King James Banned What Word?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2023
- Did you know that there's a word that King James didn't want in his translation of the Bible? This word did appear dozens of times in the Geneva Bible, which was a popular English translation of the Bible in the 16th century. However, when King James came to the throne, he and his supporters believed that this word could be used to criticize the monarchy, which they saw as divinely ordained. Therefore, when King James commissioned his own translation of the Bible, the King James Version, he instructed his translators to to use a different word.
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
well, if king james wasn't selfaware of his owntyranny…
@@grievuspwn4g3 ?
@@grievuspwn4g3 are you threatening them with fire? And calling them violent?
@@lorekeeper685 meaning massive “belief” groups that have conflicting interests will always fight to have power over the other. Catholics vs Jews, Muslims vs Christians and Muslim vs Buddhist.
@@Sapientia-in-senectute not even that.
Catholics and Catholics can't agree between them, and same for other religions and their sets.
I always dislike religions with a version of hell, find them silly among other reasons.
@@lorekeeper685 but their beliefs are the same and true believers of their religion usually follow the same path read the same scriptures and follow the same “guidelines” according to their religion. Even if a catholic disagrees with another that doesn’t make them the rule of what that religion is built around.
A king censoring the word Tyrant is really funny to me
Not all kings rule with tyranny.
@@thomaspeters5889 what else is tyranny if not someone claiming divine authority on any and all matters with no merit or experience to back that authority? You know, aside from “My mommy used to be in charge so she said I can have what I want.”
Kings are dorks who pretend to have god given power. They’re basically the pope except at least the pope is appointed by his community.
@@thomaspeters5889 Depends how you define the terms. To me a person deciding for another what they are allowed to do and what not is tyranny.
This should be only acceptable in a parent child relationship.
@@thomaspeters5889All monarchs are tyrants. That's just how they work.
@@nostalji75 In that case, the monarchs and social elite are the 'parents' and all the riffraff are the 'children' of society. Children can choose their role models, but they can't choose their parents. Parents mistreating a child is definitely a textbook case of tyranny.
And yet my deeply southern and evangelical dad swears up and down "the king James translations is the only and correct translation". Suuuuuure
The claim that the word "tyrant" is never used in the King James Bible (KJV) and that it was deliberately avoided because King James I did not want to be associated with that term is an interesting one. Let's break down the elements to see if there's historical or textual evidence to support it.
1. **King James Bible Translation Process**:
The King James Bible was translated by a group of scholars between 1604 and 1611 under the commission of King James I of England. The translators were instructed to follow certain guidelines, including using the Bishops' Bible as a base text and incorporating traditional ecclesiastical terms. They aimed for a translation that would be acceptable for public reading in the church.
2. **Use of the Word "Tyrant"**:
In the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), words that might be translated as "tyrant" in modern English do appear. However, in the King James Version, the word "tyrant" is indeed not used. Instead, terms like "oppressor," "wicked," or "evil" are often used to convey similar meanings.
3. **Possible Reasons**:
- **Linguistic Choices**: The absence of the word "tyrant" might be due to the linguistic preferences and norms of the time. The KJV translators often chose words that were more commonly understood by English speakers of the early 17th century.
- **Political Sensitivity**: While it's speculative, there could have been a desire to avoid politically sensitive terms. King James I's reign was marked by a strong belief in the divine right of kings, and he may have been sensitive to terms that could undermine his authority or be used against him.
4. **Historical Evidence**:
There isn't concrete historical evidence directly proving that King James I explicitly forbade the use of the word "tyrant." However, it is plausible that the translators, aware of the political climate and the preferences of the monarch, might have exercised caution in their word choices.
5. **Comparative Translations**:
Later translations, such as the New International Version (NIV) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), sometimes use the word "tyrant" in places where the KJV does not. This reflects changes in language and translation philosophy over time.
In conclusion, while the claim that the word "tyrant" was deliberately excluded from the King James Bible due to King James I's preferences cannot be definitively proven, it is a plausible explanation. The translators' choices were influenced by the linguistic, cultural, and political context of their time.
@@lifeofbeautyk448good analysis
Please explain about James I, and his male sexual relationships.
@@mstephenson3205what 💀
This is simply not true. The KJV still used Tyrant in 2 Maccabees 4:24 and 7:27. In the other passages it translates the word correctly by not using Tyrant.
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Yeah but I know better"
Except that it’s not .. God only knows who’s cockamamie is it
@@Sioux-freeyou realize hell isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament. Jesus never taught it. The idea that you’re judged after death was added after Jesus died
@@MikeWoot65What are you talking about? Jesus talked about hell more often than anyone else.
You don't, too bad
This is simply not true. The KJV still used Tyrant in 2 Maccabees 4:24 and 7:27. In the other passages it translates the word correctly by not using Tyrant.
He won't be called a Tyrant. But he can still be called Terrible. 😂
😂
Yeah, they also called Ivan 'the terrible' for this same reason - a king's ability to instill fear and terror was perhaps not a preferred rulership (vs. a fair king), but it is efficient
Oh man, that's terrible
@@MsJoyce31202 ❤❤❤❤
Tyrant didn't mean the same thing back then. At the time it meant undemocratic ruler or unelected ruler. Before that it meant illegitimate ruler. However, terrible also had a different meaning. It meant to instill fear or cause awe, which makes a lot more sense. God is also called terrible several times because it had a different meaning. Words change in pronounciation and meaning over time. That's why we're not still speaking proto-indo-european.
He knew that the word ‘tyrant’ hit too close to home in his case 😂
Can you explain how he was a tyrant
No they can't.
I knew it before he gave an example. Absolute Monarchs abhor the word Tyrant.
@oscarlundberg7462 king James had no control over the translation.
But I thought you weren't supposed to alter the word of god.
The Hebrew word appears 20 times in the OT and is translated in the KJV most often as “terrible” or “terrible ones”. It translates from Hebrew to mean: awe-inspiring, terror-striking, awesome, terrifying, ruthless, mighty. Even modern translations vary in their interpretation of the word’s meaning throughout its appearances in the OT. Very interesting!
You have the BEST loops!
cant be called a tyrant if you ban the word , big brain
wicked "levaw"
at the time terrible meant the same as tyrant
and the passage right before it clearly insults the monarchy....
this guy constantly posts nonsense
>>>
***Isaiah 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.
>>>
If the King James Bible was trying not to piss off the monarchy , then it would probably be a bad idea to say that kings would lick the dust of the Lord's feet.
