Apologetics - Universal Reconciliation > Word Studies

A Quick Look at "Hell" in the King James II

<< < (2/2)

Lazarus Short:
Right, Jeff, if ET (or ED for that matter) were true, they should be a major theme of the Bible, not hard to find at all.  However, as we know here, the Hell-meisters must dig deep to find any "proof texts."

As things stand, the ET doctrine makes God look a side-show game operator:  "Step right up!  Try your luck!  The game's easy, the prizes big!!"  Next thing you know, your pockets are empty and you've lost.  Now how did that happen? :footmouth:

micah7:9:

--- Quote from: Lazarus Short on December 05, 2012, 03:02:59 AM ---Well, all the word studies and word interest here got me to thinking.  Given all the hoopla about "hell" here at Tentmaker, and how it is so connected with the KJV, I got to wondering how my King James II fared.  This version is not too well known, so a few words about it:  The KJV II was produced by Jay P. Green, who you may have heard about (especially) if you're a Baptist, and some other people.  They ran (so they claim) ALL of the Biblical manuscripts, ALL the schools of manuscripts, ALL of it through a supercomputer, with the KJV somehow factored in.  Their main bias was to modernize the language from "99%" modern to "100%" modern.  They claim to have done thousands of computer runs, with the same result.  That's what I recall from the intro, and I don't recall how a stack of different manuscripts produced, by computer, an updated KJV.  Of course, this just fuels the KJV super-loyalists, but that's grist for another thread.

I decided to see how the KJV II translated "hell."  It was easy - look up "hell" in Strong's, check the references in the KJV II, and see what's there.  If "hell" was a mistranslation, maybe the supercomputer corrected it.  Ya think?!   Here's what I found:

Strong's has 54 mentions of "hell."

The KJV II translates it thus -

as "hell" or "Hell" 49 times

as "Hades" 3 times

as "Hell-Fire" 2 times

I could have gone on to other "hell"-related words, but what would be the use?  It looks like "hell" has been tweaked through some kind of bias.  Perhaps the "supercomputer" had some doctrinal programming not mentioned in the preface/intro.  I can't help but think about what Robert Heinlein said about giving a text a new coat of paint and filing off the serial numbers.  I was disappointed by the recent "Geneva" Bible, which had modern, not Reformation, notes, and now my initial enthusiasm for the KJV II has just been tempered.  Maybe the worth of a translation lies partly in the difficulty in finding a copy... :sigh:

BTW - I did find this:  "Hell" is not mentioned in the gospel of John - not once!

--- End quote ---

Nor does Paul.

Lazarus Short:

--- Quote from: micah7:9 on December 11, 2012, 09:40:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lazarus Short on December 05, 2012, 03:02:59 AM ---Well, all the word studies and word interest here got me to thinking.  Given all the hoopla about "hell" here at Tentmaker, and how it is so connected with the KJV, I got to wondering how my King James II fared.  This version is not too well known, so a few words about it:  The KJV II was produced by Jay P. Green, who you may have heard about (especially) if you're a Baptist, and some other people.  They ran (so they claim) ALL of the Biblical manuscripts, ALL the schools of manuscripts, ALL of it through a supercomputer, with the KJV somehow factored in.  Their main bias was to modernize the language from "99%" modern to "100%" modern.  They claim to have done thousands of computer runs, with the same result.  That's what I recall from the intro, and I don't recall how a stack of different manuscripts produced, by computer, an updated KJV.  Of course, this just fuels the KJV super-loyalists, but that's grist for another thread.

I decided to see how the KJV II translated "hell."  It was easy - look up "hell" in Strong's, check the references in the KJV II, and see what's there.  If "hell" was a mistranslation, maybe the supercomputer corrected it.  Ya think?!   Here's what I found:

Strong's has 54 mentions of "hell."

The KJV II translates it thus -

as "hell" or "Hell" 49 times

as "Hades" 3 times

as "Hell-Fire" 2 times

I could have gone on to other "hell"-related words, but what would be the use?  It looks like "hell" has been tweaked through some kind of bias.  Perhaps the "supercomputer" had some doctrinal programming not mentioned in the preface/intro.  I can't help but think about what Robert Heinlein said about giving a text a new coat of paint and filing off the serial numbers.  I was disappointed by the recent "Geneva" Bible, which had modern, not Reformation, notes, and now my initial enthusiasm for the KJV II has just been tempered.  Maybe the worth of a translation lies partly in the difficulty in finding a copy... :sigh:

BTW - I did find this:  "Hell" is not mentioned in the gospel of John - not once!

--- End quote ---

Nor does Paul.

--- End quote ---

Indeed!  The big picture is coming together... :thumbsup:

reFORMer:

--- Quote from: micah7:9 on December 11, 2012, 09:40:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lazarus Short on December 05, 2012, 03:02:59 AM ---
BTW - I did find this:  "Hell" is not mentioned in the gospel of John - not once!

--- End quote ---

Nor does Paul.

--- End quote ---

Paul was the writer of over 2/3 of the N.T.  Of all the words in the original languages "hell" has been pasted over, he only mentions hades twice.  Jesus mentions only gehenna, and just 8 times, 12 if you discount repeats in parallel gospels.

(I saw John MacArthur on T.V. saying Jesus spoke of hell hundreds of times more often than heaven.  Actually, the record reflects He mentions hell only 6% of the times He uses the word heaven, usually in the context of "kingdom of heaven."  It's 12 to a little over 200 times.)

Lazarus Short:
That seems typical of TeeVee preachers.  Once again, it seems that easy access equals bad information.  I'm glad I'm here.  :laughing7:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version