Issues with the KJV [Archive]

CoreIssue

02-03-2006, 10:38 AM

PeterAV

04-04-2006, 10:13 PM

There are number of good reasons why the KJV is not the best Bible to use today. For a lost please click here (http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/14.php).

Let me clarify. The KJV is a true Bible. It did serve well for centuries. But the language used is centuries out of date, context and norms of communication for today. Word meanings and usage have changed.

Contrary to the claims of some it is not the Bible, it is far from the oldest Bible still in use and there have been a good number of version changes, so it is not the 1611 version carried forward unchanged until today.

O Boy could we have fun here.
But I will spare you.
I like how Palmer says he loves the King James Bible,and then he goes to slam it right to the very end.Some three or four hundred lines.

Then He lies to the publick making you think that the AV translators didn't have very much or very good manuscript evidence to back up their faithful work.
He conveniently ommits that the thousands of manuscripts that showed up AFTER the AV was out all support the AV other than a couple.

In fact the AV agrees with over 5200 Greek Manuscripts that all agree with each other.
But the Alexandrian Fakers[mainly two] put out by heretics,Necromancers,Arians,Unitarians,can't even agree with each other any two verses in a row.

The language was not even used in the Translators day.They used the highest grammar for to make it agree with the tences of the Greek and the Hebrew languages.They would use "eth" "dst" that agree with many other languages that use endings.And many other similar things.
Just check out the Preface and you will see then address the King as YOUR Majesty,not THY majesty,etc.
But the Holy Bible uses terms consistently like:
Thy=singular
Your=plural

ye=plural
thee=singular
Plus this Palmer tries to fake you into using his corrupted bible by saying that there are too many old words in the King James Bible.

Well the NIV has quite a few old worn out words themselves.That is because of copyright laws,they are forced to use "significant and very diferent words,enouph to warrant a copyright.
Plus the NIV is owned by Rupert Murdock which owns Porn rags around the world.A billionaire.One dollar per bible you waste on the NIV goes to his evil empire.

Just because language has changed does not mean we degrade ourselves to ITS level.We are to set the standard,NOT be conformed to the image of the world,RIGHT?

Is man your standard or is the pure word of God?Choose now.
The AV may not be the oldest Bible in use,but it is the oldest English Bible that is used by the English publick and many other folks as a second language.You try to prove too much,and when you prove too much,you in fact prove nothing at all.

There are no version changes in the Holy Bible.
All there was ,was updating of the font to the roman font,and the spelling errors that were not yet finalized as of that time.Why I have found the same word spelt two or three ways on the same page.That is because they still spelled phonetically.The spelling were not finalized.
Plus there were 400 typo errors found also.
That is all corrected,and you can be certain of having a pure Holy Bible in the English just like God said his word is.
Every word of God is pure.
Thy word is very pure,therefore thy servant loveth it.

You can sit a congregation down and have one half read the AV1611 and the other half read the 2006 edition of the AV1611 and they will read alike.
Start with Matthew and see how you are completly wrong.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1219

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

eahaddix

04-05-2006, 12:00 AM

That is all corrected,and you can be certain of having a pure Holy Bible in the English just like God said his word is.
Every word of God is pure.
Thy word is very pure,therefore thy servant loveth it.

This sounds like faith-based dogma, not substantiated fact. Can you prove that today's King James Version is "pure" and/or "inspired"? Or that the original translators performed inerrant work?

CoreIssue

04-05-2006, 12:42 AM

This sounds like faith-based dogma, not substantiated fact. Can you prove that today's King James Version is "pure" and/or "inspired"? Or that the original translators performed inerrant work?
Nope. He cannot.

His rhetoric totally avoided the list of issues in the links.

I agree with you, Lucky.

PeterAV, you have made a bunch of claims. Now please post links to the manuscript evidence that back your claims.

Talking about manuscripts found later because they were created later is no proof. Or manuscripts dating back to 400 AD created in Rome or by Catholics is not proof either.