Or all the other passages throughout the King James Bible that clearly insults leadership.
>>>
But no one will research any of this. He says what they want to hear.
@@johnmark6628 Both of you failed to cite any sources, so I'll just go with my gut and trust the guy who doesn't have 2 first names.
Isn't that the same thing that happens today? Webster changed the definition of "sexual preference" DURING a senate inquiry of a republican judge nominee to paint her as a bigot.
Language is always an avenue of attack for the powerful
@@fairsaa7975
Sources? I just cited the Bible where this topic came from.
Try again.
I guess you could say that he was violating the Geneva's convention
Underrated tbh 😂
😂🤓
Was not expecting a legendary pun this early in the day. Well played.
You deserve 42k likes for this and i hope it happens
😂😂😂💯
That is why KJV-only movements are so irrational
That’s actually scary. Just knowing something’s name makes it feel more tangible and manageable.
"The victim of King James will be rescued."
"I will redeem you out of the hand of King James."
Was King James a Tyrannohomo Rex?
Who will rescue the victims of God?
@@DrSpooglemonfunny how people make these kinds of accusations after the fella dies. Sneaky how the devil works
@@Kevin-nr9hp Homo means human. Tyrannohomo Rex = Tyrant Human King.
@@Kevin-nr9hp Its almost like people on the internet weren't born in 1600's (I prettty sure he was born in the 1400's or 1600's)
I think there was one early English translation (perhaps it was the Geneva) that went the other extreme. Used tyrant instead of the word king because they thought all kings were tyrants.
😂Lol
You're probably right. This guy is an idiot, attacking the word of God.
Are they not?
@@BenExists7 No. They're not. Some are. Some are not. Some are somewhere between.
@@mynameisgladiator1933 if you don’t give the people of your land a vote, that’s an oppressive government, so a tyranny
The word Tyrant comes from Greek Tiranos, which has a cousin in the Philistine language: Seren. A Seren was a king of a Philistine city state. Today, us Hebrews use the word Seren as a military rank: a captain.
There was no Philistine language and no Philistine people my friend. It’s a mistranslation from Aramaic of the old Torah reconstructed according to the extinct old Hebrew where Plishtim and Pelesh were mentioned and this was superimposed on the land and reinvented it to be called Palestine and Philistines and a tale was spun of invading people from the sea none of which fits the history or archeology or geography or culture of the region. The only place on earth where this story is plausible and fits the geography and historical and archeological records is old Yemen where many of the old bible stories took place. Plishtim or Flishtim were people worshipping the god Pelesh or Felesh and thus the borrowed name Falash for Ethiopian Jews ( historically Yemen and Abyssinia were and to this day intertwined ) . The history of the world did not start with Greeks as western culture imagines nor was it first recorded in old greek ( no relation to modern Greek or people but that is another matter) . As a matter of fact the old Greeks learnt to write from the Assyrians ( whom they called Phoenicians) who spoke Aramaic not Assyrian. The west based their entire historical narrative on the faulty septuagint translation of old oral scripture from Aramaic mutilating names and events intentionally and unintentionally.
And there are no Hebrews either . The name for the language also came from old Yemeni tribal name of founder Aber or Eber and his people named Eberews or Hebrews. The language or rather tongue they used to recite religious scripture was Hebrew and both the language and the people have long been extinct
@@Sioux-free Palash means invaded in my language. They were the only nation in the region who did not speak a semitic language and their dialect was not intelligible to the peoples around them, so the derogatory exonym fits. We had another name for them that was more PC: "Goyay ha'Yam" (the sea nations), which also fits. The Philistines were worshiping a fish-god that we called "Dagon" (Dag=Fish in my language). There is plenty of archeology here in the ruined, yet thriving to this day under their original name, Philistine city-states: Rafah, Gaza, Ashqelon, Ashdod and Gat. Come see the evidence yourself. Also evident of the Philistine presence in my region (I live on the edge of it): tons of Sycamore trees, none are typical to the area, but were brought over from what today are the Greek-speaking islands. "Palestine" came to be centuries after the last Indo-European speaking Philistine lived here. It was a political propaganda move by a colonial power. Like I wrote, the Philistine cities are still here, as modern cities, under their original name, living side by side the ancient archeological mounds. The interesting part is that the sea nations seemed to have no problem assimilating Canaanites into their society and you can see how the original settler civilization was eventually replaced by all sorts of cultures, to this day that Jews and Arabs live here and call and identify each Philistine settlement by its name. You think that we transplanted all that evidence from Yemen? Interesting 🙂
Old Hebrew is not really extinct. It's not too far from the Mishnaic, medieval and modern Hebrew, all are read and understood easily by schoolchildren in modern Israel. So we don't need a translation via Aramaic to understand the Torah. Even these days, we keep excavating 1st millennium BCE inscriptions written in the old and square letters and do you know who can understand them? Every Jew living in Israel. None of that exists in Yemen. We have Hebrew books created in every century since at least the 5th BCE. Even though it wasn't always the day to day language, we were reading and praying in it and both rabbinical and general prose and poetry writings were created in Hebrew throughout the ages. To say that the Hebrews went extinct long ago is just silly.
@@kakungulu Its silly for you because you don't know anything and what you know is not factual. I know very well the jewish biblical narrative which not only is unfounded and fabricated but it also contradicts with the Bible itself. You people make me laugh when you speak with authority as if you have the last word on the matter and are confused yourselves regarding the history and your identity. There are no hebrews and no Hebrew language of old. These are extinct and have been for thousands of years. You have no language either. The Hebrew of today is a bastard language makeup of Arabic Yiddish and Middle Hebrew. Middle Hebrew is Arabized Hebrew only revived and reinvented in Spain of Arabic scripted in Aramaic letters. The old Hebrew used Musnad square lettering and so did early Aramaic before it was developed and advanced with the invention of the Abgad alphabet adopted later by Greeks for their alphabet. All these old languages are Arabic family of languages not Semitic . The Semitic classification is non scientific nonfactual and relies on biblical interpretation of historical events and people when the Bible itself old and new is riddled with fabrications mistranslations and contradictions and cannot be relied upon as a reliable historical record. hat you have been fed is garbage. You have no history in the region and European jews have no connection to the history of the people of the region. All early (now extinct) nations of old Israelites Sebaean Qatban and the sort were old Arab tribes from Yemen.
