Acts 7:45 - Revision history

Nick: /* Jesus or Joshua */

2018-03-12T04:59:30Z

Jesus or Joshua

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 12 March 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:3) Jesus, surnamed Justus.		:3) Jesus, surnamed Justus.

	~~In the~~ critical text~~, there is~~ other Jesus':		The critical text contains two other Jesus':
	:1) the son of Eliezer in the genealogy in Luke 3.		:1) the son of Eliezer in the genealogy in Luke 3.
	:2) Jesus Barabbas in [[Matthew 27:17]]		:2) Jesus Barabbas in [[Matthew 27:17]]

Nick: /* Jesus or Joshua */

2018-03-12T04:59:02Z

Jesus or Joshua

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 12 March 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:3) Jesus, surnamed Justus.		:3) Jesus, surnamed Justus.

	In the critical text, there is ~~another~~ Jesus, the son of Eliezer in the genealogy in Luke 3. ~~But this is an error~~ in ~~the critical text.~~		In the critical text, there is other Jesus':
			:1) the son of Eliezer in the genealogy in Luke 3.
			:2) Jesus Barabbas in [[Matthew 27:17]]

	The reason these places have been changed to Joshua in the [[King James Version 2016 Edition]] and other modern translations is the same reason that Ἰούδας (Judas) is translated as Jude in [[Jude 1:1]], and Judah in [[Matthew 1:2]], and several others, to make a distinction from Judas Iscariot in [[Matthew 10:4]]. The same Greek name is translated differently several times to clarify to the reader who exactly is being spoken about. This can be explained by the translators second rule which stated:		The reason these places have been changed to Joshua in the [[King James Version 2016 Edition]] and other modern translations is the same reason that Ἰούδας (Judas) is translated as Jude in [[Jude 1:1]], and Judah in [[Matthew 1:2]], and several others, to make a distinction from Judas Iscariot in [[Matthew 10:4]]. The same Greek name is translated differently several times to clarify to the reader who exactly is being spoken about. This can be explained by the translators second rule which stated:

Nick: /* Jesus or Joshua */

2018-03-12T04:56:54Z

Jesus or Joshua

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:56, 12 March 2018
Line 34:		Line 34:
	That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.		That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.

	Then name Jesus is from the Greek, whereas Joshua is from the Hebrew. Just as many names like Hebrew Noah is Greek Noe, or Hebrew Isaiah is Greek Esaias, so too is Hebrew Joshua, Greek Jesus.		Then name Jesus is from the Greek, whereas Joshua is from the Hebrew. Just as many names like Hebrew Noah is Greek Noe, or Hebrew Isaiah is Greek Esaias, so too is Hebrew Joshua, Greek Jesus. Jesus is the Greek rendition of Joshua, are interchangeable, just like the other name variations in spelling between OT and NT. Jesus is a transliteration of the Greek.

	====1611 marginal notes====		====1611 marginal notes====

Nick: /* Jesus or Joshua */

2018-03-12T04:43:38Z

Jesus or Joshua

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:43, 12 March 2018
Line 33:		Line 33:

	That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.		That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.

			Then name Jesus is from the Greek, whereas Joshua is from the Hebrew. Just as many names like Hebrew Noah is Greek Noe, or Hebrew Isaiah is Greek Esaias, so too is Hebrew Joshua, Greek Jesus.

	====1611 marginal notes====		====1611 marginal notes====

Nick: /* 1611 marginal notes */

2018-03-12T04:29:38Z

1611 marginal notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:29, 12 March 2018
Line 36:		Line 36:
	====1611 marginal notes====		====1611 marginal notes====

	A marginal note in the 1611 at Exodus 17:9 says		A marginal note in the 1611 at [[Exodus 17:9]] says:

	:"Joshua: called Jesus, Acts. 7.45"		:"Joshua: called Jesus, Acts. 7.45"

Nick: /* Jesus or Joshua */

2018-03-12T04:28:54Z

Jesus or Joshua

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:28, 12 March 2018
Line 16:		Line 16:
	==Commentary==		==Commentary==
	====Jesus or Joshua====		====Jesus or Joshua====
	* Which also our fathers that came after brought in with '''<u>Jesus</u>''' into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; ([[KJV]]) [[Acts 7:45]]		* Which also our fathers that came after brought in with '''<u>Jesus</u>''' into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; ([[KJV]]) Acts 7:45

	* For if '''<u>Jesus</u>''' had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. ([[KJV]]) [[Hebrews 4:8]]		* For if '''<u>Jesus</u>''' had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. ([[KJV]]) [[Hebrews 4:8]]
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:“The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.”		:“The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.”

	That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.		That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.

	====1611 marginal notes====		====1611 marginal notes====

Nick: /* Commentary */

2018-03-12T03:21:22Z

Commentary

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:21, 12 March 2018
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:“The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.”		:“The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.”

	That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas.		That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas. Joshua and Jesus are simply different forms of the same Hebrew and Greek name. The 1611 translators felt that their culture understood this, whereas in today's culture this has become blurred, and thus the need to distinguish between Joshua and Jesus is needed to have a contemporary, modern update of the 1611 KJV.

	====1611 marginal notes====		====1611 marginal notes====

Nick: /* 1611 marginal notes */

2018-03-12T02:54:55Z

1611 marginal notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, 12 March 2018
Line 49:		Line 49:
	:"Jesus: that is, Joshua"		:"Jesus: that is, Joshua"

	so as we can see from the marginal notes of the 1611, the name Jesus meant Joshua. In 1611 the names were synonymous.		so as we can see from the marginal notes of the 1611, the name Jesus meant Joshua. In 1611 the names were synonymous. “Jesus” is the Greek mode of writing “Joshua,” and there can be no doubt that Joshua is here intended in the context.

	====KJV Today====		====KJV Today====

Nick: /* 1611 marginal notes */

2018-03-12T02:53:12Z

1611 marginal notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, 12 March 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:"Joshua: called Jesus, Acts. 7.45"		:"Joshua: called Jesus, Acts. 7.45"

	Exodus 17:9 says:		[[Exodus 17:9]] says:
	:And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.		:And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

	Obviously this is literally Joshua and not a preincarnate Jesus as some KJV supporters have claimed.		Obviously this is literally Joshua and not a preincarnate Jesus as some KJV supporters have claimed.

	Hebrews 4:8 states:		[[Hebrews 4:8]] states:

	:"Jesus: that is, Joshua"		:"Jesus: that is, Joshua"

	so as we can see from the marginal notes of the 1611, the name Jesus meant Joshua.		so as we can see from the marginal notes of the 1611, the name Jesus meant Joshua. In 1611 the names were synonymous.

	====KJV Today====		====KJV Today====

Nick at 02:48, 12 March 2018

2018-03-12T02:48:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:48, 12 March 2018
Line 33:		Line 33:

	That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas.		That means, that the culture of England in 1611 had no issue with Jesus being the name of Joshua, but they has issues with Judah, and Jude, being associated with Judas.

			====1611 marginal notes====

			A marginal note in the 1611 at Exodus 17:9 says

			:"Joshua: called Jesus, Acts. 7.45"

			Exodus 17:9 says:
			:And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

			Obviously this is literally Joshua and not a preincarnate Jesus as some KJV supporters have claimed.

			Hebrews 4:8 states:

			:"Jesus: that is, Joshua"

			so as we can see from the marginal notes of the 1611, the name Jesus meant Joshua.

	====KJV Today====		====KJV Today====