Which translation is correct?

[rejoice44]

Not arbitrarily. Let me ask you something. The KJV says Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses in 1 Kings 4:26 and 4,000 in 2 Chronicles 9:25. Are both of these true? Seems the KJV has a mistake. Some Greek copies have 4,000 in 1 Kings. So which is correct - the Greek or the Hebrew? The Hebrew is obviously wrong in one passage or the other.

Lets examine this in detail, first the difference between the Vaticanus and the Hebrew.

1. The Vaticanus has conveniently left this verse out in 1 Kings 4:26, and the Hebrew has 40,000 stalls for horses.

In 2 Chronicles 9:25 the Hebrew has 4,000 stalls and the Vaticanus has 4,000 mares for chariots. So the Vaticanus had avoided, what they perceived to be a problem, altogether.

Since any Greek is merely a translation from the Hebrew, one would naturally assume the Hebrew to be correct over the Greek. So how do we begin to solve the problem of 40,000 stalls versus 4,000 stalls. We start with the word stall. The Hebrew word is "urvah" and is found only three times in the bible. One of the times is found in 1 Kings 4:26, the second in 2 Chronicles 9:25, and the third time in 2 Chronicles 32:28. According to 2 Chronicles 32:28 this could be an individual stall or a complete stable. So you would have to determine if a single stall, or a stable is being referred to.

1 Kings 4:26 reads different than 2 Chronicles 9:25. 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots and 2 Chronicles 9:25 says 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots. The 40,000 could be individual stalls for 40,000 horses, while the 4,000 stalls could be 4,000 stables containing horses and chariots. Now I agree that the difference between 40,000 and 4,000 could be merely the absence of a little old zero, and the assumption would most likely be that. Yet the potential is there for it to be 40,000 individual stalls and 4,000 stables.

If you have 12,000 horsemen plus 1,400 chariots you would need 40,000 individual stalls. How many horses did each chariot have, two, or four, or six? The 12,000 horsemen are not likely to be the chariot drivers as observed by other scripture. So 12,000 horsemen need how many horses? And 1,400 chariots have have how many horses, 2,400, 5,600, or 8,400? Consider that you have breeding mares, and breeding stallions, and then you have foals. 40,000 seems like a realistic number to me, having had as many as 45 horses at a time.

The Jews fought against 1,000,300 Ethiopian chariots at one time. Solomon had 80,000 men cutting wood for stables and other projects. Forty thousand stalls does not sound like a lot when you consider that.


2. So what do we have? The NIV put 4,000 in place of 40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26, while neither the Hebrew text nor the Vaticanus allows for it. So why did the NIV put 4,000? Did they just decide in their own minds that they would change the Bible, contrary to what all other translations had written? This is called adding and taking away from the Word of God.

[Jemand]

---------------------------------------HEBREW BIBLE--------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------LIVED----------BEGAT---------LIVED ANOTHER------------------------AGE DIED-----------------

Adam------------130-----------Seth----------------------------800--------------------------930-----------------

Seth--------------105----------Enos----------------------------807--------------------------912-----------------

Enos---------------90----------Cainan--------------------------815--------------------------905-----------------

Cainan-------------70----------Mahalaeel----------------------840--------------------------910-----------------

Mahalaeel---------65----------Jared----------------------------830--------------------------895-----------------

Jared-------------162----------Enoch---------------------------800--------------------------962-----------------

Enoch-------------65-----------Methusaleh---------------------300--------------------------365-----------------

Methusaleh------187-----------Lamech-------------------------782--------------------------969-----------------

Lamech----------182-----------Noah----------------------------595--------------------------777----------------

Noah-------------500-----------Shem, Ham, & Japeth-----------450--------------------------950----------------

Flood------- plus 100----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of flood--1,656 from the day Adam was created.----------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------Codex Vaticanus 1209-------------------------------------------------------

Adam------------230------------Seth-----------------------------700-----------------------930------------------

Seth-------------205------------Enos-----------------------------707-----------------------912------------------

Enos-------------190------------Cainan---------------------------715-----------------------905------------------

Cainan-----------170------------Maleleel-------------------------740-----------------------910------------------

Maleleel-----------65------------Jared----------------------------730-----------------------895------------------

Jared------------162------------Enoch----------------------------800-----------------------962------------------

Enoch-----------165------------Mathusala------------------------200-----------------------365------------------

Mathusala-------167------------Lamech--------------------------802-----------------------969------------------

Lamech---------188-------------Noe------------------------------565-----------------------753------------------

Noe--------------500------------Shem, Cham, & Japheth---------450-----------------------950------------------

Flood-------plus 100-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of flood--2,142 from the day Adam was created.-----------------------------------------------------------------


Mathusala age at Lamech’s birth---------------167 years.----------------------------- Mathusala lived to be 969.