CoreIssue

04-05-2006, 09:59 AM

The AV may not be the oldest Bible in use,but it is the oldest English Bible that is used by the English publick and many other folks as a second language.You try to prove too much,and when you prove too much,you in fact prove nothing at all.
Just a note here. This is a false statement.

The Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles are the oldest English Bible still in use today. And were two of the Bibles used to formulate the KJV.

Remember, the KJV is not an original translation. Contrary to what KJV Only groups want to claim.

PeterAV

04-05-2006, 02:33 PM

.

PeterAV, you have made a bunch of claims. Now please post links to the manuscript evidence that back your claims.

Talking about manuscripts found later because they were created later is no proof. Or manuscripts dating back to 400 AD created in Rome or by Catholics is not proof either.
Right,as if they just popped out of thin air and coppied nothing.
The simple fact remains is that the AV is its own internal witness.Unlike any other.

PeterAV

04-05-2006, 02:36 PM

Just a note here. This is a false statement.

The Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles are the oldest English Bible still in use today. And were two of the Bibles used to formulate the KJV.

Remember, the KJV is not an original translation. Contrary to what KJV Only groups want to claim.
I was talking about the publick AT LARGE.Not by the tiniest minority of specialized scholars.
And no,they did not use the wycliff as you say.They may have had it and refered to it on many occassion but it was not the version that they followed.

CoreIssue

04-05-2006, 04:01 PM

Right,as if they just popped out of thin air and coppied nothing.
The simple fact remains is that the AV is its own internal witness.Unlike any other.
Garbage.

You do not prove the KJV THE Bible by referencing the KJV.

It contains errors. Thus it was not an inspired, God guided work.

Yes, it is a Bible. But it is a Bible containing Catholic influence.

In the Genesis 1:2 'and' is not to be found in ANY Hebrew manuscript. And 'was' is an error. The correct word is became.

The OT Temple had oil lamps and Lampstands, not candlestands.

The KJV talks of OT female Temple Prostitutes. They were male. Look up the Hebrew.

'Peace on earth and goodwill toward men' is wrong. It says 'peace to men of goodwill.'

The Greek does not say overcoming certain demons requires fasting. That is a Catholic, pure and simple, add.

Unicorn is a complete mistranslation. There are no unicorns. It was a now extinct species of goat. And it had two horns.

And on and on. Not even getting into the word and verse adds.

Post your actual evidence we can study. Where are the ancient manuscripts supporting your claims? Give us a link to where they are being stored and the linquistic research on them.

Your are just making claims. Nothing more.

I repeat. The KJV is a Bible version. But it is not the most accurate Bible version. And it is not an orginal translation.

Please give us some actual evidence. Link us to the manuscripts backing your claim.

PeterAV

04-08-2006, 01:17 AM

There are answers for every one of those false claims.Now prove that they are in error,first.

CoreIssue

04-08-2006, 11:37 AM

There are answers for every one of those false claims.Now prove that they are in error,first.
The old negative proof claim effort. Classical of those supporting false doctrine.

They are part of the Textus Receptus. That did not exist before the 1500s. I have posted links to scholarly material showing this. No scholarly source says otherwise.

Now, refute me with some FACTS. Not doctrinal positions just declared by KJV Onliest.

CoreIssue

04-08-2006, 12:02 PM

By the way, on the mistranslation issues, just pull up a KJV linear and click the words to get the definitions of such as candlestand and so on. You will see the definition does not match the KJV translation.

PeterAV

04-08-2006, 02:24 PM

They are part of the Textus Receptus. That did not exist before the 1500s. I have posted links to scholarly material showing this. No scholarly source says otherwise.
*******
What was part of the TR?You quoted Gen.1:2 of which you provide no proof,and claim you cave proof.
Also you blurt out about Unicorns being wrong,but of course you are thinking the New Age Unicorn,right?
So,I must assume you are talking about Prayer and fasting.And Luke 2:4 Peace,good will toward men?

