Literal 6 days?

[BerhaneSelassie]

A certain controversial Catholic apologist, who does believe in 7 -24 hour days, explain the vegetation objection the following:

This objection can be answered by focusing on the particular words used in Genesis 2 that are not used in Genesis 1. Genesis 2:5 refers to the “shrub” (x;yfi) of the field, but this word does not appear in Genesis 1:11-12 or 1:29-30. Genesis 1:11-12 refers to the “herb” (bf,[e) and the “tree producing fruit” (yrIP. hf,[). Hence, the first distinction between Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:5 is that the former indicates only two kinds of vegetation, whereas Genesis 2:5 adds a third kind. Apparently, the two plants of Genesis 1:11-12 served as food for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:29-30.

There is a second distinction. Genesis 2:5 specifies that “not every herb of the field had yet sprung up,” which would mean there were some that had sprung up on the third day of creation, and some which sprung up on the after the sixth day of creation.

There is a third distinction. Genesis 2:5 says the “shrubs” and “herbs” had not yet produced tsemach (xm’c.yI), contrasting with dashah (av,D,) of Genesis 1:11-12. The former refers to a budding for the next generation, while the latter refers to an original sprouting of the first generation of fruits. Hence, Adam and Eve’s food, on the first day of their creation, was the original fruit of the two plants in Genesis 1:11-12, while the “shrubs” and the budding plants would have to wait until the appropriate time.

[/quote]

 

[PeterK]

Beth,
Who’s the apologist?
Private message me if for some reason you don’t want to tell me in the forum.

While I don’t promote the literal belief of every detail in the creation narrative, I do promote the study of every detail in the creation narrative.

I have my own thoughts on the ‘vegetation’ terms used in the Hebrew and what they add up to, but time doesn’t permit me to respond appropriately at the moment. Also, people tend to get kinda excited about the early chapters of Genesis, so one wants to respect that and make sure the ideas they present are very clear.

Thanks,
Pete

 

[erikd]

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

Gen 1:19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

God created the sun, moon and stars to shine on the earth.

To better understand TIME, God has created a system in which signs and seasons mark the passage of TIME.

It is a literal seven days, and on the fourth day, God set up a system in which signs and seasons mark that passage of TIME, so we can track time, this is why the bible gives so many dates, and this is why those dates are important, After careful study the dates start to have meaning.

for example

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This date is May 21, 4990 BC

Gen 8:14 And in the second month, on the twenty seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.

This day is May 4989 BC: 2nd month, 27th day. 1 year, 10 days later. Dry earth.

Now are these dates arbitrary, or did God put them in there for a reason.

This is what you are saying:
The concept of the week most probably comes later in the development of civilization where the month was more accurately understood as coming in cycles of four quarters - each quarter being approximately 7 days. But to look at God revealing to Adam the concept of time as being organized into hours - days - weeks - months and years **does seem to be a little bit odd to **me

So because of your lack of understanding, God seems odd to you. Well who are you to say that, and you have no basis for your teaching here right? You are guessing, you are trying to explain God to make Him fit your idea. I don’t understand why a person would do that, when instead of trying to explain God, falsely might i add, you should be in His word trying to understand God, in His words in His context.

In all humility, I apologize if I sound to straight forward here, not my intention to be rude. Just trying to enlighten those who would listen.

God bless,

Hi EnterCanaan, just wondering if those dates are according to the Latin Vulgate (which is the same as the KJV and other popular translations when it pertains to numbers signifying seasons and or dates) or according to the Septuagint, which usually includes much higher numbers? Remember that the Septuagint is the Bible (though it wasn’t called that at the time) that Jesus used. Do you have a reference for the difference between the Septuagint that Jesus used and the Bible you use today? I believe that if you look into it, you might find that your dates do not match up as well as you believe they do.

This brings me to my other question which is on what authority you are speaking? On your own? If you answer that your authority is the Scripture, then my next question would be “what about the authority of the Septuagint which includes different years?” and “what about someone else’s translation and calculation of the numbers which may come out differently than yours, is it automatically wrong or is it possible that your numbers are not infallibly translated?”

