of the biblical texts found in the dead sea scrolls; do you have any?” unquote. Yes.
Wikipedia: “The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in the Jewish scriptures as Yahweh rather than as Lord or Jehovah. Further, this decision is based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE. Coincidentally, the Qumran text often agrees with the Septuagint, from about the same period, rather than with the later Masoretic text.”
Discrepancy?
So you don't have any then, right?
Hebrew doesn't have a “W” sound.
Yes it does.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)Quote (2besee @ July 22 2013,17:47) Quote (Ed J @ July 22 2013,10:11) Quote (Ed J @ July 22 2013,08:06) Quote (2besee @ July 21 2013,22:41) Ed J to another: “You have yet to show any discrepancies between the AKJV Bible and any of the biblical texts found in the dead sea scrolls; do you have any?” unquote. Yes.
Wikipedia: “The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in the Jewish scriptures as Yahweh rather than as Lord or Jehovah. Further, this decision is based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE. Coincidentally, the Qumran text often agrees with the Septuagint, from about the same period, rather than with the later Masoretic text.”
Discrepancy?
So you don't have any then, right?
Hebrew doesn't have a “W” sound.
Yes it does.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)
Sorry, but no it doesn't.Hebrew Waw
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)
In modern Hebrew, the frequency of the usage of vav, out of all the letters, is about 10.00%.
Vav as consonant
Consonantal vav (ו) generally represents a voiced labiodental fricative (like the English v) in Ashkenazi, European Sephardi, Persian, Caucasian, Italian and modern Israeli Hebrew, and was originally a labial-velar approximant /w/. It is pronounced like Arabic as a [w] by some Jews of Mizrahi origin.
In modern Israeli Hebrew, some loanwords, the pronunciation of whose source contains /w/, and their derivations, are pronounced with [w], too, e.g. ואחד – /waχad/ (but: ואדי – /vadi/).
Modern Hebrew has no standardized way to distinguish orthographically between [v] and [w]. [1] The pronunciation is either determined by prior knowledge or must be derived through context.
Some non standard spellings of the sound [w] are sometimes found in modern Hebrew texts, such as word-initial double-vav, e.g. וואללה – /wala/(word-medial double-vav is both standard and common for both /v/ and /w/, see table above) or, rarely, vav with a geresh, e.g. ו׳יליאם – /wiljam/.
Quote (2besee @ July 22 2013,18:31) Ed,
Wikipedia says that it does!If you say that it does NOT then prove it.
No, YOU prove that it does.Show me FOUR Hebrew words with a “W” sound – and do so without
using a perversion of God's name – YÄ-hä-vā – to support YOUR claim.Ed (witness)
Quote (2besee @ July 22 2013,18:31) Ed,
Wikipedia says that it does!If you say that it does NOT then prove it.
Quote (2besee @ July 23 2013,00:41) Where did you get your chart from Ed, where is the link?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