Add Lamech’s age at birth of Noe--------------188----------------------------------------------------------------

Add Noe’s age at birth of sons------------------500---------------------------------------------------------------

Add years from birth of Noe’s sons-------------100----------------------------------------------------------------

Years from Mathusala’s birth to flood.----------955 years. --------------------------------------------------------

The flood came 14, years before Mathusala’s death according to the Vaticanus.
According to the Hebrew Text Methusaleh died the year of the flood.

The Codex Vaticanus lacks Genesis 1-46.28. Where did you find the genealogical information that you are attributing to the Codex Vaticanus?

[Dani H]

Which translation is correct?

All of them and none of them.

You'll understand that as soon as you see that language is always fluid, never stagnant.

I translate from German to English and back again. It's the job of the translator to convey meaning. Which is a rather complex thing and you will soon find that getting hung up on individual words is often a hindrance more so than an advantage. Language is a complex beast, and nobody understands that better than a linguist. Kudos to anyone who would even try translating any sacred text because you're exposing yourself to a firestorm that's sure to happen.


As to the errors you pointed out my question is this: How would they affect anyone's relationship with Christ in actuality?

How have they affected yours???

[rejoice44]

The Codex Vaticanus lacks Genesis 1-46.28. Where did you find the genealogical information that you are attributing to the Codex Vaticanus?

You see here is the problem. It seems none of us have a copy of the Septuagint from the Alexandrian texts aside from what little bit is online of the Sinaiticus.

In answer to your question, it came from Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton who used the Vaticanus as his main source for his English translation. The Vaticanus does have that portion of Genesis in it, but accordingly that portion was added in the fifteenth Century to the Vaticanus.

[rejoice44]

All of them and none of them.

You'll understand that as soon as you see that language is always fluid, never stagnant.

I translate from German to English and back again. It's the job of the translator to convey meaning. Which is a rather complex thing and you will soon find that getting hung up on individual words is often a hindrance more so than an advantage. Language is a complex beast, and nobody understands that better than a linguist. Kudos to anyone who would even try translating any sacred text because you're exposing yourself to a firestorm that's sure to happen.


As to the errors you pointed out my question is this: How would they affect anyone's relationship with Christ in actuality?

How have they affected yours???

Anyone who would handle the Word of God carelessly would have a serious problem with his relationship with Christ.

[TrustGzus]

Lancelot Brenton's work is based on the Vaticanus (B). Henry Barclay Swete succeded Brooke Foss Westcott as regius professor at Cambridge and his work is based on the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Cottonianus, and the Codex Ambrosianus.

Where are the copies of these manuscripts that we can observe for our own eyes. They should be available. While the Sinaiticus is online, it is only a small portion of the Septuagint, and we have no other copy of the other Codex's to compare it with. Where is a copy of the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Cottonianus, and the Codex Ambrosianus, so we can compare them. It would seem that no one wants to reveal them. It is like they are saying, we will tell you what we want you to know, you don't need to see for yourself.

What don't they want us to see?

Again, they will tell us what it says, but they won't let us see.

In other words, you don't trust them and/or it's a conspiracy. Norman, what in the world did you do before the internet when none of this was available? Using your approach, no one could have trusted the KJV because they couldn't look at any manuscripts. So why trust the KJV? You use a lot of circular type reasoning.

Perhaps some of the reason we don't see it is because of the massive amount of funding it takes to get all this stuff photographed and online. Are you going to fund it? I'm sure scholars would be glad to put it online if someone puts up the massive funds to get it to where you'd like it all to be.

I'd like to see it all too. However, while I'm doing well, I'm not super rich. Your distrust astounds me in regard to issues that are able to be cross-examined by scholars of all stripes that easily could have exposed any issues, but instead the Evangelical linguistic scholars don't dispute this. I guess they must be part of the conspiracy?

Unless you own one of the copies of one of the manuscripts, you don't own a copy of the Septuagint. You still have yet to name one that you own. You have only listed what someone else, who hbas seen copies of the Septuagint, have said they contain.

There is absolutely no reason they should not be available. They have shown us several copies of the New Testament from these manuscripts, therefore it is only reasonable that we should see the Septuagint from these manuscripts as well.

Norman, what did people do before the internet? None of this stuff was available at all. You could purchase some books and have a picture of the first page of the Gospel of John in the Vaticanus or something like that. But prior to the internet you could get very little glimpses of the manuscripts.

Furthermore, why stop at where you stop in the conspiracy thought? Why not push the conspiracy up further. Have you handled any manuscripts? Perhaps what you see on the internet are doctored photos. There is so much software out now to manipulate photos, perhaps all of these men are part of the Satanic conspiracy to destroy the word of God.

