Can you name the twelve sons of Jacob?

[chrissy]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Zebulun, Issachar, Joseph and Bejamin. These are the sons that Jacob had with, Leah, Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah. This is is discussed in Genesis chapters 29 and 30.

 

[chrissy]

And I almost forgot, one daughter whom Leah bare unto him: Dinah. These are the only children that Jacob had.

 

[chrissy]

Why the does Matthew 1:2 say "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;" Where did Judas come in? Mmmm... very interesting. A HUGE mistake, IMO. Anyone care to share their views?

 

[gervais]

No step for a stepper:Matthew is written in Greek.Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; Mat 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Mat 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; Genesis is written in Hebrew.Gen 29:35 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. The name "Judah" is Hebrew (H3063 ) The name Judas is the Greek spelling of the same name ( G2455) . It only takes a little ability to see the languages of Scripture.

 

[chrissy]

The name "Judah" is Hebrew (H3063 ) The name Judas is the Greek spelling of the same name ( G2455) . It only takes a little ability to see the languages of Scripture.

So I think I understand that you are saying that Judas is the greek spelling of Judah? May I ask what then is the greek spelling of the actual name "Judas", as in Iscariot? With your conclusion, then you are saying there is no difference between the names Judah and Judas, Is that correct?

 

[Christina]

gervais is exactly right, I dont get your attitude seems you study the bible with the intent of proving God Word wrong instead of questioning and wanting to learn his truth and going about learning how to do that. Do you think all of those who have studied these things for their entire lives are so much dumber than you that they would have not caught on were there all these simple obvious errors, you think you see. This is not the correct attitude to have if you are truly interested in leaning about the God you claim to accept as yours. Now if you want to learn about Names and the differance between Hebrew and greek you can look here http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=hbnall you have to do is look under J find the names and click and you will find Judah and Judas are the same name differnt language ... And just because two people share a name means nothing ... There were many Mary's in scripture yet only one was the Mother of Jesus. Marion is the same as Mary, so what, it doesnt mean Marion was Jesus mother. So in the same way just because Judah and Judas are the same name differnt language doesnt mean they are the same person or were even alive at the same period of time.

 

[gervais]

chrissa, I am not saying that, Scripture is saying that. Do you own a Strong's Concordance? Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas (G2455) and his brethren; G2455ἸουδάςIoudasee-oo-das'Of Hebrew origin [H3063]; Judas (that is, Jehudah), the name of ten Israelites; also of the posterity of one of them and its region: - Juda (-h, -s); Jude.If you are going to be really studying Scripture you will want to proper tools to use to help you. I believe there is an area on this forum that will give you the best tools to use for the job. But keep asking questions, I'll answer them for you.

 

[chrissy]

Yea gervais I do have a strongs concordance. It is good to have tools. Well I guess this is to Christina: I just think The King James bible was put "together" by king James. He chose the many books to be put together. I do think God's word is in there, but I also do think there are some words that aren't of The Lord's. I am just trying to differentiate between the two. Well I don't know what else to say.

 

[gervais]

He was a KING, He didn’t do much work himself. He commissioned the Bible with his name on it, ie: he paid for it. Have you ever heard of a work called, “The Massorah?” Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, not old world English?

 

[Christina]

Learn to research these things Chrissy King James wrote nothing he merely put together a team of scholars to translate the manuscripts and decide which books were to be included. At put it into a book form You think God could create the World and all that's in it, and was so inefficient that he couldn't see to it that The Book that would be claimed as his word, was not as he intended it to be ?... The dead Sea scrolls found in 1947 were 1000's of years older than KJV yet the books that were complete were nearly word for word identical ...Proving it has changed very little from KJ time only in modern translations has it been changed ... It was then only named KING JAMES Version after him he didn't write it ..It was already written .

 

[chrissy]

I believe the bible is put together the way The Lord intended it to be. Just the same that there is a false prophet in whom the world will follow and turn away the two witnesses. The Lord did intend that to be as well. Revelation 2:2. I think this can occur here in the books that were put together.

 

[Christina]

Then you have not done your homework because God stands by his prophets who wrote the Words, Not king James so you again are indirectly calling God a liar and if you think his phophets were false then how do you know which of his prophets were false how do you know Rev 2:2 is not written by one ... You either believe his whole word or you belive none The king James was translated by many scholars

 

[Christina]

A proclamation was made That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service." The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.htmlThe work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor." They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza. Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface: Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see. The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith. The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading: "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611." The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading: "THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio." The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages. A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue."