The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I have a question on the old testament

I noticed in your net Bible, in 2.Sam.21:19, that Goliath was according to
your Net-text of this passage, not killed by David, but by Elhanan.

Who killed Goliath ?

Did you actually read the NET or are you just trying to be argumentative? Check the footnotes for an explanation.

2 Samuel 21:19 NET.
(19) Yet another battle occurred with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

I don't know what version of the Bible do you use?

The Bible clearly says in 1 Sam 17 David killed Goliath, which is described in 1 Sam 17:48~51, "As Goliath approached, David ran out to meet him and, reaching into his shepherd's bag, took out a stone, hurled it form his sling, and hit the Philistine in the forehand. The stone sank in, and the man fell on his face to the ground. So David conquered the Philistine giant (Goliath) with a sling and a stone. Since he had no sword, he ran over and pulled Goliath's form its sheath and killed him with it, and then cut off his head. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they turned and ran."

But if you read this verse (2 Samuel 21:19) in such different bible versions, e.g. NIV, NASB, both of them may have created a certain ambiguity in some translations for some modern biblical readers:-

2 Samuel 21:19 (NIV) "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

2 Samuel 21:19 (NASB) "There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."

But here's how it appears in the KJV is best one for describing such thing. Because of the Old Testament of the King James Version is translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew Text.

2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV) "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam".

This verse's sister verse you can also find in 1 Chronicles 20:5 to provide a cross-reference to it, where all versions would say "the brother of Goliath the Gittite". This verse would help to eliminate the italics contradiction.

Hope it can help you!

Hi all!

One of our more modern rabbis says that I Samuel 17 & II Samuel 21:19 are separate accounts of two entirely different events, the only common denominator being that the dead Philistine bad guy was named Goliath. (Lots of names occur many times for different people in the Tanakh; that two Philistines might be named Goliath isn't so far-fetched.) Our more modern Rabbi points out the following differences between I Samuel 17 & II Samuel 21:19.

I Samuel 17: This is very early in David's career, way before he becomes King or even becomes a fighter. He initially appears in far less a role than his older soldier brothers. King Saul has a very prominent role in the story. Goliath poses the key challenge of 17:8-9; there is the lengthy stand-off between rival Israelite and Philistine armies. The site of the confrontation is the Elah Valley (see http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000096482.htm). David beheads Goliath with the latter's own sword, which David carries off as a trophy & eventually gets back from High Priest Ahimelekh ("The sword of Goliath the Philistine whom you slew in the Elah Valley, behold here it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod; if you will take that, take it, for there is no other save that here." And David said, "There is none like that, give it to me." I Samuel 21:10)

II Samuel 21:19: This is very late in David's career, long after he has become sole king of a united kingdom, and after his men beseeched an aging king not to take a personal part in actual combat in Israel's wars. His brothers are not mentioned. Saul is not mentioned. There is no hint of any personal challenge from Goliath. There is no hint of any stand-off between rival Israelite & Philistine armies. The site of the confrontation is Gob. The only weapon mentioned in connection with Goliath is a spear; there is no reference to any beheading.

Two different events.

Howzat?

Be well!

Andyhill

I shall respond to all three replies to my post on Goliath.

To Marv, No , I am not argumentative, and Yes, I did "check out" some of your NET Bible, O.T. passages, including Isa. 16:4, in which the text suggested a departure from the Masoretic Hebrew text. Being in a hurry,
I therefore assumed ,that your net Bible was based on the Origen derived "Septuagint", and that 2.Sam.21:19, would carry that same textual error. ( Obviously, in hindsight, I should have taken the time to
look it up, before I posted the question.)

I posted the question on Goliath, for the purpose of highlighting the ERRORS in the various modern texts, as well as identifying the false premise on TWO Goliaths. It seems I hit "Paydirt" on both.

To Gloria, Thanks for your response. Yes I read only the KJV, as it is the only book in the English Language, called a Bible, that is based on the Hebrew "Masoretic" text for the Old Testament, and the
common Greek "majority Text" for the New Testament.

Your answer was right on, as you Highlighted the errors of the N.I.V. and the N.A.S.B. ou also correctly Identified the same scenario spoken of in
1.Chron. 20:5, where these modern texts, based on the Septuaginta, totally reverse themselves, and insert the "Brother of" Goliath.

To Andy Hill, Thanks for your coment. I am glad you Pointed out, the Idea of two Goliaths. This allows me to correct the error, from a scriptural base,and premise.

2.Sam21:22 ,declares that All FOUR of these brothers, were born to the Giant in Gath
1.Chron. 20:5 makes it clear that the one killed by Elhannan, whose name was Lahmi, was the Brother of Goliath, who was killed by David.

So we see, by Biblical explanation, that we are dealing with only one Goliath.
On a side note, Notice what faith David demonstrated , by chosing FIVE smooth stones, (1.Sam.17:40 ) One for Goliath, and one for each of his Brothers, should they have come to avenge Goliath.