At the risk of myself also sounding arrogant, I just wanted to warn you of the dangers of self-Biblical translation. Many have made the mistake and as a result we have the Mormons, the Jehova’s Witnesses, etc. They also believed that they were right, and the Witnesses also were good at counting numbers, though they took their number counting a little too far and predicted events which did not happen (at least 5 times through history). No arrogance on my part, just pointing out the obvious.

I also have a great respect for the study of Scripture, as I’ve been studying Scripture for over 30 years. Many people throughout history have created historical chronological calendars, claiming to be correct, and many have disagreed with each other’s findings. Sometimes due to the use of different translations and sometimes due to mistinterpretations. But perhaps the biggest reason is the one I stated in the OP (which by the way I still have not seen you tackle the inconsistencies which exist if one takes chapters 1 and 2 literally) which is that the Bible does not give us a text book chronological account of the history of the world, but rather It focuses on the Creator and the purpose of the creation.

 

[EnterCanaan]

The KJV is based off of the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek, and not taken from pre-existing Latin translations. The KJV is the most accurate bible around, because it goes to the source documents, or what was considered source at the time, the oldest manuscript available, and was translated letter for letter. Letter for letter.

The dates in the old testament are accurate as they are from the word of God and not man, they have not been changed, if they have, then this is because of a translation error which was based on a previous translation, and like we learned, the KJV is not based on any translation, but the oldest available manuscripts. Thus it is much more accurate than anything else. The words are not modernized the prose is the way God spoke it, and the language is harmony with the rest of the bible.

The Jewish Sacred Calendar used throughout the Old Testament is based on a year with 354 days; in which the first month is April and the twelfth month is March. The New Testament introduced the Julian Calendar, in which our year is 365 days. The Jewish Sacred Calendar marks the appropriate dates for celebrating the Jewish Feasts which correspond with Biblical and Spiritual events. This is Gods proof as He accurately gives the timeline and future timeline for Mankind utilizing events which always correspond with the same dates. Thus an accurate timeline can be established and extrapolated.

These dates can be plugged right into our calendar now, that is the way God did it. I cannot hazzard a guess as to why it fits, yet it does.

The biblical timeline can be established from just using the bible, thus, the bible IS a textbook of Chronologial events, not to mention the order in which the books are arranged are chronilogical to a very big extent. From Genesis to Revelation the books are arranged by the date written for the most part.

One proof I will give you is the date of the death of King Solomon and the division of the kingdoms of Israel. This has been established even by secular accounts to be 931 BC. This is written in many places and is a fact.

I have arrived perfectly at this date using the bible, all the dates fit to the day month year and in the context of the verse the date is written in, it is thus explaining what event happened during said date. How you can say it is not a chronoligal anything or timeline anything is beyond fathomable.

So just by using my bible, I have established the death of King Solomon as the year 931 BC and this can be verified by any number of sources, Yet i used no other source except the bible. This is just one of the proofs God gives. As I was able to reach this date perfectly with no misinformation, no gaps, no errors, no pluggin in false fictional dates, no rounding of numbers, PERFECT. HARMONY. This proves that EVERY OTHER DATE is accurate, as you can only reach 931 BC if your calculations are correct.

If you wish to see my timeline i spent a year working on, search for my thread, its on the first page, called THE BIBLICAL TIMELINE, you can download it.

use your calculator to add and subtract EVERTHING to reach the very end. and it all fits PERFECTLY.

What is my authority? I have the same authority as you, the word of God, however the difference is that i trust implicatly, everythng in the bible, IT is literal, IT is spiritual. thus you have a definition of a parable, an earthly story, which is the literal earthly events, such as the six days of creation, with a spiritual meaning, in other words, the bible is a parable, with earthly language because that is our language, and those stories, which are literal and true, every single one of em, convey a spiritual message, the spiritual message is always going to point to Christ, every single time.

How can i presume, I don’t know, yet the fact of the matter is that what i say can be found in the bible, no need to search anywhere else for any other document, and that what i have been saying is in harmony with the rest of the bible. Understand the harmony, and you begin to undersand the whole bible, and the truth can be discerned.

continue in the word of God, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

God bless

 

[thistle]

The KJV is based off of the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek, and not taken from pre-existing Latin translations. The KJV is the most accurate bible around, because it goes to the source documents, or what was considered source at the time, the oldest manuscript available, and was translated letter for letter. Letter for letter.

