In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal's horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God's might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message.
There is a hymn that is sung in some Churches with the line:
'My Jesus I love Thee, I know Thou art mine, for Thee all the folly of sin I resign'
Although some many never sing, "For Reformed Fundamental King James Only Theology all the follies of the Liberty of being completely and entirely forgiven and made rigtheous in the sight of Holy God in the shed blood of the Son of God, of knowing Him personally in the new birth, I resign that I might be brought into the bondage of men and self-rightteous religous tradition" they sure enough act like it.
It is high time churches rediscover Jesus Christ is indeed a most wonderful Savior, who loves people.
closer reader wrote: You learned how to use a computer, go ahead an learn how to love and read a KJV.
Dear Close Reader, and others who insist on the KJV.
I appreciate your post as it shows something amiss in the KJV camp, an arrogance of Bible translation over the worth of people to Christ.
I have observed a delusion if you will of some KJVers that by insisting others have to use the KJV and shun and reject those who don't (along with those who don't go along with their music, their dress code, what they approve of or not, have a past or skin color they are uncomfortable with, etc.) believe themselve to be holy and better than others.
Along with this is the hypocrisy those who would genuinely use the KJV must themselves carefully define its words into modern English or in many passages it doesn't make sense, while they condemn as evil modern translations which have sought to communicate them accurately, even the NKJV
IMHO some insisting on the KJV and Fundementalism are often not so much concerned with having the best Bible translation, of pleasing Christ, of loving people to a genuine personal faith in Him BUT IN CONTROLING OTHERS
to keep them finding Jesus Christ is better than IFB KJVism
Just another guy wrote: I wonder why would one exhort people to love God and his Word, and implicitly bash the Bible on the other hand. "do you really love God?" and "throw out any Bible other than the KJV Bible! it's certainly trash" (you KJVO types continually repeat) I see swarms of flies around rotted fruit.
I'm sure what is meant is that taking the time to learn the old English, and understand the way the sentence structure, word usage, and yes even things like animal name changes... would prove profitable.
What a blessing it is to know that the words are still going to be the same, and you won't be buying a new copy of the ESV 2011 (or HCSB or NASB or NKJV et all because they keep changing the NA27) to keep up with the changes.
You learned how to use a computer, go ahead an learn how to love and read a KJV.
just some guy wrote: They already have been put to rest, many many times. But the faithless and unbelieving will always lean on a broken stick to their own doom, and stubbornly cling to their own pride. After all they want to be god themselves, and it takes a lot of work to quiet the conscience that was placed in man by The True and Living God. Here is a link to a related story on Sermon Audio, watch the short video. http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=32981 Faith comes by hearing, so read your Bible today. Trust that God is the author and finisher of your faith, and you can trust His Word. Do you really Love God? Spend the time to learn how to read the KJV, explore all the beauty of God's Word and come to Him eager to learn, rather than eager to disprove.
I wonder why would one exhort people to love God and his Word, and implicitly bash the Bible on the other hand. "do you really love God?" and "throw out any Bible other than the KJV Bible! it's certainly trash" (you KJVO types continually repeat)
Re Is. 7:14, Calvin observed that it would be illogical for the passage to refer to an non-virginal young woman's pregnancy, for what value would it have then as a sign? Thus quibbling about synonyms, as this skeptic & Jews do, proves nothing. Where there is any doubt, the context sets the proper sense of the word.
BTW, the NT Gk. word in Matthew is parthenos. Anyone familiar with Athens should recognize it: the Parthenon is where the idol of Athena was housed, & she was supposed to be a virgin.
Many (I would say all but I haven't verified every single one) of the translators who translated the KJV were totally fluent in Hebrew. It wasn't just some second language to them!
And they use Context!
