Sound Doctrine - singing at Gateway Anabaptist Church House

[karpos]

Sure. But the KJV is a perfectly good translation, so are the ESV, CSB, and a handful of others. The KJV is certainly not the most literal translation. If you like older English - and I do - the KJV really sings, but a lot of people have a harder time understanding KJV English.

I am aware of young's literal translation being somewhat more literal than kjv and that's fine. I dont care for paraphrases or something that might be considered 'a different gospel'. I've heard some sermons from NLT and it says stuff that no other 'translation' says and there is no precedent for...

Here's an example:

2 Chronicles 33:10 NLT The Lord spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they ignored all his warnings. 11 So the Lord sent the commanders of the Assyrian armies, and they took Manasseh prisoner. They put a ring through his nose, bound him in bronze chains, and led him away to Babylon.

2 Chronicles 33:10 KJV And the Lord spake to Manasseh, and to his people: but they would not hearken.

11 Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon.

2 Chronicles 33:10 JPS1917 And the LORD spoke to Manasseh, and to his people; but they gave no heed. 11 Wherefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon.

notice the text about putting a ring in his nose. No other translation that I'm aware of says that and bible commentaries pre-NLT say nothing of the sort, so I reject the 'ring in the nose' text...

I do not count 'dynamic equivalence' or whatever they call it as a valid translation. I think this whole anti-KJV stuff is kind of like serving good food on a dirty plate and wondering why people lose their appetite.

[ohio jones]

Or prefers reading the original text, for that matter.

A lot of people would prefer reading the original text, but the best we have is a synthesis of the known manuscripts.

[Bootstrap]

Or prefers reading the original text, for that matter.

A lot of people would prefer reading the original text, but the best we have is a synthesis of the known manuscripts.

Good point ;->

[Bootstrap]

notice the text about putting a ring in his nose. No other translation that I'm aware of says that and bible commentaries pre-NLT say nothing of the sort, so I reject the 'ring in the nose' text...

The first place I looked was the Keil & Delitsch commentary, a well-respected commentary from the 1800s:

As Manasseh would not hear the words of the prophets, the Lord brought upon him the captains of the host of the king of Assyria. These “took him with hooks, and bound him with double chains of brass, and brought him to Babylon.” בחוחים ילכּדוּ signifies neither, they took him prisoner in thorns (hid in the thorns), nor in a place called Chochim (which is not elsewhere found), but they took him with hooks. חוח denotes the hook or ring which was drawn through the gills of large fish when taken (Job 41:2), and is synonymous with חח (2 Kings 19:28; Ezekiel 19:4), a ring which was passed through the noses of wild beasts to subdue and lead them. The expression is figurative, as in the passages quoted from the prophets. Manasseh is represented as an unmanageable beast, which the Assyrian generals took and subdued by a ring in the nose. The figurative expression is explained by the succeeding clause: they bound him with double chains. נחשׁתּים are double fetters of brass, with which the feet of prisoners were bound (2 Samuel 3:34; Judges 16:21; 2 Chronicles 36:6, etc.).

In the early 1900s, Bullinger wrote this:

among the thorns = with hooks, or rings. A monument has been found showing this king Esar-haddon leading two captives with hooks or rings through their lips. And in an inscription he says: "I transported (from Syria) into Assyria men and women innumerable . . . I counted among the vassals of my realm twelve kings of Syria, beyond the mountains, Balou king of Tyre, Manasseh king of Judah".

OK, so let's look that word up in Brown-Driver-Briggs, the standard lexicon for Hebrew for many years, first published in 1906:

חוֹחַ

n.m. 1. brier, bramble. 2. hook, ring, fetter. 1. a. brier, bramble (allegory of Jehoash); coll., sign of desolation; in simile of fool's parable; briers = thickets as hiding-places; v. sub III ‎‏חרר‎. 2. late, a. hook or ring, in jaw of crocodile c. ‎‏תִּקֹּב‎; of captive.

I don't know much about Hebrew and haven't studied this question, but the notion that this was a hook certainly goes back to the 1800s. And I wouldn't want to bet my soul on whether the text means hook (JPS, ESV, LEB, CSB) or ring (NLT) or thorn (KJV). There may be a good reason that most literal translations go with hook.

I agree with your general observation that the NLT is not as literal as some, there might be better examples.

[karpos]

I don't know much about Hebrew and haven't studied this question, but the notion that this was a hook certainly goes back to the 1800s. And I wouldn't want to bet my soul on whether the text means hook or ring.

I agree with your general observation that the NLT is not as literal as some, there might be better examples.

I think in many places people are _trying_ to be different and someone who is sincerely trying to figure out how God wants them to leave can be confused and discouraged by 10 different translations saying 5 or 6 different things.

something literal and then strongs has worked well for me. I tend to look at JPS 1917 and then Brendon's LXX for the old testament if something in the KJV is confusing. Ultimately language is passed from one generation to the next, so I consider oral tradition as one of the best ways to discern meaning. A sizable number of "translations" these days are rendered in such a way that makes gender and such hard to discern...

I think the modern practice some take in removing "he" and "she" and such makes stuff harder to understand than "thee and thine"...

I used that particular example because I heard a preacher say something about a ring in the nose during a sermon and the NLT was the only one that said that.

I can assume that either the ring in the nose is wrong or everyone else is wrong. If I come to the conclusion that I am right and everyone else is wrong and has been for thousands of years, I usually am wrong...A little bit of humility and logic would suggest otherwise.