The dates in the old testament are accurate as they are from the word of God and not man, they have not been changed, if they have, then this is because of a translation error which was based on a previous translation, and like we learned, the KJV is not based on any translation, but the oldest available manuscripts. Thus it is much more accurate than anything else. The words are not modernized the prose is the way God spoke it, and the language is harmony with the rest of the bible.

The Jewish Sacred Calendar used throughout the Old Testament is based on a year with 354 days; in which the first month is April and the twelfth month is March. The New Testament introduced the Julian Calendar, in which our year is 365 days. The Jewish Sacred Calendar marks the appropriate dates for celebrating the Jewish Feasts which correspond with Biblical and Spiritual events. This is Gods proof as He accurately gives the timeline and future timeline for Mankind utilizing events which always correspond with the same dates. Thus an accurate timeline can be established and extrapolated.

These dates can be plugged right into our calendar now, that is the way God did it. I cannot hazzard a guess as to why it fits, yet it does.

The biblical timeline can be established from just using the bible, thus, the bible IS a textbook of Chronologial events, not to mention the order in which the books are arranged are chronilogical to a very big extent. From Genesis to Revelation the books are arranged by the date written for the most part.

One proof I will give you is the date of the death of King Solomon and the division of the kingdoms of Israel. This has been established even by secular accounts to be 931 BC. This is written in many places and is a fact.

I have arrived perfectly at this date using the bible, all the dates fit to the day month year and in the context of the verse the date is written in, it is thus explaining what event happened during said date. How you can say it is not a chronoligal anything or timeline anything is beyond fathomable.

So just by using my bible, I have established the death of King Solomon as the year 931 BC and this can be verified by any number of sources, Yet i used no other source except the bible. This is just one of the proofs God gives. As I was able to reach this date perfectly with no misinformation, no gaps, no errors, no pluggin in false fictional dates, no rounding of numbers, PERFECT. HARMONY. This proves that EVERY OTHER DATE is accurate, as you can only reach 931 BC if your calculations are correct.

If you wish to see my timeline i spent a year working on, search for my thread, its on the first page, called THE BIBLICAL TIMELINE, you can download it.

use your calculator to add and subtract EVERTHING to reach the very end. and it all fits PERFECTLY.

What is my authority? I have the same authority as you, the word of God, however the difference is that i trust implicatly, everythng in the bible, IT is literal, IT is spiritual. thus you have a definition of a parable, an earthly story, which is the literal earthly events, such as the six days of creation, with a spiritual meaning, in other words, the bible is a parable, with earthly language because that is our language, and those stories, which are literal and true, every single one of em, convey a spiritual message, the spiritual message is always going to point to Christ, every single time.

How can i presume, I don’t know, yet the fact of the matter is that what i say can be found in the bible, no need to search anywhere else for any other document, and that what i have been saying is in harmony with the rest of the bible. Understand the harmony, and you begin to undersand the whole bible, and the truth can be discerned.

continue in the word of God, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

God bless

So you are saying that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days?
I guess then you believe God rested on the 7th day? Why would God need a rest?

 

[PeterK]

Remember that the Septuagint is the Bible (though it wasn’t called that at the time) that Jesus used.

Eric,
Not necessarily…
In Luke 4, we read, “He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. …”

If I had to bet I’d say the Jewish synagogues used Hebrew scriptures and that Jesus was probably reading the Isaiah scroll written in Hebrew in the above episode.

However, in Luke’s relating of the episode, the quote of what Jesus actually reads in the Isaiah scroll lines up with the Septuagint and not the Hebrew. This is because Luke is Greek and uses Greek sources. That Luke prefers the Greek OT or is perhaps limited to understanding only the Greek OT does not make a case that the Septuagint was the preferred scriptural text of Jesus himself.

It is also not impossible that smaller synagogues used whatever scrolls were available - including Greek ones. Hebrew, most assuredly, would have been preferred as it was in use in the temple.

Just a thought.