What does the conspiracy begin and where does it end other than your arbitrary choices to support the KJV and refute all modern versions?

Do you know which manuscripts were used by Erasmus and Beza and Stephanus? Do you know what Old Testament manuscripts were used for the KJV? Have you handled them? If not, then why do you trust the KJV? It seems to me this is where your line of argumentation ultimate lands.

In your view, we can't trust the translators. We can't trust the books that document the variations. We must see these things for ourselves on the internet. But why should we trust photos on the internet? If it supports the KJV, then we can trust it. If it supports the modern versions, then we can't trust it. You've never demonstrated anything other than that kind of view. What could prove that modern versions are more accurate than the KJV to you?

And if I show you demonstrable numeric problems in the KJV, you have an out of this world story on how it works. Please explain Ahaziah's age issues that I brought up.

[whitetiger]

I don't think changing a word is a bad thing. Cultures change, language changes and if we can have the Bible in our understanding the language should follow our understanding. Of course there is a limit, it should never change doctrinal stuff. I do not think we should idolize the Bible so much that to change one word becomes the worst thing imaginable. Do we worship God or the Bible?

[rejoice44]

In other words, you don't trust them and/or it's a conspiracy. Norman, what in the world did you do before the internet when none of this was available? Using your approach, no one could have trusted the KJV because they couldn't look at any manuscripts. So why trust the KJV? You use a lot of circular type reasoning.

Perhaps some of the reason we don't see it is because of the massive amount of funding it takes to get all this stuff photographed and online. Are you going to fund it? I'm sure scholars would be glad to put it online if someone puts up the massive funds to get it to where you'd like it all to be.

I'd like to see it all too. However, while I'm doing well, I'm not super rich. Your distrust astounds me in regard to issues that are able to be cross-examined by scholars of all stripes that easily could have exposed any issues, but instead the Evangelical linguistic scholars don't dispute this. I guess they must be part of the conspiracy?



Norman, what did people do before the internet? None of this stuff was available at all. You could purchase some books and have a picture of the first page of the Gospel of John in the Vaticanus or something like that. But prior to the internet you could get very little glimpses of the manuscripts.

Furthermore, why stop at where you stop in the conspiracy thought? Why not push the conspiracy up further. Have you handled any manuscripts? Perhaps what you see on the internet are doctored photos. There is so much software out now to manipulate photos, perhaps all of these men are part of the Satanic conspiracy to destroy the word of God.

What does the conspiracy begin and where does it end other than your arbitrary choices to support the KJV and refute all modern versions?

Do you know which manuscripts were used by Erasmus and Beza and Stephanus? Do you know what Old Testament manuscripts were used for the KJV? Have you handled them? If not, then why do you trust the KJV? It seems to me this is where your line of argumentation ultimate lands.

In your view, we can't trust the translators. We can't trust the books that document the variations. We must see these things for ourselves on the internet. But why should we trust photos on the internet? If it supports the KJV, then we can trust it. If it supports the modern versions, then we can't trust it. You've never demonstrated anything other than that kind of view. What could prove that modern versions are more accurate than the KJV to you?

And if I show you demonstrable numeric problems in the KJV, you have an out of this world story on how it works. Please explain Ahaziah's age issues that I brought up.

Joe you have a wordy statement with no substance.

The translators had no trouble coming up with material to change the New Testament, but what happened to the Old Testament, the Greek Septuagint that was a part of a lot of the Alexandrian texts. Why have they not produced copies of them for us to examine. You have as yet not named one copy that is available in print of the Alexandrian manuscripts, excepting of course that small portion of Sinaticus, that does not look like it belongs to the complete New Testament that it presented. So while you have wordy answers, without substance, where is the copies of the Septuagint manuscripts, the Alexandrinus, the Vaticanus, and all the other Alexandrian texts that gave us many new translations?

[rejoice44]

I don't think changing a word is a bad thing. Cultures change, language changes and if we can have the Bible in our understanding the language should follow our understanding. Of course there is a limit, it should never change doctrinal stuff. I do not think we should idolize the Bible so much that to change one word becomes the worst thing imaginable. Do we worship God or the Bible?

The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is God. The Word was manifested in flesh. God was manifested in the flesh. And yet, thanks to the Alexandrian texts, for which they will not let us see the Old Testament portions, with the exception of the Sinaiticus, which is only a portion of the Old Testament, God manifested in the flesh is now, he, or which was manifested in the flesh. Does that change doctrine? At the least it attacks it.

[TrustGzus]

Joe you have a wordy statement with no substance.

Then read it again.

[Jemand]

You see here is the problem. It seems none of us have a copy of the Septuagint from the Alexandrian texts aside from what little bit is online of the Sinaiticus.