@@kakungulu Replying to your translation, you have no language to translate in the first place. What you did here is take a biblical tale and attribute a meaning to the name of the people in the tale from their description in the tale itself. So the tale says they were invaders and they were called Palestinians so you then claim that Palestinian means invader. Your claim of having a language and then claiming further that this language has words with meaning is comical. If so, what is the root of the word invader in your so called language and show us examples from your rich historical linguistic heritage and literature of the use of the word Palash to mean invader. You will not find any because it doesn't exist as such. You are attributing to the Palestinians the description of foreign invaders and then claiming that the word actually has a meaning and it means invader. You think you are clever when you are not specially when you are talking with people in the know.
This video is inaccurate. King James didn't ban the word "tyrant". In fact, it appears three times in the King James Bible: Wisdom 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, and 2 Maccabees 7:27
i dont think someone who doesnt really read the apocrypha would know this
@@preciousjewelamor The myth exists due to people failing to check the deuterocanonical books.
@@waitithoughtihadtousemyrea5976i’m a little dumb, what does deuterocanonical mean?
@@drewprice9284 The deuterocanonical books are books found in the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. They are typically omitted from Protestant Old Testaments as well as Jewish Bibles. The original KJV included the deuterocanonical books. Modern printings generally leave them out. Someone started a myth that King James banned "tyrant" from the KJV and people spread it around, failing to check these books. (By the way, we have the instructions King James gave translators. Nothing is there about not including "tyrant").
Wisdom and Maccabees aren't in the Protestant Bible. The KJV (King James Version) doesn't have them. They were excluded.
The word "tyrant" was excluded when used in the context of someone ruling the covenant people, and since King James proclaimed divine right (to rule), and every people consider themselves "the covenant people" (completely ignoring tge original context of that lovely gem of a phrase, he wouldn't want people to take issue with his authority over them, or citing God as a higher power than their king. That he banned this word on that context is taught in Bible as Literature courses at secular state colleges.
And people have the audacity to say it’s an unmolested translation
And say that every other translation is inaccurate 🤦♀️
I'd argue that very few books have been molested because that's quite a specific fetish.
@@SineN0mine3i was going to say something but i don't think it needs to be said
It’s only one word
@@ieatmice751 That one word blinded people to King James’ tyranny and the fact that God didn’t approve of it. The KJV can be used by authorities as an excuse to exploit their people.
I am not a king James fan for multiple reasons. But I’ve never heard the translation identified as a state sponsored translation. I think it’s an accurate description.
It was literally state sponsored by the King himself, hence the name.
New to me too, but it speaks volumes... So to speak.
Never forget the original translators saw zero return on their investment, rather... they saw JAILTIME!!! KJV is a god awful mistranslation so to speak!
It's litteraly impossible to follow the true bible, because it's been systemically corrupted by political and religious authorities.
It is called KING JAMES Bible.
There was another word, or rather name that the King James bible left out almost 7,000 times as it appeared in the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. This name was YHWH, translated into English as Yahweh or Jehovah and represented the personal name of GOD.
Instead the King James bible has replaced this with titles like "Lord", "The Lord", or even phrases like "I am that I am". For example when Moses asked God, "who shall I say sent me", The original bibles all say "Tell them, YHWH, the GOD of your fathers,...has sent me." or something to that effect (depending on translation). The point is that the personal name, not a title was always here. While the King James replaced it with the title "The Lord" which is not and has never been understood to be a name, let alone a translation of the name YHWH.
So whether you accept the English translation of Yahweh or Jehovah, or even some other variation of the name, it is undoubtedly an intentional alternation of the scriptures not an over site that this name was left out of the King James version almost 7,000 times.
There are various excuses offered for removing GOD's personal name from this translation including an unclear understanding of the exact pronunciation (which would also be true of most words), a superstitious which arose around the verbal pronunciation of God's name. Even debates over whether or not commoners deserved to know GOD's name as if it were to holy for them to hear.
Whatever the reason the King James bible, and all those who participated in its translation and distribution are all guilty of the sin found even in the King James bible at Revelation 22:19 "If anyone takes away ANYTHING from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, GOD will take his portion away from the trees of life, and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll."
This makes the King James bible the most widely distributed and least accurate English translation available today.
For references, CZcams doesn't seem to like links so just google things like "Gods name", "Moses and God's Name", "YHWH" "Who is "YHWH", "how many times does god's name appear in the bible". You will find countless historical references proving that this is true, and that the King James bible intentionally removed it.
Consider this. When you meet a new person for the first time, what is the first thing you want to know about them? Do you ask them their position on abortion, gun control, littering or do you ask them their name. Then ask yourself. If they removed literally the most important thing in the entire bible which would help you to know GOD, his name. What else did they change?
Wow, bro, it must be painful for any Christian to see those words of yours
But it is the truth. If they replaced God's name, 100% they will replace anything they want
YHWH IS holy name so the Jews don't use the holy name explicitly to avoid misusing the name so they called YHWH , the LORD, or HASHEM (the Name) the LORD is all capital noun only applies to GOD in Hebrew it is Adonai
You did not even do the least amount of research😂
The Bible was translated from what the Jews had. The Jews translated YHWH to other names, because they had a tradition to never actually say the name of God, because of they were afraid of transgressing against the 3rd commandment.
Lord comes from the Jewish word Adonai, which means lord/one who rules. You can tell what type of Lord or lord it is by the context of the reading.
@@ziadhassan1996You know we have the internet right? You can actually do some real research and figure out how we got our current day translations.
Spewing conspiracy nonsense doesn't make you more informed, it just shows how lazy you are and how little you care about the truth.
@@8thdayadventist911 You can tell what kind of president or judge a person is by reading about their actions in context. It doesn't make it their name. Copies of the original scriptures still exist from long before the Jews stop verbally saying God's name. There is no superstition against saying that name in almost any culture today. There is no reason to replace that name with a title. Doing so is by definition, "taking away from this scroll" and "adding to this scroll" at the same time, which was the final warning GOD gave against altering his book.
The fact that you or I may be able to determine which "LORD" a passage is talking about has absolutely no bearing on that fact.
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
سورة البقرة اية 79
So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn
Surah Al-baqarah (the calf) verse 79
Then the readers and writers of today's Quran are guilty by this verse. Uthman chose from seven versions of the Quran and burnt those he did not like. That is de facto "writing scripture with their own hands".