Morgan Sorensen

You're half right, here, aren't you? Modern NT translations are based on the premise that multiple identical copies of a Byzantine type text add nothing per eos to its credibility, and therefore take careful account of earlier manuscripts discovered since King James's reign. The 'New KJV' is the only recent English version I know of that prefers the Byzantine type text (though of course that's the version the Greek Orthodox use).

On the other hand, all OT translations are based on the Masoretic text, only occasionally resorting to the LXX if the Hebrew is totally obscure (and therefore presumably corrupt). The edition used is more likely to be one based on Codex Leningradensis than on Ben Assher, but it's essentially the same 7th/8th century recension that underlies it all.

It does seem to me to be an odd assumption to make that only the KJV may safely be relied upon. Why do you do it?

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'].
The text of some of those earlier English Bibles is still available in printed editions or at online web sites.

Are you claiming that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the common Greek Majority Text?

There are also other English translations today that are translated from the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV.

[quote="Logos1560"][quote="Morgan Sorensen"]

Reply to "Logos1560" Thanks for your comment. You ask, if I claim the KJV was a Revission of earlier English Bibles. No I do not claim that.
That is the "misinformation" modern sholasticism would like you to believe.

You ask, if I claim the KJV. was a revission of Earlier Bibles that WERE NOT based on the Hebrew masoretic and common Greek text.

No I do not. It is clear to me, that your information source is inaccurate, as the KJV was NOT based on the Tyndale Bible , but was based on the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. , and common Greek, "Byzantine" N.T. , carefully examined with the "Stephens Text".

If you know History, you will recall that the Ottoman Empire "overran Greece in 1453, and this is what forced Christian "Greeks" to flee to western Europe, bringing with them these "outlawed" (by Constantine in 331 A.D.) greek New Testaments.
It was the result of the discovery of these texts, by western European clergy and scholars, that brought about the Reformation. (As these texts did not at all , say what Jerome's Vulgate said.)

I shall , as soon as time permits, answer both Andyjoneszz, and yourself, with some more detail, and give you a short overview of "true Bible history".

Concerning your last statement,, Quote "there are also other English Translations today that are translated from the same underlying Hebrew
and Greek text..."

This is not true at all. I challenge you to name me one single one.

You, and Andy Jones,(in the reply before you) make statements that are not accurate, and it seems that you both think , that because you made the statement, it now is fact. What you both do not seem to understand, is that there is a lot of misinformation out there about Bibles, and Bible history, as we are in a "Spiritual War" , about the source and content of God's Word.

The second thing is this; your judgment is only as good as your information.

The third and most important thing for you to understand, (If you are a born again christian) is that 2.Pet.1:20-21 declares that the "word of God, came not by the will of man".

that means that any will of man trying to change it, must end up in Corruption.

(Look for my reply to Andy yourself, soon.)

Morgan Sorensen

I have to go back to this for a minute.

I still don't understand your contention that the NET says that Elhanan killed Goliath because the translation specifically says Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.

A footnote gives the explanation for the basis of the decision to say the brother of Goliath even though the Hebrew text underlying the translation simply says Goliath and not the brother of Goliath at that point.

Do we all understand that?

It seems that you just ignored all that and are going on to more and more translations and "problems" with them.

This is the verse
2 Samuel 21:19 NET
(19) Yet another battle occurred with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair33 the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite,34 the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.


Here is the footnote:
[color=blue] 34 sn The Hebrew text as it stands reads, "Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite." Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1Sa_17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the Masoretic Text (MT) of 2Sa_21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1Ch_20:5 reads, "Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath." Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread "Bethlehemite" (בֵּית ×â€

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

While the KJV is a translation of the Hebrew O. T. and common Greek N. T., it is also a revision of the earlier English Bibles. It is actually more of a revision of the earlier English Bibles than it is an original, fresh, new translation since more than 50% of the KJV comes from those earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'].

Are you ignoring many documented historical facts?

The first rule given the KJV translators was as follows: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."

Rule 14 was: "These translations to be used where they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's [the printer of the 1539 Great Bible], Geneva."

In their preface to the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators themselves wrote: "Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one."

Even many KJV-only authors acknowledge the actual evidence that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles.

KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that "it was the Bishops' Bible which was revised by the KJV translators" (For Love of the Bible, p. 60). Paisley confirmed: "The Bishops' Bible was the immediate predecessor of the Authorized Version and the Authorized Version revised the same" (Plea, p. 27). D. A. Waite wrote: "The Bishops' Bible (1568) used the Received Text" (Defending the KJB, p. 48 ). In another book, Waite indicated that the Bishops' Bible was based on "the same Hebrew and Greek texts," and he added in the next sentence: "the same texts which underlie our King James Bible" (Central Seminary, p. 111). Gail Riplinger maintained: "The previous Bishops' Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV" (In Awe of thy Word, p. 17). Riplinger wrote: "In the main, the Bishops' Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles" (In Awe, p. 567). She proposed that "the Bishops' Bible is the textual twin of the KJV" (p. 164). She observed: The KJV translators generally followed the grammatical elements and word order (syntax) of the Bishops' Bible. This was their foundation and they seldom varied from it" (p. 132). She also commented: "Both the Bishops' and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive" (p. 288).