I have such a copy: Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Alfred Rahlfs, Stuttgart, 1935, 2 volumes.

In answer to your question, it came from Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton who used the Vaticanus as his main source for his English translation. The Vaticanus does have that portion of Genesis in it, but accordingly that portion was added in the fifteenth Century to the Vaticanus.

The Codex Vaticanus was written in the fourth century, Gen. 1-46:28 (folios 1-20) are missing, having been lost. They were “replaced” in the 15th century by an unknown transcriber but are not a part of the Codex Vaticanus.

[rejoice44]

Then read it again.

And still not one copy of the Septuagint from the Alexandrian manuscripts to compare with the small portion of Codex Sinaiticus. Where are your multitude of words on this subject?

[TrustGzus]

Joe you have a wordy statement with no substance.

Let me point out some substance.

Norman, what did people do before the internet? None of this stuff was available at all. You could purchase some books and have a picture of the first page of the Gospel of John in the Vaticanus or something like that. But prior to the internet you could get very little glimpses of the manuscripts.

Norman, what did people do before the internet?

Furthermore, why stop at where you stop in the conspiracy thought? Why not push the conspiracy up further. Have you handled any manuscripts? Perhaps what you see on the internet are doctored photos. There is so much software out now to manipulate photos, perhaps all of these men are part of the Satanic conspiracy to destroy the word of God.

How do you know the conspiracy doesn't include doctoring photos?

What does the conspiracy begin and where does it end other than your arbitrary choices to support the KJV and refute all modern versions?

What is your epistemology in regard to what is true about textual evidence and what is not? When can you stop asking one more question to verify a claim?

Do you know which manuscripts were used by Erasmus and Beza and Stephanus? Do you know what Old Testament manuscripts were used for the KJV? Have you handled them? If not, then why do you trust the KJV? It seems to me this is where your line of argumentation ultimate lands.

It seems to me if we need to have such concrete evidence of the Septuagint and other manuscripts, then shouldn't we need the same evidence for the works produced 400 years ago? Show it to me.

In your view, we can't trust the translators. We can't trust the books that document the variations. We must see these things for ourselves on the internet. But why should we trust photos on the internet? If it supports the KJV, then we can trust it. If it supports the modern versions, then we can't trust it. You've never demonstrated anything other than that kind of view. What could prove that modern versions are more accurate than the KJV to you?

It's a fair question. What can make the playing field level with you? What can count against your view? No matter what evidence is brought, you have a spin and a different standard for the KJV than for new versions.

And if I show you demonstrable numeric problems in the KJV, you have an out of this world story on how it works. Please explain Ahaziah's age issues that I brought up.

Explain Ahaziah's age differences.

[rejoice44]

I have such a copy: Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Alfred Rahlfs, Stuttgart, 1935, 2 volumes.

You have a copy of one of the Alexandrian manuscripts, and if so which one, or is this Alfred's interpretation of what belongs in the Septuagint?

The Codex Vaticanus was written in the fourth century, Gen. 1-46:28 (folios 1-20) are missing, having been lost. They were “replaced” in the 15th century by an unknown transcriber but are not a part of the Codex Vaticanus.

You mean, if by chance some one was able to look at the Vatican's Vaticanus 1209, they would see between the pages an inserted portion of the manuscript in Genesis, or there would only be along side the manuscript, such added pages?

[rejoice44]

[QUOTE]

Let me point out some substance.

I would like to see that.

Norman, what did people do before the internet?

No substance here. They wrote on paper.

How do you know the conspiracy doesn't include doctoring photos?

What has doctoring photos have to do with our conversation, other than to add more fuzz.

No substance here.

What is your epistemology in regard to what is true about textual evidence and what is not? When can you stop asking one more question to verify a claim?

No substance here, just fuzz.

It seems to me if we need to have such concrete evidence of the Septuagint and other manuscripts, then shouldn't we need the same evidence for the works produced 400 years ago? Show it to me.

Why not try the Hebrew Bible, they at least didn't have Methusaleh treading water for fourteen years.

No substance.

It's a fair question. What can make the playing field level with you? What can count against your view? No matter what evidence is brought, you have a spin and a different standard for the KJV than for new versions.

If you haven't noticed, I have been asking for evidence of what the Alexandrian texts actually say, in the form of copies. Just tell me where it would be possible to get a copy of some of these Alexandrian manuscripts, which contain both Old and New Testament? The New Testament is available, but the Old Testament seems to be a problem. What is the problem that they are not available?

Explain Ahaziah's age differences.

I will be happy to address that, but you continually trying to drown me in different waters. One subject at a time is all that I am able to keep up with. You can shoot with a scatter gun, or you can use a rifle and take careful aim. I prefer the rifle approach.