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
Yeah, atheist democrats.
Those who have been evicted 109 times for completely coincidental reasons?
children with leukemia
@@jabberjaw1067 Or religious left-wingers. Every religion (atheism is a religion) has people like that, since christianity is so widespread y'all got more assholes.
Rape victims?
That’s exactly what a tyrant would do 😂 1984 in 1611
🦖💬take it from a "Terrible Lizard King"...."Tyrant"..means "Terrible"...and are therefore interchangable...
@AnarchoRepublican the English word "tyrant" is derived from the Latin "tyrannus" and Greek "tyrannos" neither of which mean "terrible".
@@rhodeeznutz 🦖⇠Tyrannosaurus Rex= Eng. lit. "TERRIBLE Lizard King"-derived from the high school biology class dialect of Latin ..
⤾Flipping the (Manu)Script:...for the sake of your interesting argument:...track this with me..
Since the OT word in question is Hebrew, and not Latin...Why does our Shorts host insist on "Tyrant" (a Latin transliteration) is the most correct translation of this Hebrew word?
...A: the earlier 1560 "Geneva" Bible translation
📖🧐But Doesn't it sound more plausible that the 1611 KJV translators weren't cowering to King James?..
Rather it was the earlier radical "unauthorized" Geneva Bible crowd who were using sacred text to excoriate catholic Queen "bloody Mary"? ...so perhaps rather KJV is correcting an earlier politically prejudiced error?.. a slur against the previous ("Catholic"/High Church)English Rulers/"Tyrants" who had forced English Separatists, to publish their unauthorized "Geneva Bible" overseas in tolerant Protestant Switzerland....
@@anarchorepublican5954 word salad.
@@dawnless852 ...eat your salad...or you get no pudding...
One word with so much power spiritually ❤
The monarchy not wanting the word tyrant in the bible is some next level irony
damn, LeBron is pretty careful with his words
Hahaha
The bronze jade should still be remembered in good eyes for spreading the bible, however
James is an Anglo last name. ⚫️ people with Anglo names descended from what? Certainly didn't suddenly become Kings and queens.
It was really weird when in the middle of that Chicago bulls game he pulled out his “daemonology” book and started ranting about a secret network of satan-worshipping witches and warlocks conspiring to pull down the kingdom of Christ…
😂😂😂
The king James "translation" 😂 gets me every time.
This video is wrong lol. The word עָרִ֑יץ is used in the same fashion as tyrant, even more derogatory. For example Jeremiah 20:11 translates it as "mighty terrible onex, Psalm 37:35 as "the wicked in great power". It's like saying "the evil man who makes every decision" instead of "the dictator".
@mong9942 , King James was still a tyrant who didn't even pay people to translate original text. Just edit what was commonly available to his own ends
And yet the KJV Bible is more accurate than yours. 😂
I'm ready for a debate let me know 😂
I dunno, I’ve read the KJV and the NRSV side by side a few times, and the differences I’ve been able to find seem pretty negligible. I actually haven’t noticed meaningful differences between the content of almost any of the Bibles I’ve read-they all seem to say the same thing in the end, just with different wording (though I’ve been far from thorough). It makes me laugh, because I grew up around people who took translations very seriously and thought the KJV was the only good one 😂 It’s still my favorite just because I love the style it’s written in, but I don’t think it’s any better (or substantially worse) than most modern translations
It is so terrifying how they just completely make words disappear and then people don’t have the concept of it available to them. Of course they could coin it, but the direct thought control is so scary.
It's only as terrifying as a fictional creature in a story. The real difference is that people BELIEVE this and base their lives off fantasy. You'd think someone who believes themselves to be dog is batshit crazy, but you'd be nice enough to let them have their beliefs, right? That dog isn't harming anyone? But that dog has fingers and can speak English PRETTY WELL, imagine what that dog can do with a gun if it felt particularly "ruff" 😂
@@-alexpoe8394 Alright then. What is the origin of life?
the original Hebrew used the word ra‘, which meant "an evil, a trouble, something bad", which is spot-on with the majority of translations which use the word "wicked". I don't know any translations that use a word meaning "tyrant" in those passages
The word is actually עריץ, which in modern Hebrew means tyrant.
@@tr1dnt that might be the word used in more modern translations, but the Greek Septuagint at least preserves the meaning of the original Hebrew
@@jonahwashburn9573 I don't think the word עריץ ever had a different meaning. Anyways, the word used in Hebrew was עריץ, and not רע as you said.
@@tr1dnt I didn't say it had a different meaning, I said that it wasn't the word used in the oldest known version of the Hebrew, the meaning of which is preserved in the ancient Greek. It doesn't take much research to find that "ra'" is the original (or at least the older) word used
@@jonahwashburn9573 there's literally one Hebrew version.
We love a smooth transition
If you can't talk about tyrrany in a country, maybe it's a tyranny
there is no war in Ba Sing Se😁
2 Maccabees 7:27 Kjv
“But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.”
the word is blatently used more than once in the KJV and even if it wasnt...it was clearly described when ever the subject of tyrany was brought up weather the word was used or not.
"King James you are a tyrant"
"Tyrant you say? Uhm uh.. sorry cant find that word anywhere here, doesent seem to be a thing"
That's why you should always look at multiple translations of the Bible
Follow The Christ and the scriptures open up. It is the Lamb that breaks the Seals and shows you what it is.
As an avid thrift shopper in my 20s, I acquired a 400 year old bible. The stories were very blatant and straight forward. My favorite was of the lady who hid the idol beneath her and refused to get up because she was menstruating. The men were like ew gross and left her alone. Lol
Why would they even sell it?
I like the older more straight forward versions, less editing, no political correctness and you could tell how the people actually were. Humanity was messed up back in the day but we've learnt to be better and we must not forget this or risk repeating our past.
@@miss_anonymous it was covered in a dirty quilted jacket and never bothered to look inside. I thought it was a dictionary or encyclopedia so I opened it.
... That lady was Rachel... She was the wife of Jacob who God named Israel. She was the mother of Joseph (Coat of many colors) and Benjamin. The guy looking for the idol was her father Laban.
@@forgiven36511so.... what were Joey chandler Monica and Ross doing?
Stange to change word of god for the pleasure of your king...
It has always been thus. I read the KJV been I have always been intelligent and educated enough to understand that history is messy.
When you are God's Annointed, you can do what you like.
