Two criticisms —
The King James Version is the result of a political process, namely a King, and
It ignores the Dead Sea Scrolls and other recent finds of scripture.
Featured Old Testament — okay to beat your slave as long as they don’t die in a day or two ? ! ?
- Thread starter Multicolored Lemur
- Start date
For popular or very good threads
The King James Version is the result of a political process, namely a King, and
It ignores the Dead Sea Scrolls and other recent finds of scripture.
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New Living Translation
Fair Treatment of Slaves - “These are the regulations you must present to Israel. “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single...
22 “Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely.<c> If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.”
— New Living Translation
<c> = Or so she has a miscarriage; Hebrew reads so her children come out
— — — — —
Yes, sometimes expert opinion is wrong. But relatively rarely. And usually, on things they're not talking on, instead of the things we are.
Yes, I'm aware this translation is uncertain — either miscarriage or “come out.” But back then, things probably didn't go well for a premature baby other than perhaps very slightly premature.
Then the fact that the husband can demand compensation subject to a judge's approval . . .
Last edited:
Scooter
Well-known member
- Feb 21, 2024
- 735
- 210
Hahaha…the Dead Sea scrolls were undiscovered when the KJV was written. The KJV was translated in 1611. The Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the 1940’s I believe. The scroll of Isaiah discovered in the caves is virtually word for word with the KJV.
BTW, King James had nothing to do with the translation. He assigned the task to 72 (I think) scholars who were experts in Greek and Hebrew. The KJV was an updated version and had minor differences from the Geneva Bible. I’ve heard these claims before about the KJV. I’ve heard King James was gay, and a host of unfounded claims to besmirch the KJV. I stand ready to look at any evidence that the KJV is not worthy it’s standing.
Here’s a link that explains the superiority of the KJV: https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/waite-fourfold1.html
that's exactly my point, man
that the King James ignored the more recent finds.
————-
Do you have a reference about the “scroll of Isaiah”? And word for word is just too much a claim.
Scooter
Well-known member
- Feb 21, 2024
- 735
- 210
How could the KJV ignore something that was still hidden when it was compiled? Claiming the KJV ignored the Dead Sea scrolls is like claiming George Washington ignored the tomb of King Tut.
Here’s a link concerning the Dead Sea scrolls book of Isaiah compared to modern books of Isaiah.
How do the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah compare with today's version?
To what degree do the Dead Sea Scrolls of the book of Isaiah match our version of the book of Isaiah?
judaism.stackexchange.com