Peter K

 

[MonFrere]

So because of your lack of understanding, God seems odd to you.

I did not say that God acted oddly. I said that it seems odd to me that we have the creation of Adam and you seem to have the odd idea that Genesis 1-2 was God’s first sermon to Adam; and that that sermon was concerned with science. Adam didn’t write the creation narrative. I’ve not studied where scholars think Moses got the creation narratives he used in the 2 creation accounts of Genesis. I think is very odd that God would think it important enough to give Adam a science lesson instead of help him understand the relationship between who He was and who Adam was. I don’t think my bringing up the fact that God has allowed man to discover the world and the universe on his own down through history should be construed to mean I think God is odd. It’s simply that God is concerned with salvation, something man cannot find out without revelation. Man doesn’t need revelation to find out about the world and the universe – he has done quite well using the abilities that come with being created in the image of God.

This wooden literalism drove Jesus to great frustration when dealing with the disciples. He admonished the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees – the disciples took this literally. They were wrong. Jesus, a master teacher, would constantly challenge his disciples to see beyond the earthy, the literal. Jesus was very theological, very philosophical, and was interested in teaching the truth BEYOND the literal. Jesus healed the blind to demonstrate the blindness in the unbelieving. Bartimaeus SAW Jesus BEFORE he could physically see. I think in like manner we don’t SEE what’s in the creation account reading it with a wooden literalism. The same God that created the worlds came to this earth in the person of Jesus Christ, so I find it entirely consistent that the same teaching patterns be found by that same God.

Just trying to enlighten those who would listen.

I honestly didn’t find any light in your statements; just someone trying to figure out the Bible on his own - without the light of revelation given to Christ’s Church, illuminated by the promised the Holy Spirit for the purpose of being brought into the truth - which essentially is Jesus Himself. As He said of Himself - I am the way, the truth, the life.

MonFrere

 

[Luke65]

We are not required to believe that the creation period was 6 days comprising 24 hours each day.

So you are saying that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days?
I guess then you believe God rested on the 7th day? Why would God need a rest?

Do you have any intelligent or relevant contributions to make?

 

[EnterCanaan]

So you are saying that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days?
I guess then you believe God rested on the 7th day? Why would God need a rest?

The seventh day rest doesn’t mean God sat under a tree and took a nap, It means that God had finished ALL OF HIS WORK. Seven is a spiritual number that means completion. The seventh day was the completion of all of Gods work.

Because from before the foundations of the earth, there was the Lamb slain, who shed His blood, who’s soul went to Hell, and who was resurrected and given glory, and that Lamb is Christ. All of this happened before the world was ever formed. And Christ SANCTIFIED His Chosen in His blood. That is the meaning of predestination, which is biblical. So He died for our sins, for every human being who will ever lived and who is to be chosen by God. Notice the caveat, this doesnt mean every human being who will ever live, because then there would be no chosen of God and everybody would be without sin, making the death of the Lamb a lie. But all those whom He died for, that is the everybody in question. And He died for all of those people. He died for their sins even before the earth was created. Then the earth was created, and the seventh day was the completion of His work. So He rested.

The reason why we are not to work on the sabbath, which is an old Testament ceremonial Law that does not apply to us anymore, yet still teaches a valuable lesson about work, is that we are not saved by our works. See how this all connects. We will never be saved by anything WE DO. Even faith is work as we read in Hebrews:

Hebrews 11:1
Now **faith is **the **substance **of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Substance implies that work was done, and we are not saved by our work. All the work was done by Christ, as we just learned before the foundation of the earth, which is how all of this fits so perfectly. All the work is done, and so the faith that leads to GOOD WORKS, is the faith that Christ has in you, because you are one of them who He died for, as we learned, the predestined. As you read the word of God, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, Christ applies the word to your heart, and so as a result of this, you start to have faith and believing, but not because you did it, because it is a result of God in you. So that is why just saying I have faith and I believe is as NOTHING, because those are same word, one is a noun and one is a verb, and we learned that they have substance, and substance implies work, and we are not saved by work. The seventh day sabbath was a parable, a picture pointing to all of this. To Christ, as all parables do.