@@janegardener1662 Do you believe in divine right of kings?
@@clouds-rb9xt No, but James did.
Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. S. 2:77-79
King James, the first king to not put his face on the first page of the Bible.
Precisely why we have so many translations, we can compare across the masses and see which details stick
At least he knew what he was
Someone should do a no bias translation, with a varied committee or something to make decisions on edge cases.
Bias is inevitable. First of all, even choosing the manuscripts to translate from would require bias. And then after that, choosing a translation philosophy would also require bias. Do you translate it word for word, phrase for phrase, or meaning for meaning? And after that, punctuations and choosing sentences would also require bias, because there are no punctuations or even spaces between words in the original manuscripts.
At the end of the day, one can only truly trust and rely on God to make knowledge of Himself available. I'm sorry but no man or group of men, no matter how well-intentioned and well-educated, is ever going to accomplish a 100% unbiased translation of the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek into another language just by examining the text alone. That's just never going to happen.
So just pick a translation and ask God to reveal His will to you through it. Trust me when I tell you that God can use almost any translation to reveal His will to you. He even used a dream about cows to reveal a coming famine in the book of Genesis. But even if God Himself personally wrote a book by His own hand and dropped it on earth, those without His Spirit would still not agree about how it should be understood, even if it was written in the simplest words in their own language. Each one would distort those words to make them mean what they think they should mean.
That's exactly what you see even in people's treatment of English bibles. If people cannot be unbiased and cannot agree about the meaning of words written in their own language, what makes you think that translators can be unbiased concerning words that aren't in their first language, and especially when there are already several pre-established doctrines? The best they can do towards agreement is to try not to step on each other's toes by openly voicing their disagreements about each other's translation of a word or phrase. And the best they can do towards having no bias, is to pick someone else's bias over their own.
That's what the A.V. was, it had Puritans and Anglicans on the committee. Two opposing angles. Clean up... you're spitting up everywhere
ESV is pretty good.
It's just my best attempt at an unbiased opinion...
@@henryodera5726
Very good analysis.
Thanks. ❤
David Shannon answered you. The KJV was unbiased. 40+ translators who refuted their own beliefs in the translations. There's a great documentary covering the history of the 1611 on KJvideominsitries on YT.
The Greek translation got a plant incorrect and wrote the wrong plant name, it should be Cannibus(as in a hemp family plant), not camus or something like. You can't make the healing oil with the wrong plant.
big brain editor making people have to watch the short twice now that they actually know the word cause you say it at the end dshjfksdhf
Bro speaking truths! Don’t forget KJ changed the word from “thou shall not murder” to thou shall not kill. They are 2 very different words
yup it helps with issues of war or people that find themselves being pacifist due to their religion that changes it.
Except the Geneva Bible also uses "kill". King James certainly was no pacifist (famously, for example, executing Guy Fawkes), "shall not kill" was still understood at the time to mean kill unjustly / murder. So I'm not sure this word choice had the significance that you think it does.
Yep we can kill we just cant murder
@@camipco it actually does because it covers protecting your family. Or country . People's understanding changed or forgot the term now you gotta practically spell it out for people.
@@MR_DOMEexcept the hebrew word means to kill but in the context of murder, all they did was translate a word as it was meant.
I'm not even remotely religious but it's stuff like this that makes me almost want to start studying the bible and other religious texts. I find it really interesting lol
There's a lot of fascinating stuff in there, and you can learn a lot! Who said you need to be religious to pick it up and study? Go for it!
Practically atheist myself and I find secular biblical scholar stuff really interesting. Elsewhere on CZcams there's great channels like Religion for Breakfast, Let's Talk Religion, Esoterica; Trey the Explainer also had two fun videos on changes made to the Bible. Seeing how religions become what they are and how they change over time is fascinating!
Quite a few Atheists only became so after studying The Bible™
Matt Dillahunty is probably the most famous in that he was studying to become a preacher and wanted to convince his atheist room mate of the truth of the bible
Yay! It’s a very interesting text!
@@aste4949the problem will come when you realize the point of the Bible was to point to faith in Christ and through him, access to the God we are/were separated from ❤
Is nobody talking about how effortlessly smooth this loop is?
I had to forward it to the end. The anxiety waiting on the word tyrant drove me crazy 😂
It’s pretty interesting seeing the differences between translations over the years and which words have been scrapped under different circumstances
The “wait what” never gets old 😂
It actually gets old pretty quick. Especially when he's spouting off completely and utter nonsense and constantly putting his male feminist 'spin' on everything.
@@markwildt5728 This literally has nothing to do with male feminism …The argument here is simply about the word “tyrant “ and if its the most honest translation of the original biblical manuscripts which it is.
It seems like you’re just mad a take that he made prior (I don’t agree with all his perspectives either) and that you’re just projecting your anger here instead
@@sjappiyah4071 It has EVERYTHING to do with male feminism! He literally mentioned "ThE pAtRiArChY¡" 😂 That was the entire point of his video! His entire argument of "tyrant vs terrible" is a horrible nothing burger argument, and 100% completely hinges on his male feminist hatred of the patriarchy. The original Hebrew word 'arits' translates to "awe-inspiring" or "terror sticking." Terrible is literally the more accurate translation, and has nothing to do with King James' refusal to use the word "tyrant." And the KJV isn't the only translation to use it. He's literally cherry picking like he always does.
It seems like you're just not smart enough to pick up on the non subtle cues of even the most blatant political agenda. It's literally the main theme throughout 90% of his videos. Cope harder my guy... 🤣
TAHNK YOU SO MUCH FOR THISSNHSNSNSNSNS
but what if.
You put the original vocals over the remixed production....
Isaiah 49:25
In arabic this specific word is translated as "الجبار"= "the mighty one" or "the strong one"
Jeremiah 15:21
This word is translated as "الاشرار"= "the evil ones"
The context works perfectly even without the word "tyrant", maybe these words shouldn't be translated as tyrant in the first place, why is the first conclusion "oH tHe kInG JaMeS DidN't LiKe It".
Sorry, I doubt that the KJV got it wrong, and I also don't think you are honest with the way you delivered this information.
You are correct. Tyrant isn't verbose enough and is an extremely specific word where the original was more blanketed in many of the use cases (so I believe).
You do know the difference between arabic and hebrew, right?
@@ChristianDinosaur1616 you do know they are so similar, right?
You do know that the same people spoke these languages and use them in similar ways, right?