To start off with,just how do you think that all manuscripts are available to give such an athoritative statement,Namely "That did not exist before the 1500's"

I know for sure that there are many many manuscripts that are gone for good.Most likely in the hundreds of thousands.We have only about 5.200 extant Greek manuscripts.Plus,who is to say that all originals were in only Greek?All originals are gone and even if one showed up,you wouldn't be able to prove that it is.So you still have yet to prove your possition to start with.
Plus you can't call in err what is regularily done in both the Hebrew and the Greek on all translations of them.Namely adding words that are not really there in the Hebbrew tongue or Greek,just for it to make sense in English.All Bibles do this as a matter of course.But of course,you won't stop these false accusations will you?:catfight:

It would be of some even playing field if you would show me your perfect Holy Bible.And then we could discuss real issues,instead of attack and defend.

So name me your perfect pure Holy Bible that God preserved and inspired,that I can read and learn and preach and teach with.

Then we can get into this matter of Fasting,and Peace.Fair enough?
O,and if you think that it is just a ruse to not answer your statements,think again.

So,have at it;show me your Bible.:tiphat:

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

CoreIssue

04-08-2006, 03:23 PM

What was part of the TR?You quoted Gen.1:2 of which you provide no proof,and claim you cave proof.
Obviously you have not tested anything. You just assume the KJV Only position without checking out personal challenges. Not the position one should take if they are interested in truth.

The King James Version (Authorized) Ge 1:2 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ge+1:2&version=kjv&st=1&sd=2&new=1&showtools=1) And the earth (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0776&version=kjv) was (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01961&version=kjv) without form, (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08414&version=kjv) and void; (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0922&version=kjv) and darkness (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02822&version=kjv) was upon the face (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06440&version=kjv) of the deep. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08415&version=kjv) And the Spirit (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07307&version=kjv) of God (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv) moved (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07363&version=kjv) upon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05921&version=kjv) the face (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06440&version=kjv) of the waters. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04325&version=kjv) yen.P (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06440>(8804)&version=kjv) -l;[ (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05921&version=kjv) .$,v{x.w (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02822&version=kjv) .Wh{b'w (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0922&version=kjv) .Wh{t (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08414&version=kjv) h't.y'h #,r'a'h.w (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0776&version=kjv)
~Iy'M;h (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04325&version=kjv) yen.P (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06440&version=kjv)-l;[ t,p,x;r.m ~yih{l/a (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv) ;x.Wr.w (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07307>(8764)&version=kjv) ~w{h.t (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08415&version=kjv)

Now, check out 'was' and see the Hebrew word means became, not was. And 'and' is not in the Hebrew at all.
Strong's Number: 01961 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=1961&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originhyha primitive root [compare (01933 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=1933&version=kjv))]Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01961&version=kjv#Legend) EntryHayahTWOT - 491Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechhaw-yaw http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1961h) Verb Definition

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
(Qal)
----- 1a
to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a
to come about, come to pass

to come into being, become 1a
to arise, appear, come 1a
to become 1a

to become 1a
to become like 1a
to be instituted, be established
to be 1a
to exist, be in existence 1a
to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a
to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a
to accompany, be with
(Niphal)

to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
to be done, be finished, be gone
A clear Catholic doctrine interjected into the translation.

The KJV is wrong.
The NIV, NASB and NKJV all recognize the problems and drop the 'and,' linkage to being part of verse 1. The NIV is the most accurate in conveying the meaning by saying 'Now' and adding the footnote.

God is a God of light, not darkness. He does not create chaos. And he created darkness, not light. Three firm Biblical declaration the KJV is in conflict with via mistranslation.

While another topic that you may wish to reply to there, search for the thread on Pre-Adamic Creation. The language and such or Genesis 1 is greatly expanded upon within it.

But of course, that is a different topic, and should be replied to there.
Also you blurt out about Unicorns being wrong,but of course you are thinking the New Age Unicorn,right?