Many scholars, including many KJV-only advocates, claim that 70 to 90% of Tyndale's is found in the KJV's New Testament. KJV-only author William Bradley acknowledged: "Without William Tyndale, there would be no King James Bible" (Purified Seven Times, p. 59). William Byers observed: "Tyndale's translation was the first, in English, from the pure text that our King James comes from" (History of the KJB, p. 97). James Sightler acknowledged that "Tyndale's work was the bedrock of the KJV of 1611" (Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 12). KJV-only advocate Robert Sergent wrote: "Tyndale's translation greatly influenced the Authorized Version which retains some 80% of Tyndale's English text" (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 193). KJV-only author Floyd Jones also asserted: "Over ninety percent of the language of the [KJV] New Testament is from Tyndale's translation" (Which Version, p. 46). Likewise, Bill Bradley maintained that the KJV translators "retained more than ninety percent of the very words translated by William Tyndale in their finished product" (Purified Seven Times, p. 121). Paisley affirmed: "When the new version [KJV] was published, it was abundantly demonstrated that William Tyndale was the real father of the work" (Plea for the Old Sword, p. 29).

I have to go back to this for a minute.


Hi Marv. I have allready answered that question, but maybe, I was not clear enough.

Here is what happened, I looked at several O.T. texts in your NET bible, and concurred, that The Net bible was based on the Septuagint. Because of time constraints at the library where I used the computer, I did NOT go to 2.Sam.21:19, but based on the other two texts "Assumed" the above.

Then I posted the question, not to "Fight" but to enlighten the participants
of both the translational error in the septuagint, as well as the "liberal" Rabinical misinformation of two Goliaths. And, as you see, I struck "paydirt" on both and was able to give the Biblical explanation to who killed Goliath.
Hope this clears it up

Morgan Sorensen

Morgan â€â€

[quote="andyjoneszz"][/quote]So, King James's own men thought they were indebted to the labours of the translators who had gone before them. Now study these extracts from the end of Matthew's gospel, and then try & tell us all that the KJV isn't directly verbally dependant on Tyndale's work:


Short Response; to Andy

Andy, it seems clear from the above quote, "and try and tell us", that you and "logos1560" must at least be included in the "us", which I find interresting.

But what is more interresting, is that both you and " logos1560" seem to have a problem qouting me correctly. I think if you want to make a point on what I said, then at least be truthfull in quoting me correctly.

What I said to "logos1560", in answer to his question was, that the KJV. was NOT based on Tyndales bible. I also made it clear that the KJV was the ONLY bible in the English language TODAY, that is based on the massoretic Hebrew. As all Bibles since the 1881, Westcott/Hort secret revission are now based on the septuagint.

If anything in the KJV, can be attributed to earlier English text, it would have to be attributed to John Wycliffe . (the worlds FIRST protestant) and the father of English prose.

He translated the first Bible into English in 1382, and it was the worlds ONLY English Bible, for 143 years, until Tyndales Bible, in 1525.

Familliar expressions in the KJV, such as; "The deep things of God", "A well of water springing up into life", "The strait gate", (as in strait jacket)
"The narrow way", "The mote", "The beam", etc., can be traced back to John Wycliffe.

That there are other sources that the original 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars, (notice ,Andy, not 51 scholars as your wikipedia source indicated) that worked on the KJV , examined is most certain, as they had before them at that time every text available to us today.

Hold on now, I know we have discovered more texts, but NO NEW WORDING !!!!

I can give you and "logos1560", just as long a list of scholars, that will disagree with the things you boys put forth, such as Dean Burgon, Miller, Broadbent, Robinson ,Dr. Nolan, E. Hills, just to name a few, so this discussion could be "endless". However I shall respond to you both later, and explain some things that might be of value to you both, as time is becoming my problem right now here at the library.

Morgan Sorensen

Us seemed more appropriate than me, since there are several people participating in this thread, and so by default you're addressing a plurality of readers. I hope you don't feel ganged up on! Logos & I are working quite independently. Me would have suited the context almost as well.

So you did â€â€

P.S. This bit has only just sunk in, Morgan. I've taken issue with this before, briefly; do you have any evidence for this? In particular, what was Westcott & Hort's 'secret' revison? How could a revision of any kind affect the ability of subsequent translators to access the Masoretic text themselves? You must be aware that all modern versions say they're based on the Masoretic text, most usually nowadays the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia edition of the 10th century Codex Leningradensis.

The preface to the (English) Revised Version of 1881 contains this: [size=75]...link to source at bible-researcher.com â€â€