You do know that also in syriac you'll have the same expressions right?
If you can't understand why this is relevant, please don't comment
@@ok-hv1or i can understand the reason its relevant but its worth pointing out
@@ChristianDinosaur1616 I appreciate that you didn't lash back at me, sorry for the tone btw
But I kinda don't think it's worth pointing out 😅, it's really obvious that these are two different language
But, thank you and sorry again ❤️
To play the devil's advocate, there was another popular translatation at the time. The Douay-Rheims Catholic translation. It uses the Strong and the Mighty, following the clementine Vulgate, which renders the word as forti and fortium (strong, powerful, mighty)
There aere several NT tranlations. The DRV was the first full bible.
Kjv started out with 80 books, 30,000 errors. Now its got 66 and about 5,000.
The Vulgate is still strong, first bible to be compuled on 382, ratified at Hippo Carthage, abd Trent.
History is awesome!
Love bible in a year podcast with Father Mike Schmitz.
🦖💬take it from a "Terrible Lizard King"...."Tyrant"..means "Terrible"...and are therefore interchangable...
@@anarchorepublican5954 Actually, although I do love dinosaurs, the name I chose comes from Star Wars. It's the late Sir Christopher Lee's character Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus.
About the etymology, not quite. Both Deinos and Tyrannos are greek words, one is an adjective (terrible) and the other a substantive (tyrant) which is a specific kind of ruler. There was a period in Athenian history when they were ruled by tyrants, they didn't like it and the word took some bad connotations. Still the words used in greek are actually ischyontos "the one being strong" and loimos "pestilent one" which matches both the Vulgate and the D-R and is quite far from tyrant.
@@AaronJediKnight .....nor were those Greek "Tyrants" called that, because the Title was negative...in fact the great respected Athenian lawgiver Solon was "a Tyrant"...
This video anachronistic reflects our modern adverse understanding of the word...not the powerful positive ancient one...and I would wager to say this was not King James understanding of "Tyrant" either...
...there lots of critical theories (and conspiracy theories) about why the 1611 KJV translators were pressured to do this or that..but when one digs in... there very little hard evidence... and lots of postmodern style historical supposition and conjecture....The KJV is "the Di Vinci Code-Lite"...
@@AaronJediKnight ...Lost in Translation: I have a copy of the Douay Rheims...it has interesting archaic "Catholic" verbiage, for instance "make Penance" for "Repent" (Acts 2:38 )...
I also found unraveling this ecclesssiastical knot interesting..and revealing:
In the Douay, πρεσβύτερος/Presbyters or "Elders" is generally translated "Priests"(a English word, clearly related etymology and theologically to NT Greek πρεσβύτερος/Presbyters ..it's almost a transliteration) ...fair enough..
however
....whereas the actual NT Greek word for a Jewish "priest" (for lack of another English word) is rather "ἱερεύς/heireus "sacred one"...and with "heir" in its root, it has obvious implications of inherited religious power and generational station...i.e. the Kohenim...
Whereas, the English word "Priest", combined with long standing High Church traditions has completely convoluted these two separate Biblical Words and entirely different religious functions...in the NewTestament πρεσβύτερος (Elders/Presbyters) are never called ἱερεύς("Priests") nor vice a versa...
The apostle Jacob’s name was translated as James, in the King James Version, in honor of King James.
Yikes.
No man. They're the same name in Hebrew, "Yaaqob". The Greeks said Iakóbos which then became Jacobus and then Jammes in France. No need to make up nonsense.
@@ConnorLumsden In the French Bible the name is Jacques. In the Spanish Bible the name is Jacobo. In Portuguese it is Tiago.
@@ConnorLumsden I've done a bit more reading on this subject since your comment and most articles agree with your assessment. In fact, one article did say what I had heard: That Jacob was renamed James, in honor of King James, was wrong. So I stand corrected.
@@RicdelCampo1 I respect that a lot. Hats off to you!
I like how God is so totally real that nobody is afraid to put word in his mouth.
My guess is your mocking God right now but that’s the thing, is that while God is in fact real, some people just simply don’t fear him as much as others
This is why I only read the LSB, ESV, and NASB. Literal translations are the best ❤
Now imagine how many times this was done over millennia
That’s what textual criticism is for.
See the Dead Sea scrolls. People change scriptures every now and then, but their source texts still exist. We know that our scriptures have not significantly changed in over 2000 years, because we have texts from that time to compare to.
Religion is for pedophiles. And pedophile simps.
@@landrypierce9942what ever gets you through life I guess
@@1stpaperdragon740 It’s so much more than that.
If I remember correctly, the reason King James was held in such high esteem, is because he wanted the average Englishman to be able to read Christian scripture for themselves, which up to that time, (for the most part) was in Latin. I don't recall that he had time to participate as an editor, but I do recall that William Shakespeare was on the board. That being said, I would imagine that the King was noble enough to recognize that the text was not necessarily about himself. Some men that I meet with to discuss the Bible still use the King James Version, and I agree, it has a sort of beauty. But it is a bit annoying to me because the original intent of the King James Version was to allow people to have access to the Bible in their own language. I feel offended for those in the group who have trouble understanding old English, which sometimes includes me.
It's just funny because, I mean you do bring up a good point. But you're still in denial about the point that was made that you're so offended about. Because it's a commonly known fact that the church has been associated with government throughout history.
By the time King James was king, the scriptures were already in English. The translation work started nearly 100 years prior with William Tyndale, who translated the New Testament and part of the Old Testament into English in the 1520s. Tyndale was executed for his work by Catholic authorities, but his translation continued to develop and progress with the Matthew Bible, Coverdale Bible, Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and finally the Authorized (King James) Version.
There is a 21st century version. It's easy to read.
@@SeekJesusFindLife But that is a rewording of the King James, not a translation into modern English.
@@hermanwooster8944 One of the massive failings of modern scriptural analysis is that all the versions you mentioned started the "OT" translation either from Greek or Latin, not the original Hebrew. So you have the translation from Hebrew to Greek and/or Latin (very different languages conceptually) then the translation to English (again a very different language conceptually). On top of that there are roughly 100K "versions" which update the KJ English into modern. Some of those are modernizations of other, previous "modern versions."
Yeah, scripture absolutely be accessible. But at some point the march towards accessibility wears away actual authorial intent. Going from the original Hebrew to contemporary English is hard enough. There's a lot of ... this word is translated to this word/phrase, but it really is this 'idea' that can't be encapsulated easily.
