What if the Coverdale Bible didn't switch the word "vile"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"What if" can be a great tool for studying and learning history, but if the history recorded is wrong from the start, one is then at risk of promoting error rather than fact.
While I agree with you on reproductive accuracy the bible isn't a text on history.
Every king foretold in Daniel 11 was born within the 20th century A.D.
I'll be very careful about your next steps. This isn't a site to promote conspiracy theories or preach in general.
That said I'd be very interested in how you support this claim with evidence.
 
In 1535 A.D., the printing of the Coverdale Bible began a disastrous treatment of the Book of Daniel by taking the word "vile" from chapter eleven, verse twenty, and moving it to verse twenty-one.

All but one (Douay-Rheims) English translations of the Holy Bible have followed suit on this error since.

In French the term (either méprisé or méprisable, depending on the version) is also found in verse 21, so if this is an error, its source is not an English Bible but one much older.

But I don't think it's an error. My understanding is that Biblical translations are based upon the ancient sources and are not just revisions of earlier ones in the same language. So if all modern translations put the adjective in verse 21, that's probably where it belongs. Your premise is probably backwards - Wycliff's version in 1378 is likely in error. Either he personally put "vile" in the wrong verse, or based it on a earlier text that had been mis-copied (since the printing press did not exist, everything had to be hand copied).
 
Last edited:
No clue whatever as to what's up here...must be something that was covered in those few decades I missed my bible study class...
 
Said Antiochus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the Book of Daniel, this has also been part of the vandalism done to the Book of Daniel since prophet Daniel was told to close and seal-up the vision (Book).

Every king foretold in Daniel 11 was born within the 20th century A.D.

That might make sense if the vision not unsealed until the 20th century but, as we know, it was revealed in the 2nd century BC. What use is a prophecy given over two thousand years before its fulfilment. Why are the intervening generations supposed to preserve it without trying to fit it to their own time?

Surely a prophecy is meant primarily for the generation to which it is revealed?

It is not an infallible prediction of future events. Almost every prophecy in the Bible (including the Book of Daniel) fails by that standard. It is rather an interpretation of past events, together with a projection into the future which is designed to encourage or guide those who receive it.

The prophecy of Daniel is presented as a vision from over 400 years before, with chapter 11 being a more-or-less accurate history of the events during the time that it was 'sealed', up until the desecration of the Temple. Its focus is on the 1335 days of the successful Maccabean revolt, ending in the first Hannukah.

Because the subsequent history of the Maccabees was somewhat less than inspiring, the 'end' of chapter twelve has been reinterpreted ever since: in the time of Jesus, by the Book of Revelation, by the Fifth Monarchy men of the English Civil War, and lastly by yourself. No doubt it will continue to inspire re-interpretation for centuries to come. That is the nature of Scripture.

Now, as to your original question: Obviously the Coverdale change could have no effect on previous interpretations of the prophecy. The Tyndale version may fit your own interpretation better, but of course that interpretation was not available until the 20th century. Is there evidence that a known interpretation was influenced by the change (and could not have been made using the Tyndale version) at any time in between?

It would be fascinating if Coverdale could be shown to have made the change, either consciously or unconsciously, to better fit the prophecy to events of his own time, but I very much doubt if it would be possible.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Edward Palamar, post: 18283459, member: 122700”]

Every king foretold in Daniel 11 was born within the 20th century A.D.

[/QUOTE]

And there it is. This is not the place for your biblical speculations, accurate or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Having spent the day in remembrance and worship, I'll address the bulk of responses since. Although this "what if" conforms to the guidelines for topic discussion, I have presented that it involves a direct tampering with fact. This particular "what if" is not only for unbelievers, especially as the shown tampering is more of a glutting by unbelievers, an orgy of falsehood and disdain. And they have had their say and 'victory' in the continued error for hundreds of years. This "what if" offers to show the other side of the story, the real story, the story of fact, not fairy tales. If you'd like a thread on fairy tales, go ahead and start one, see how it goes. I know I won't be joining it, but that's my privilege.

My perspective includes direct witness to these real events foretold, real conflict, real bloodshed, real war.

The amazing thing, at least to me, is that this all came to a sudden end because December 29, 2018 A.D. was the 2,300th day of Daniel 8:14, and December 30, 2018 A.D. was the beginning of the "age to come" foretold by Jesus in Mark 10:30.
 
For shits and giggles I pulled out my Bible from the bottom of my bookshelf. It is a New King James Version from 1984 and it is an Orthodox bible (has an Icon of Christ, a list of daily prayers, and a schedule of Scripture readings for the year according to the Orthodox cycle.)

Anyway, here's what it says verbatim. I copied it straight from the book itself and double checked.

19 - "Then he shall turn his face towards the fortress of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
20 - "There shall arise in his place on who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle.
21 - "And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue.

So yeah, the word "vile" moved. Still have no idea what the significance is but you aren't wrong that the word itself moved from one translation to another.
 
Said Antiochus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the Book of Daniel, this has also been part of the vandalism done to the Book of Daniel since prophet Daniel was told to close and seal-up the vision (Book).

Every king foretold in Daniel 11 was born within the 20th century A.D.
For others following this thread, the scholarly consensus around Daniel 11 is that it was written within a brief window between 167-164 BCE.

This is because most of the verses of that chapter (after other briefly told history) refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. They provide an accurate description of his wars with Egypt up until verse 39 (two wars and various other acts). Verses 40-45 predict a third war with Egypt which never eventuated, and also gave an incorrect prediction for the location of Antiochus's death. This narrow window shows when it was written.

Ever since about the writing of Revelation, there have been changing interpretations of Daniel 11 (and most of Daniel, really) to relate to then-contemporary events. All of those interpretations are eventually superseded by new interpretations when the last bunch of predictions fails or loses relevance.
 
Said Antiochus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the Book of Daniel, this has also been part of the vandalism done to the Book of Daniel since prophet Daniel was told to close and seal-up the vision (Book).

Every king foretold in Daniel 11 was born within the 20th century A.D.

This is not a conspiracy theory board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top