God bless

 

[erikd]

The KJV is based off of the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek, and not taken from pre-existing Latin translations. The KJV is the most accurate bible around, because it goes to the source documents, or what was considered source at the time, the oldest manuscript available, and was translated letter for letter. Letter for letter.

Actually this is a myth, though please don’t take my word for it. The Book of Revelations was taken partially from the Latin Vulgate as it was not available through the Textus Receptus, which was used almost entirely for the KJV New Testament translation. What wasn’t available was taken from St. Jerome’s (Catholic) Latin Vulgate. Also, the Textus Receptus, which again is the KJV’s New Testament translation was written by a Catholic theologian named Erasmus around the year 1516. The original KJV was published in 1611, so that’s hardly an old manuscript. Also, the Textus Receptus includes an addition to the Lord’s Prayer. While that addition was part of the Catholic Liturgy for many centuries before, it was not part of any of the original writings, and therefore not part of Scripture. Due to the addition by Erasmus, many protestants have added this addition to the Lord’s Prayer as part of Scripture, when in fact it is not. As far as the Old Testament, the more modern versions of the KJV such as the NKJV or the Updated KJV fail to mention that portions of the Deuterocanonical writings were found at the caves in Qumran, showing that the ancient Hebrews did in fact read from more than the 66 Books presented in most protestant Bibles today. Of course, the original KJV did include the deuterocanonical Books, as they had since the fourth century been considered part of the universal canon of Scripture. I don’t mean to get off topic, but you raised this issue and, with all due respect, your facts were incorrect.

The dates in the old testament are accurate as they are from the word of God and not man, they have not been changed, if they have, then this is because of a translation error which was based on a previous translation, and like we learned, the KJV is not based on any translation, but the oldest available manuscripts. Thus it is much more accurate than anything else. The words are not modernized the prose is the way God spoke it, and the language is harmony with the rest of the bible.

I understand your point of view, but that’s all that is since the facts dispute your viewpoint. I again have to ask why is there a difference between the Bible you currently use and the Bible the Apostles used. After all, there is a large difference in the years mentioned between the Septuagint (The Apostles Bible) and modern versions of the Bible. Using your logic, the Apostles, and perhaps Jesus Himself, would have had wrong information and would have been unable to create the calendar you created, because their information was faulty, if they did in fact read from the Septuagint (which again is called the Apostles’ Bible). There seems to be a fundamental disconnect since the two versions of the Old Testament do not agree with one another, and one of them was used by God Himself!

Also, I am still hoping that you can tackle the OP and explain the inconsistencies in the first two chapters of Genesis. If one believes in six literal days, one must be able to explain inconsistencies in the accounts of Genesis, since we know the Bible to be an inerrant Book that could not possibly contradict its own stories. I look forward to your comments on these issues.

 

[erikd]

Eric,
Not necessarily…
In Luke 4, we read, “He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. …”

If I had to bet I’d say the Jewish synagogues used Hebrew scriptures and that Jesus was probably reading the Isaiah scroll written in Hebrew in the above episode.

However, in Luke’s relating of the episode, the quote of what Jesus actually reads in the Isaiah scroll lines up with the Septuagint and not the Hebrew. This is because Luke is Greek and uses Greek sources. That Luke prefers the Greek OT or is perhaps limited to understanding only the Greek OT does not make a case that the Septuagint was the preferred scriptural text of Jesus himself.

It is also not impossible that smaller synagogues used whatever scrolls were available - including Greek ones. Hebrew, most assuredly, would have been preferred as it was in use in the temple.

Just a thought.

Peter K

Great point, Peter, which makes me wonder how the original Hebrew scroll would have read the numbers presented by EnterCanaan as opposed to the Septuagint translation, and how those numbers would compare to the current translations, which started with St. Jerome’s Vulgate. Since the Septuagint was translated between the third and first centuries BC, and Jesus read from one of those scrolls in the first century AD, I would suppose that if Jesus was having this conversation with us, His numbers would match the Septuagint numbers, though this of course is pure speculation. Perhaps this is where a Hebrew scholar like Fr. Mitch Pacwa would be helpful.

 

[erikd]

The seventh day rest doesn’t mean God sat under a tree and took a nap, It means that God had finished ALL OF HIS WORK.