[Bootstrap]

I can assume that either the ring in the nose is wrong or everyone else is wrong. If I come to the conclusion that I am right and everyone else is wrong and has been for thousands of years, I usually am wrong...A little bit of humility and logic would suggest otherwise.

But the King James says "among the thorns", and pretty much every literal translation I trust says "with hooks" - even the New King James Version. Whether it was a hook in the nose or a ring in the nose seems less significant than whether he was found among thorns or led away with something in his nose.

And the King James Bible has not been around for "thousands of years", it was written in 1611 because King James wanted a new translation to replace the Geneva Bible. King James isn't exactly the most Christian man in history, I don't know why this translation is given special status.

Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon.

Therefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon.

Therefore the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria, who captured Manasseh with hooks and bound him with chains of bronze and brought him to Babylon.

Therefore the Lord brought the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze chains and took him to Babylon.

So he brought against them the military commanders of the king of Assyria. They captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze shackles, and took him to Babylon.

So Yahweh brought the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria upon them, and they took Manasseh captive with hooks, and they bound him with bronze fetters and brought him to Babylon.

[karpos]

[quote="Bootstrap"]

And the King James Bible has not been around for "thousands of years", it was written in 1611 because King James wanted a new translation to replace the Geneva Bible. King James isn't exactly the most Christian man in history, I don't know why this translation is given special status.

I am referring to commentary on the original texts. Sorry to be confusing. A ring in the nose is not in any commentary on hebrew texts or on the LXX that I'm aware of in antiquity.

As far as why a new translation was undertaken, there is much argument about motivations, but the amount of inflammatory commentary in John Calvin's Geneva translation was fairly sure to prove controversial. I have a facsimile of Calvin's geneva in my library and was shocked at much of the commentary in there. I dont think criticizing the government is appropriate in the side notes and margins of any translation...

[Bootstrap]

I am referring to commentary on the original texts. Sorry to be confusing. A ring in the nose is not in any commentary on hebrew texts or on the LXX that I'm aware of in antiquity.

Which ones have you looked at? Which ancient commentaries do you recommend for Old Testament study?

The LXX does not suggest that he was caught among thorns, which is what the KJV says. Do you happen to know where else that interpretation is found in texts or commentary before the KJV?

Luther's translation (1545) doesn't say anything about finding him in the thorns.

Darum ließ der HERR über sie kommen die Fürsten des Heeres des Königs von Assyrien, die nahmen Manasse gefangen mit Fesseln und banden ihn mit Ketten und brachten ihn gen Babel.

[karpos]

I am referring to commentary on the original texts. Sorry to be confusing. A ring in the nose is not in any commentary on hebrew texts or on the LXX that I'm aware of in antiquity.

Which ones have you looked at? Which ancient commentaries do you recommend for Old Testament study?

The LXX does not suggest that he was caught among thorns, which is what the KJV says. Do you happen to know where else that interpretation is found in texts or commentary before the KJV?

Luther's translation (1545) doesn't say anything about finding him in the thorns.

Darum ließ der HERR über sie kommen die Fürsten des Heeres des Königs von Assyrien, die nahmen Manasse gefangen mit Fesseln und banden ihn mit Ketten und brachten ihn gen Babel.

A substantial amount of commentary can be found in Stone Edition Tanakh (Jewish old testament), Stone chumash (five books of moses + rabbinic commentary), Talmud Bavli, Midrash Rabbah to name a few. A wealth of commentary on every verse of the old testament exists in Jewish sources. I dont recall any of them saying anything about putting a ring in his nose so I reject that.


http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?t ... 2Chr&ch=33
2 Chronicles 33:10-11 from LXX
10 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος ἐπὶ Μανασση καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐπήκουσαν
Yahweh spoke to Manasseh, and to his people; but they gave no heed.

11 καὶ ἤγαγεν κύριος ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄρχοντας τῆς δυνάμεως βασιλέως Ασσουρ καὶ κατέλαβον τὸν Μανασση ἐν δεσμοῖς καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸν ἐν πέδαις καὶ ἤγαγον εἰς Βαβυλῶνα
Therefore Yahweh brought on them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh in chains, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon.

None of the LXX translations or commentaries say anything about a ring in the nose either.

I dont see 'thorns' in other online translations. I have a new testament hexapla at home but not one from the old testament.
I'll have to look at some of the facsimiles when I get back home and see if I see that in 1500s/1600s translations or not.

I just remember a minister talking about a ring in Manasseh's nose during a sermon and I researched it.

[Hats Off]

Okay, thank you to both ohio jones and Judas Maccabeus for the clarification.

In order to be transparent, I should confess that I'm KJV-only, though don't agree with everything they believe or say. I don't want anyone to be afraid of me just because I am KJV only. If anyone wants to discuss that topic, I, or someone, can start a new thread. I'd like to keep this one about worshipping God.

Anyway, it might be useful for me to mention, I am not promoting KJV-only in this thread. I posted the video because I like the music and find that it helps me focus on God and be thankful to him. Despite disagreements some may have with the church in the video, I hope the music will still be a blessing here.

Perhaps we could have this discussion moved to a new thread so we could keep this one as lily requested. And, lily of the desert, there is a separate thread for discussing songs and music called Hymn Share.