Did those who wrote the king James version believe the flood had sides.

[maudman]

I think this is a pretty interesting verse of scripture for those who say that the king James version is against the flood being a local event. Why is Israels ancestors depicted as those who dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, what flood is this about.


Joshua 24

1. And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.
2. And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.

[George Murphy]

I think this is a pretty interesting verse of scripture for those who say that the king James version is against the flood being a local event. Why is Israels ancestors depicted as those who dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, what flood is this about.


Joshua 24

1. And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.
2. And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.

"The flood" here translates a common Hebrew word for "the river", hanahar. It's obvious from the context that it means the river Euphrates & NRSV so translates it ("beyond the Euphrates"). The KJV men no doubt realized this but why they chose to be more poetic here I don't know. They weren't simplistic "1 English word for 1 Hebrew/Greek word" translators. In any case this has nothing to do with the flood of Gen.6-8.

Shalom,
George

[maudman]

"The flood" here translates a common Hebrew word for "the river", hanahar. It's obvious from the context that it means the river Euphrates & NRSV so translates it ("beyond the Euphrates"). The KJV men no doubt realized this but why they chose to be more poetic here I don't know. They weren't simplistic "1 English word for 1 Hebrew/Greek word" translators. In any case this has nothing to do with the flood of Gen.6-8.

Shalom,
George

Yes, George I agree 100% and I do realize that the word is [hanahar] and yes it does mean "beyond the Euphrates" and yes I have for a long time thought this verse puzzling? Because they weren't amatures but real scholars in their time.

I also wondered why they chose the word "flood" in place of a word that seems some what obviously pointing to the Euphrates. Could it be that they thought the flood as a local event that happened along the Euphrates river?

Websters also say's flood and why do they both speak of old time and the lineage of Abraham and his fathers, fathers. Their seems to some reason for those that translated it that way. Joshua seems to be trying to remind Israel of their past and thats what is puzzling. At least thats the Impresssion I get from its reading.

I ask myself what was so significant about living on the other side of the Euphrates? Their had to be other peoples that lived on the other side of the river also.

Peace George

[George Murphy]

Yes, George I agree 100% and I do realize that the word is [hanahar] and yes it does mean "beyond the Euphrates" and yes I have for a long time thought this verse puzzling? Because they weren't amatures but real scholars in their time.

I also wondered why they chose the word "flood" in place of a word that seems some what obviously pointing to the Euphrates. Could it be that they thought the flood as a local event that happened along the Euphrates river?

Websters also say's flood and why do they both speak of old time and the lineage of Abraham and his fathers, fathers. Their seems to some reason for those that translated it that way. Joshua seems to be trying to remind Israel of their past and thats what is puzzling. At least thats the Impresssion I get from its reading.

I ask myself what was so significant about living on the other side of the Euphrates? Their had to be other peoples that lived on the other side of the river also.

Peace George

It would be interesting to know why the KJV men translated this way. LXX & V don't give any precedent, using the usual words for river (potamos, fluvius). Luther has jenseits des Wassers, "On that side [as distinguished from this side] of the water."
A look at Tyndale might be instructive but I have only his NT here.

If the Euphrates was seen as the northern boundary of "Greater Israel" then the distinction between those on "this side" & "that side" would be understandable.

Shalom,
George

[maudman]

It would be interesting to know why the KJV men translated this way. LXX & V don't give any precedent, using the usual words for river (potamos, fluvius). Luther has jenseits des Wassers, "On that side [as distinguished from this side] of the water."
A look at Tyndale might be instructive but I have only his NT here.

If the Euphrates was seen as the northern boundary of "Greater Israel" then the distinction between those on "this side" & "that side" would be understandable.

Shalom,
George

Hello George

I have considered the things that you have said and have tried without any real results in trying the Hebrew/Greek linguistic approach and I found that little help. I found myself looking in other areas to help in understanding the people themselves.

You mentioned William Tyndale and I think that is a significant contribution to the discussion.

I will think out loud for a moment and see if these things make any sense.

When Luther and his following that he had were starting to break from the Church of Rome I get the impression from studies that it was really more than 95 points of contention with papacy. There may have been more rifts and the KJV is in part a document that reveals some of the rifts. These verses I think demonstrate something about what may have been going on in the trenches of scholarly debates or divisions.
In my experience of being baptized in three major panoramic views of Christian faiths I began to notice a more Israelite or Jewish slant in certain people’s interpretations. Now it is also known that early Christians soon after the founding had a more Jewish/Israelite way of worshipping and that gentiles that come later had a different approach more faith based not scripture based. What I mean is that gentiles for the most part lack a rich Jewish heritage of scripture based understanding of the religion they had embraced and that Luther and Gang may have represented those who were getting fed up with this lack of attention to the details.
When they began to threaten to mass produce scripture in what would ultimately become the KJV. I get an impression that it may not just be a translation but an “interpretive translation” of texts in many areas. My impression is that they may be the first OEC’s. I say this cause Scofield commentary is clearly OEC. And it seems like his commentary is a natural evolutionary step of interpretation of the KJV.
Tyndale death shows the danger of their business of translation. Heresy was definitely crime worthy of public execution and humility in his time as his death points out.
I guess what I’m saying is that the text may have came to be as we see it maybe because as they were translating they were also learning things and this learning may be reflected in the KJV because to use the word Flood in no way reflects the translation of the word HANAHAR itself. but all the scriptures that immediately surround it. After they were done they were possibly more OEC than YEC as we view these things today.