And yet God was still working through the Holy Spirit and through His Beloved Son:

*17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” *
St. John 5:17

Substance implies that work was done, and we are not saved by our work.

*24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. *
St. James 2:24

I took that one out of your own Bible (the King James version). Now, can we stick to the OP topic? I’d still like to see your analysis of the differing facts in the first two chapters of Genesis. I’m looking forward to your reply on the OP.

 

[fultonfish]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the English language didn’t come around until much later.

So, in discussing the six days, we need to revert to Hebrew text of Genesis. [Learning Hebrew is on my list of things to do. There are radio commercials for places that will teach you Hebrew; I wonder what their reaction would be if a Catholic strolled in.]

Second, at the time of creation, the idea of a “day” didn’t exist either.

[A day is one spin of the planet Earth. If you want to get cute, you can talk in terms of some atomic vibration like they use for atomic clocks.]

So, would someone kindly post the Hebrew.

 

[erikd]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the English language didn’t come around until much later.

So, in discussing the six days, we need to revert to Hebrew text of Genesis. [Learning Hebrew is on my list of things to do. There are radio commercials for places that will teach you Hebrew; I wonder what their reaction would be if a Catholic strolled in.]

Second, at the time of creation, the idea of a “day” didn’t exist either.

[A day is one spin of the planet Earth. If you want to get cute, you can talk in terms of some atomic vibration like they use for atomic clocks.]

So, would someone kindly post the Hebrew.

mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

 

[erikd]

The dates in the old testament are accurate as they are from the word of God and not man

EnterCanaan, I understand that this may be new information and I don’t want to overwhelm you. I understand that you feel very strongly about your timeline and I respect your opinion. To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here’s a sample. The attached excel spread sheet gives you the dates according to the Vulgate timeline (which is the same as most modern Catholic and protestant timelines) as opposed to the Septuagint (the Apostles’ Bible) timeline of events leading up to the flood. This covers all ten generations between Adam and Noah, of which there is no dispute between any Biblical translations. Hope this helps to clear up the confusion.

 

[thistle]

Do you have any intelligent or relevant contributions to make?

I guess you haven’t read the forum rules about personal attacks!
I would question the stupidity of your remarks but I wouldn’t want to bring myself down to your level and also break the rules!

 

[erikd]

Hi Thistle and Luke65, I’m hoping that you guys can help all of us understand the answers to some of the questions we’ve proposed on this thread. I think they’re interesting and I believe that you guys might have a significant amount of information to add. Looking forward to it.

 

[patrick457]

The KJV is based off of the original manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek, and not taken from pre-existing Latin translations. The KJV is the most accurate bible around, because it goes to the source documents, or what was considered source at the time, the oldest manuscript available, and was translated letter for letter. Letter for letter.

The dates in the old testament are accurate as they are from the word of God and not man, they have not been changed, if they have, then this is because of a translation error which was based on a previous translation, and like we learned, the KJV is not based on any translation, but the oldest available manuscripts. Thus it is much more accurate than anything else. The words are not modernized the prose is the way God spoke it, and the language is harmony with the rest of the bible.

Nitpicking here, but if by “accurate” you mean extremely literal, then I won’t really award the honor of to the Authorized Version - though it is indeed one of the formal equivalence Bibles out there. There are a few instances where the translators ‘tinkered’ the text a bit so it sounds more natural in English - which is very much what the other translators often do (what I do like about these older translations is how they clearly show the distinction between second-person singular, during which “thou” or “thee” is used, and the second-person plural, during which “you” or “ye” is employed). It’s a shame that many editions of the AV don’t have any footnotes, really*; some editions I’ve seen have footnotes that give a more literal translation of the Hebrew, as well as some other possible renditions of the passage. From wikipedia:

Like Tyndale’s translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; while two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently); but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word equivalence…

