Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian
That's a bold assumption that KJV interpreters would have "covered" for God in areas they disagreed with morally. I wonder if they included David and Bathsheba's indiscretion?
|
Yes, they did include David and Bathsheba's indiscretion.
And they did include the Song of Solomon.
All I'm saying is that they were influenced by the time in which they lived and also they had to keep that new translation acceptable for public reading in the Anglican Church. So they included the English phrase "God save the King" because that is what was spoken at the coronation of English kings, they used the word "church" instead of assembly because the Bible was to be read in Anglican Churches, and they used the words "baptize" and "baptism" instead of immerse or dip or plunge into or plunge under because "baptism" was a liturgical word for a specific religious act.
Several times the term "uncover nakedness" is used for sexual activity.
What I was trying to say is that the Hebrew may have said that Ruth crept onto the threshing floor and lay at Boaz's feet and he actually did spread his cloak over her to cover her up just for warmth. I don't know if she crawled up on him and began to hug around on him or not and he spread his blanket/cloak over her for privacy. They may or may not have had sexual activity. I don't honestly know. The Hebrew may have been referring to a custom from 1000 BC that the scholars of 1600 AD did not understand.
Hybrid Mode