1.The Hebrew word chamad is totally accurately translated covet. Jesus verified this concept too in Matt 5:28
2. Lev 25:9 ā¦ātrumpet of the jubileeā no mistake in the KJV (you prefer horn of the horn? silly)
3. Isa 7:14 KJV has it correct again āVirginā (the LXX Septuagint is known for corruption, KJV translators were wise to accurately and properly translate almah as Virgin in the proper context it was given)
4. Psalm 23, the KJV translators again in precise accuracy catch the proper metaphor and give the proper sense. The whole Bible does declare the Might and Power of God and He IS OUR SHEPHERD, and He covers us with His wings too. Ps 95:7; Joh 10:3-4,16,27
5. We also have brothers and sisters in Christ! Come on Hoffmanā¦ The KJV translation has no problem; your perversion that wants to also ditch the word covet is revealing its fruit.
KJV translators +5 (as always)
Hoffman +0 (nothing nada zilch zero voidā¦ need any more translation to explain totally empty and worthless argument?)
Robert Joyner wrote: Charles H. Spurgeon quoted and argued from many versions including the Catholic, Syriac, and the English Revised Version. He pointed out wrong translations in the King James Version. Spurgeon said, "Do not needlessly amend our Authorized Version. It is faulty in many places, but still is a grand work taking it for all in all Correct where correction must be for truth's sake"
I do not know Dr. Hoffman's credentials, nor why SermonAudio found this article newsworthy. Nevertheless, it seems the NT writers, more often than not, believed the Septuagint to accurately convey God's word, as they quote from it profusely. Paul specifically quotes the tenth commandment in Romans 7:7, and clearly understands it to convey the meaning of the Greek term for "coveting" (epithumia). For my money, I will take Paul's inspired interpretation over that of a writer for the Huffington Post.
Not the Dr. wrote: I believe C. H. Spurgeon was correct when he said that the Authorized Version āwill never be bettered, as I judge, till Christ shall comeā Is there a medical marijuana store in Nebraska?
No but there was a famous gay senior police officer in Lambeth around Spurgeons Tabernacle who believed that people with marijuana should not be arrested. He's married to a man and thinks he is a Evangelical Christian. Does that help?
"In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting."
Taking? Thou shalt not take? One must then assume that means do not take that which does not belong to you. But in that case it's called stealing, already covered by "Thou shalt not steal." Perhaps Mr Hoffman should check in with the rest of the Commandments.
Jim Lincoln wrote: as far as many Protestants are concerned there are only nine effective commandments
Nine for Roman Catholics. And obviously for NASB users.
Ten for those who follow the King James Version of the Word of God - AND every "jot and tittle."
Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of GOD
Isaiah 7:14 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.---NASB
Translates that word, "Virgin" is because Matthew did, and Matthew is just as much a part of the Bible as Isaiah is, and as such the proper translation is Virgin (in spite of the NET's bible's translators remarks, as can be found in the above link for Isaiah 7:14)
jj slater wrote: That's what i took away from the article and video.
That's what I got from it as well, though I do not agree with a couple of his conclusions.
As has been mentioned previously, The similarity of the 10th commandment to a prior commandment makes me think that he is likely overlooking something. With very little Hebrew study under my belt, I can't say for certain that the meaning is "covet" but I don't think the original meaning strays too far from that. Also, when he speaks of the shepherd's imagery, I think of how David had to convince Saul to let him fight Goliath, which does not seem to make sense if Saul would have had the image of a ferocious man in mind when he heard the term "Shepherd".
Hoffman actually claims in accordance with scripture "that the word of God abides forever" as found in 1 Peter 1:25 or for Hoffman as a Jew ? Isaiah 40:8. So Hoffman is not attacking scripture but is highlighting that old interpretation methods used are not 100% full proof. There are new and better ways of interpreting Semitic languages that have come to light in recent years, due to archeological finds, and it has brought to the surface a few minor flaws in translations....emphasis on "translation" the problem is with our understanding not with Scripture itself. We have to study and grow in the Word and this included Hebrew language skills. That's what i took away from the article and video.