…In obedience to their instructions, the translators provided no marginal interpretation of the text; but in some 8,500 places a marginal note offers an alternative English wording. The majority of these notes offer a more literal rendering of the original (introduced as “Heb”, “Chal”, “Gr” or “Lat”), but others indicate a variant reading of the source text (introduced by “or”). Some of the annotated variants derive from alternative editions in the original languages, or from variant forms quoted in the fathers; but more commonly they indicate a difference between the original language reading, and that in the translators’ preferred recent Latin versions; Tremellius for the Old Testament, Junius for the Apocrypha, and Beza for the New Testament. A few more extensive notes clarify Biblical names, units of measurement or currency; and in a very few places (e.g. Luke 17:36) record that a verse is absent from most Greek manuscripts. Modern reprintings rarely reproduce these annotated variants - although they are to be found in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. In addition, there were originally some 9,000 scriptural cross-references, in which one text was related to another. Such cross-references had long been common in Latin bibles, and most of those in the Authorized Version were copied unaltered from this Latin tradition; and consequently the early editions of the KJV retain many Vulgate verse references - e.g. in the numbering of the Psalms. At the head of each chapter, the translators provided a short précis of its contents, with verse numbers; these are rarely included in complete form in modern editions…

…For their Old Testament, the translators worked from editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5); but adjusted the text in a few places to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had tended to attach a Christological interpretation; as, for example, the reading “They pierced my hands and my feet” in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes’ reading of the Hebrew “like lions [they maul] my hands and feet”). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text; by contrast with earlier versions, which had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places.

(Continued next post)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza; which also present Beza’s Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus’s edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which versions were extensively referred to - as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza’s Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop’s Bible and other earlier English translations. In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot; but in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version – which in these readings derives directly from the Vulgate. For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads “one fold” (as did the Bishops’ Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate “unum ovile”; whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, “one flocke” (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; but still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale’s translation.

Unlike the rest of the Bible, the translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes. From these it can determined that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint – primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in the Antwerp Polyglot – but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to Junius’s Latin translation. The translators record references to the Sixtine Septuagint of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209; and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition of Aldus Manutius. They had, however, no Greek texts for 2 Esdras, or for the Prayer of Manasses, and Scrivener found that they here used an unidentified Latin manuscript.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those which – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them. In addition to all previous English versions, including the Douay-Rheims Bible, they also consulted contemporary vernacular translations in Spanish, French, Italian and German. They also made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient Syriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573.

The translators took the Bishop’s Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop’s Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible, varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois’s notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of sources and versions, including explictly both Henry Savile’s 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom, and also the Rheims New Testament; which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.

If you want a very literally translated Bible, then either get an interlinear or use Young’s Literal Translation. THAT is one of the Bibles out there translated “letter-by-letter” - that translation even retains the original tenses and most of the original word order better than the AV (and apparently it also uses a source text similar to that of the AV’s!).

*This is one of the reasons I think it is a good thing that the AV is on perpetual crown copyright in the UK; at least there, you will get a more complete AV than the mutilated ones published in other countries.

 

[EnterCanaan]

EnterCanaan, I understand that this may be new information and I don’t want to overwhelm you. I understand that you feel very strongly about your timeline and I respect your opinion. To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here’s a sample. The attached excel spread sheet gives you the dates according to the Vulgate timeline (which is the same as most modern Catholic and protestant timelines) as opposed to the Septuagint (the Apostles’ Bible) timeline of events leading up to the flood. This covers all ten generations between Adam and Noah, of which there is no dispute between any Biblical translations. Hope this helps to clear up the confusion.

First, my King James bible is an accurate bible, the King James bible was translated using the oldest available manuscripts around. I dont understand where the disconnect is, but your information is propaganda against it. It used the oldest available Hebrew and Greek around, period. Whatever the oldest most accurate manuscript happen to be, that is what was used. the end. and it was translated letter for letter. letter for letter. What is the disconnect with everybody who just REFUSES to listen to that point, all your information about this and that, what is the point, it is THE MOST accurate bible, translated by MEN, who make mistakes, there are many translation errors and I know every single one of em, and does this change the point that the word of God is more accurately read in my bible than yours, stop attacking my bible.

Second our numbers are printed exactly the same in both bibles. What is with the propaganda, get over this issue, it is the same, the word of God is unchanging, a living breathing thing, yet mine would be written in a prose and form considered more accurate and ancient. do i bash your bible for modernizing the words of God. They were spoken in a particular way, and so that is how I like to read it.

Third, I have seen this particular calander of time before, and it is incredibly incorrect, that is why i began my own study.

Your dates will never add up to 931 BC when King Solomon died and the division of the kingdom of Israel. This is a clear proof, as you can **ONLY **reach 931BC **IF **all your calculations are correct.

When trying to decode the genealogy you need to take this into account:

In (Gen 4:25), (Gen 4:26) God uses special language to set forth a precedence, to discern between offspring and grandchildren.

These two same people are again used in context in Genesis 5, to distinguish the difference between named him and begot. all you did was add up all the numbers one after another, how is that difficult to do, and has been done sense people first started trying to decode them. It is inaccurate to say the least. What is so special and mysterious about adding numbers right after the other, and if so, how do explain why you can;t calculate any of the other dates.

5590 BC: NOAH IS BORN. LAMECH IS 182 YEARS OLD.
MAY 21, 4990 BC: GOD DESTROYS THE WORLD BY WATER.
2167 BC: ABRAM IS BORN. TERAH IS 130 YEARS OLD.
3153-2914 BC: GOD DIVIDES THE EARTH INTO CONTINENTS, AND CONFUSES MAN’S LANGUAGE.
1967 BC: JACOB GAINS ESAU’S BIRTHRIGHT AND GOES TO HARAN.
1933 BC: JOSEPH SOLD INTO SLAVERY.
1877 BC: ISRAEL ENTERS EGYPT. BEGINNING 430 SOJOURN.
1530 BC: AARON IS BORN. 1527 BC: MOSES IS BORN.
APRIL 1447 BC: MOSES LEADS ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT AFTER 430 YEARS OF BONDAGE.
JULY 1447 BC: THE 10 COMMANDMENTS [THE LAW].
MARCH 1407 BC: JOSHUA LEADS ISRAEL INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN.
1108-1068 BC: ELI JUDGED.
1068-1067 BC: THE ARK IS CAPTURED.
1067-1047 BC: SAMUEL THE PROPHET JUDGED.
1067-1047 BC: THE ARK IS RECOVERED.
1007-967 BC: KING DAVID.
**971-931 BC: KING SOLOMON. **
931-914 BC: KING REHOBOAM.

7 BC: JESUS IS BORN
This is how I learned that Christ was born in 7 BC and not 3 bc, or 1 ad, Because seven is the spiritual number for completion, because 7BC was a jubilee year, because Christ IS THE JUBILEE

1BC-1AD: 11013 YEARS FROM CREATION. [there is no 0 BC]
29 AD: JESUS IS BAPTIZED.
MAY 22, 33 AD: PENTECOST. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS POURED OUT: 50 DAYS LATER.

Named him: Denotes an immediate descendent. An offspring. The calendar is based off of the new patriarch at the year of his birth.
(Gen 4:25),(Gen 4:26),(Gen 5:29),(Gen 21:3),(Gen 25:26)

Begot: Denotes a descendent far removed. A grandchild. The calendar is based off of the death of the old patriarch.

It has been established that the calendar has been tied to the life spans of certain patriarchs.
(Gen 5:32),(Gen 11:10),(Gen 11:26)

You can prove this is correct because all the dates add up to 931 BC and the death of Solomon. Your calendar, if you continue the work, will never ever ever add to that date. Thus, it is inaccurate. But I am not a catholic and I presume to teach, and I have already been banned because apparently a guy cant humbly and charitable teach on here with out being attacked by the forum admin for absolutely no reason.

When isn’t apparent, every single thread, every single post, SOMEBODY presumes to teach somebody else. yet I trust completely in the bible and teach biblical doctrine and do not trust in the doctrine of man when compared to the bible and they dont connect, so i am ex communicated from the forum… Nice everybody. i am not happy about this personal attack on me.

So please, I am moving on, everybody has there own motive, and refuses to listen to sound biblical teaching, like I am creating out of thin air. NO, I DID THE WORK, I didn’t just listen… I did the work to prove to MYSELF the truth. And i have, and I do trust completely in the bible because of it. Ill be kicked off for this post, but oh well,

God bless,