This is just thinking out loud

Peace be with you, George

[Marshall Janzen]

This reading didn't start with the 1611 KJV:

Joshua 24:2 (Biship's Bible, 1568)

And Iosuah sayde vnto al the people, Thus sayth the Lorde God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the fludde in olde time, euen Thare the father of Abraham and of Nachor, and serued straunge goddes.

Joshua 24:2 (Geneva Bible, 1587)

Then Ioshua said vnto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt beyond the flood in olde time, euen Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and serued other gods.

[maudman]

This reading didn't start with the 1611 KJV:

Joshua 24:2 (Biship's Bible, 1568)

And Iosuah sayde vnto al the people, Thus sayth the Lorde God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the fludde in olde time, euen Thare the father of Abraham and of Nachor, and serued straunge goddes.

Joshua 24:2 (Geneva Bible, 1587)

Then Ioshua said vnto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt beyond the flood in olde time, euen Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and serued other gods.

Myles Coverdale had worked under the feet of Tyndale for about six years and was responsible for what was known as the First completed written bible and his bible was largly the completion of tyndale's work which was the Matthew bible (Tyndales new testament,) Pentateuch and Jonah.

Coverdale had made revisions to some of tyndales work on the old testament. The Coverdale bible was printed in 1537, Much of the old testament in this bible was the written from translative work of Tyndales,Luthers,and Coverdales with Greek and latin resources. The 1611 king james version doesn't represent all their work but most of it. The were many revisions for the Coverdale bible, The Great Bible(first for public publication), Geneva Bible. What was to become known as the 1611 king james was their work extensivley modified.

So I would say that the three above are responsible for the verses saying what they say, unless Coverdale had modified Luthers or Tyndales work. But for what ever reason many modifications had been made on their work in later years. Their work may have said some things differently as we have seen it was partially interpretive and that may not have been acceptable to some scholar ship those who would be responsible for those bibles published for general public.

[Rushing Jaws]

"The flood" here translates a common Hebrew word for "the river", hanahar. It's obvious from the context that it means the river Euphrates & NRSV so translates it ("beyond the Euphrates"). The KJV men no doubt realized this but why they chose to be more poetic here I don't know. They weren't simplistic "1 English word for 1 Hebrew/Greek word" translators. In any case this has nothing to do with the flood of Gen.6-8.

Shalom,
George

## Possibly because the Euphrates is very commonly known as "the River" in Ancient Near Eastern texts. It would be no surprise if the Israelites spoke & thought like the other peoples in the world they were part of. A "flood" = something that "flows - a feature of most rivers. "Flood" need not in itself mean "enormous and disastrous & violent volume of waters that covers pretty much everything in sight"; that it has come to mean that, is an accident of its usage in English. Even a little river can be a *nahar* - "Flood" is "mabbul".

The thing about "the Flood" is that the narratives speaks of the "waters above the earth", in heaven (cf. e.g. Ps.29), above which JHWH is "enthroned"; & the "waters under the earth" - that they mix, is a sign of their passing the limits with which He set them at the creation; it's a form of "trans-gression", passing over boundaries; which is a repeated theme in Gen.1-11. The Euphrates does none of that - it's the river that flows between Mesopotamia, from which Abram came, & his Israelite descendants whom Joshua is addressing.

The question that started the thread is, to say the least, surprising. Does the OP never speak of "sun-rise" :) ?

[Rushing Jaws]

Yes, George I agree 100% and I do realize that the word is [hanahar] and yes it does mean "beyond the Euphrates" and yes I have for a long time thought this verse puzzling? Because they weren't amatures but real scholars in their time.

I also wondered why they chose the word "flood" in place of a word that seems some what obviously pointing to the Euphrates. Could it be that they thought the flood as a local event that happened along the Euphrates river?

Websters also say's flood and why do they both speak of old time and the lineage of Abraham and his fathers, fathers. Their seems to some reason for those that translated it that way. Joshua seems to be trying to remind Israel of their past and thats what is puzzling. At least thats the Impresssion I get from its reading.

I ask myself what was so significant about living on the other side of the Euphrates? Their had to be other peoples that lived on the other side of the river also.

Peace George

The reason is that Joshua 24, like Nehemiah 9, is reciting the "mighty deeds" of the god of Israel. Several OT passages do this - Psalm 136 for instance. He is recapitulating the history of God's care for Israel, because the people are entering into a pact (a better translation than "covenant") with this god. What Joshua is not doing, is giving a lesson in geography. He is going back to the dawn of the emergence of what became Israel - & this means going back to their first father, Abraham, who is described in Gen.11:27-32 as coming from Ur. To arrive in Canaan, where Shechem, the scene of Josh.24, is, Abr[ah]am had to cross the Euphrates. So it is mentioned, to specify further where God called him from (the list of Shem's descendants who terminate in Abram in 11:10-32 includes several names that suggest a connection with Assyria & Babylonia, & it comes directly after the Tower of Babylon story, which itself follows the "Table of the Nations" descended from Noah in Gen.10.)