It wasn’t the king. It was the king James translators.
No matter what was removed or sequestered, whatever that is left is MORE THAN sufficient for us 💯
I've recently come across your channel and even though I am very much a pagan I really enjoy watching you guys really getting into the history of your holy scripture. It is inspiring.
Same. I'm also pagan and love learning the history of other practices. The lore is captivating 😂
Abandon your pagan beliefs they serve you no purpose, learn the good news of Jesus Christ 🙏
@@joshyboiz1562 oh shut up. Let people believe what they want to believe. It doesn’t affect you in any way and you saying that will convince no one to become Christian. You’re just chasing people away and making Christians seem annoying.
As a Fellow Pagan, it is fascinating.
@@joshyboiz1562 No.
In my Humanities class my college teacher reviewed how the KJV was translated. It was by commitees, but never knew tyrant was taken out..... cool man. Thanks.
This video is wrong lol. The word עָרִ֑יץ is used in the same fashion as tyrant, even more derogatory. For example Jeremiah 20:11 translates it as "mighty terrible onex, Psalm 37:35 as "the wicked in great power". It's like saying "the evil man who makes every decision" instead of "the dictator".
The word tyrant was never taken out, because the KJV was a translation of the original Hebrew, not Geneva bible.
@@mong9942 Thanks for your explanation.
The word in there is not even the word tyrant. I doubt it was taken out (because it's not there in the first place)
The examples he gave are translated to arabic as "strong one " or "mighty one"(it has a negative tone usually) in the first example. And "evil ones" in the second example he gave. Translating them as tyrant is probably the wrong translation, translating them as terrible is closer.
and he is wrong.
Note: arabic is not hebrew but are have similar structure and very similar vocabulary, there is no doubt you will receive the same response from a hebrew about these tow verses.
@@ok-hv1or Thank you for your examples and your detailed explanation . I don't know any Arabic, Hebrew or Greek or the phrases that were common at that time....
👍 An excellent and amazing video. Very nice information you have given. Thank you.
"it's got to be the word tyrant." - me as soon as you put up the Bible verse.
"Knew it!"
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't 90% of the translation already completed by William Tyndale by the time the King James Bible effort began? Did Tyndale translate these terms as 'tyrant' or did he also take out this term?
Very interested to know myself
Theres some books left with his influence you could look up.
There were several NT tranlations already in use before Tydal. He was denied permission by his bishop for another translation because there were those already, and mainly because he wasnt a great linguist. Tydal chose to ignore St Ignatius of Antioch writings, Diciple of John the Beloved.
He wasnt a good linguist, and not sure if he was willfully mistranslating passages..but it was bad enough the king demanded it all destoyed and that the Courts execute him.
The books of canon were detemined in 382AD at the Council of Rome, ratified at Hippo and Carthage, tranlated into the Vulgate by St Jerome. (Marcion texts were a nightmare, anything he could throw out..he did! Hemce the council of Rome)
DRV was completed in 1609, from the Vulgate, first complete bible in french and english. OT and NT.
History is fun once you start digging. I mean...how many know Polcarp, Ireanus etc?
@@rebn8346 ireanius bishop of lyons instigated the collective of chrisindom . As he was against individual experience of god ,so decided on the universal concept . Ie, catholic church . 180 ad.
@@lloydbeattie9370 you've never read Ireanus? As Bishop, he was subject to the Authority of the Magesteriam and the pope, who is subject to God.
Good news, you can read him for free online!
Ignatius of Antioch was the first to record the Catholic Church, which was already in use.
@@rebn8346 subject to god . Well maybe back then ppl might believe that, not today . . U do know theres. Suffient amount of evidence today to prove without any doubt . That ireanius bishop of lyons manipulated what went into and what was excluded from what is now a veriety of god sanctioned writeings of the jeudeo/ christian bible . Look up herises .that lot gave themselves self appionted orthority . Never came from god . I could go on for ever ,about the manipulation of god said this or that . By the way do u believe in hell . ?
I wonder how many American "Christians" hate this guy
I'm a christian, I don't hate him, I don't like what he is saying. There is a big difference between the two statements.
Why would they?
I dont like his purpose. He wants to destroy the truth
@@fransjudeasamosir do he want tho? His intention is probably to reveal the truth and destroy misconceptions. Idk if he is always right, but it doesn't seem like he is usually.
I don't like his hairline, but that's as deep as my hatred runs
With the ending cut off as it was, I heard Paul Harvey finish it for him;
"... and now you know.... the REST of the story!"
The Isaiah one is correct as “tyrant” but the other example really is supposed to be “terrible.”
The word "tyrant" is mentioned 4 times in the KJV Apocrypha:
Wis.8
[15] Horrible tyrants shall be afraid, when they do but hear of me; I shall be found good among the multitude, and valiant in war.
Wis.12
[14] Neither shall king or tyrant be able to set his face against thee for any whom thou hast punished.
2Mac.4
[25] So he came with the king's mandate, bringing nothing worthy the high priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel tyrant, and the rage of a savage beast.
2Mac.7
[27] But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.
That is deutericanonicals, not apocrypha!!!
James I leyo' "Tranny" instead of tyranny and authorized his version!!!
I didn't think the word tyrant was off limits to the translators. The King James translators did not compromise
Notice king and tyrant are next to each other. 😊
I was looking for this comment
Next question, next short, explains which versions fix this ?
You said redeem and was thinking on the hidden window of the debt clock'....I'mmmmmmm innnnnn
Even tyrants know they're monsters...
Control the mass by changing/banning the definition... very effective method
damn explains some of our current issues maybe we need to put it back in ;)
Those vids were you started with the Wait... what 😭😭
@_magnify Can you please provide your perspective on Song of Solomon 5:16 and MHMD translation?
Im a native gebrew speaker so when the word came up on the screen in hebrew i instantly knew you are talking about the word tyrant lol
גם אני😂
חחחח גם אני😂
יופי עכשיו כל הישראלים יבואו
גיברית זה השפה הכי טובה
I thought that tyrant was the latin word for terrible? Assuming they translated from the latin bible.
Lol, if you are able to speak two European languages you can usually spot the latein word easily.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure this video is missing something simple like the definition of tyrant 😂
Thank you for saying it out loud. This fellows a little "click baity" on purpose.. I like him I'm sorry he's not The Bible Scholar he presents himself as..
@@lidmc796 Tyrant was any ruler who will gained power by unconventional means good OR bad .. did not necessarily have a negative connotation- "Terrible" seems like a better choice for the times..
@@grandmagrace9453 Tyrannt always was a ruler, with no regard for the law and portrayed in a negative light, it comes from the Greek tyranno(u?)s.
In that regard i suggest reading platos definition of a Tyrant, in the republic.
a Dictator was what was not always seen as negative but necessary at times of crisis Rom elected a Dictator, not a Tyrant
Terrible on the other hand has a latein origin.
aaaaand you've got the sub!
What happened to the part in the Bible about “if anyone removes or adds?”
King Jimmy knew the dangers of free roaming t Rex.
why did i think he was talking about lebron lmao
How did you find this?
That's crazy.. I'd take the KJV over most others due to the simple fact that others simply pull whole verses out of their versions. Pretty important ones as well. They just outright omit them (example: verse 34, 35, straight to 37). That's something I'd have a problem with over using a softer word than a harsher one...
Like kjv had many mansions in heaven translated to room in modern?
Like the fact that modern versions remove 1 John 5:7 which is the most explicit verse affirming the Trinity and now we have Jehovah's Witnesses because of its absence
I wouldn't exactly say it's crazy, as he didn't provide any historical evidence for this claim, and the historical record we do have demonstrates that the KJV is the most fair and balanced English translation in existence.
This is just a presentation of, "hey, something that might just be a complete coincidence was probably the work of that evil King James, and that's why the KJV must be bad".
And you're right, the modern versions we have today have such horrifying omissions that it's amazing to me that anyone is focusing on such minor conjecture.
Just found your channel, fascinating!! Subscribed!
ladies and gentlemen, the unalterable and ineffable word of gawd.
I just checked it. Its in there now 😂
I really like this guy
He's a Wicked False Prophet.
This editor is the master of transition lol
Well, the Douay Rheims Bible in both samples presented on your video translates as “mighty” the word you are referring to. Keep in mind the Douay Rheims bible is older than the King James bible, and it could be possible this bible was one of the many bibles the King James translators consulted while working on their translation.
And you still say ,"Bible is preserved" May Allah Guide us
James didn't like that word because it made him feel uncomfortable.
If the word of god makes u feel uncomfortable then maybe youre not gods anointed but a decietful person using gods pure religion for positions of power meanwhile twisting gods message.
Ahhh yes.. Like a true "christian"
He is a gen Z
It shows that he didn't like the truth. Which makes me wonder what others lies where put there.
I don't think this video is exactly accurate. It is just making up a reason why that word is not present, but Hebrew can be translated in many different ways in English. It doesn't make much sense to get rid of the word “tyrant” out of fear if you are going to keep a word like “oppressor” in there. 🤷♂️
Thanks for making these interesting videos. 😊
Thank you, I read both chapters,know that the LORD used this to help me,, thank you
And unicorn was not one of them!!😂
Could you also do a short on the removal of the name Jehovah (or YHWH) from many Bibles?
Jehovah was never removed because it wasn't a thing.
The Jews would not write out the name of God for fear of risking disrespecting His name and as a way to reinforce their own humility when compared to His absolute majesty. So they'd remove the vowels whenever His name HAD to be written. This caused confusion for people when translating the KJV. Since they didn't have to social studies or archeological context for understanding the lettering the word "Jehovah" was put in because they didn't know better.
The reason modern translations don't use that address is because it's not of the manuscripts--it was a mistranslation.
@@bufficliff8978😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 oh you almost has us there for the first half 😅
@@bufficliff8978 I thought all Hebrew didn't use vowels
@@ReneeB-mz9cx Vowels for Hebrew were invented only in 6th century
@@dgsf9444 what do you think of Mind Unveileds new video about hebrew
Ahh yes, the tyrant's couldn't even let that word be... What a bunch of tyrants...
Glad I subbed the other day.. So far, so good!
...I knew what the word was supposed to be right away.
Anyone else?
Wanna know another word that doesn't appear at all anywhere in the Bible?
Hell.
Tyranny had no negative connotation until modern times.
Like "draconian laws" were bascialy laws that were already there but were more reinforced by the law makers enforcers
Tyranny was show as a ruler who gained power through unconventional means without any regard for law. It was always presented in a negative light.
Your point being? There's a reason why James wanted it out.
No sir, that would be the word Dictator. Tyrant was used in a negative meaning as early as 500BC as the Romans viewed monarchy as a slippery slope into tyranny. That's also why Julius Caesar was seen as a danger to Rome by his assassins.
@Red Clay Scholar word existed but not had same negative connotation as today everywhere:
from Old French tiran, tyrant (12c.), from Latin tyrannus "lord, master, monarch, despot," especially "arbitrary ruler, cruel governor, autocrat" (source also of Spanish tirano, Italian tiranno), from Greek tyrannos "lord, master, sovereign, absolute ruler unlimited by law or constitution," a loan-word from a language of Asia Minor.
Same for dictator. Still today a president gets dictatorship powers in an emergency so even being negative it still is part of modern democracy too.
We need this guy to write a bible with proper translations
An edomite? OK.
The Ethiopian Bible is the oldest and less tampered with.
Original Hebrew and Greek are still available, so even when the KJV has a word different its very easy to find the original word and translate it. 😊
You probably wouldn't like it very much... it wouldn't be much like the one you're used to.
Still fictional tho
"Our bible has no alterations, it has been preserved perfectly"
The preservation in question:
Ivan’s name makes much more sense now…
Now I'll peruse through all my translations just to see....
"Terrible" is simply a much better translation of עָרִיץ than "tyrant".
Yup… I read the Strong’s Concordance and “terrible” is much more accurate.
This dude is just talking, and idiots will believe anything.
@@NighhhtsGod can do anything
@@sarahbaer1593
Except be an idiot.
It's about time I block this guy, why the hell does CZcams keep showing me his shorts when he spews nonsense in them most of the time.
He has his own agenda and I'm not here for it.
"Terrible" does not have the same implications of power that עָרִיץ alludes to - except in archaic form. Tyrant is a better translation in many instances, though not all. Other translators have chosen different words, such as "giant" (eg. Luther and his derivatives) or "mighty". As for James Strong's Concordance - James Strong was a KJV apologist, so he _would_ side with the KJV translation, wouldn't he?