Strong's Number: 07214 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=7214&version=kjv)Original WordWord Origin~arfrom (07213 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=7213&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07214&version=kjv#Legend) EntryR@'emTWOT - 2096aPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechreh-ame' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=7214h) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=7214hb) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=7214hc) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=7214hd) Noun Masculine Definition

probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.
There is no room for the word unicorn in the Hebrew. Unicorn means one horn, any way you cut it.

Yep, the New Age Unicorn did exist in the thinking of the time the KJV was written. But not at the time the OT was written.
So,I must assume you are talking about Prayer and fasting.And Luke 2:4 Peace,good will toward men?
Fasting is not in the Greek. It is an add.

And the 'good will' is a flat out mistranslation.
To start off with,just how do you think that all manuscripts are available to give such an athoritative statement,Namely "That did not exist before the 1500's"
Where are they then? Ones supporting these errors before 1500? Give us a link to them.
I know for sure that there are many many manuscripts that are gone for good.
Guessing is not proof of your claims. It is wishful thinking.
Most likely in the hundreds of thousands.We have only about 5.200 extant Greek manuscripts.Plus,who is to say that all originals were in only Greek?All originals are gone and even if one showed up,you wouldn't be able to prove that it is.So you still have yet to prove your possition to start with.
Your claims that what did not appear until 1500 is proof?

You are exercising negative proof claims. Prove your claim wasn't true else it is true.

That is an unacceptable practice in any court of law, logics class, semantics class and any formal debate. One must deal with what is, not what might be.

And there are far older manuscirpts. No manuscript even begins to support your position until under the Catholics of the Byzantine Empire.

I have older mansuscripts. And testimony from those who knew the Apostles. You have offered nothing but assumptions.

By your claims that means in the older finds those things added to the Textus Receptus would have had to been removed. An idea for which there is no support.
Plus you can't call in err what is regularily done in both the Hebrew and the Greek on all translations of them.Namely adding words that are not really there in the Hebbrew tongue or Greek,just for it to make sense in English.
There is a big difference between translation clarifications and deliberately changing the thought and word meanings, such as 'and' does to Genesis 1:2, unicorn and fasting.
All Bibles do this as a matter of course.But of course,you won't stop these false accusations will you?:catfight:
Yep, even the KJV contains dynamic translation. But adding such as already mentioned is not dynamic translation. It is alteration.

And I also, in recognition of dynamic translation, cross reference and use interlinear. Which is obviously something KJV Only do not do.
It would be of some even playing field if you would show me your perfect Holy Bible.And then we could discuss real issues,instead of attack and defend.
A nonsensical and illogical argument that does not justify using the KJV over other versions.

The errors of the KJV are real errors. And you have already made your statement on other translations being heretical. So you have staked your claim and position very clearly.
So name me your perfect pure Holy Bible that God preserved and inspired,that I can read and learn and preach and teach with.
Perfect? Cannot do.

Superior to the KJV? That I can do. Cross reference the NIV and NASB using an Interlinear on the side for serious study. For less serious the NIV because its has very good dynamics to it (but always have the NASB and Interlinear available as well for head scratching areas.)
Then we can get into this matter of Fasting,and Peace.Fair enough?
If you wish to discuss any doctrine, I and others here are always ready to dig into research and discussion.

The issue of fasting, in example, gets into doctrines some hold. Fasting adds to the Biblical stated position of faith, name of the Lord and being wise as to when to cast out. So do you really want to add to how God said to handle things?
O,and if you think that it is just a ruse to not answer your statements,think again.
It is a bait and switch technique.

Notice the thread topic. The KJV. Not the NIV. Not the NASB. The KJV.

You want to challenge them, start a new thread on which ever you wish. But don't try to change the thread issue, the KJV.

We don't need to drag in the others to resolve the issue of the KJV. We need to look at the KJV.

Yep, done this too many times. KJV Onliests always want to divert to other versions.

Please stay on topic. If you can defend the KJV manuscript sources, do so. If you can only defend by trying to discredit older manuscripts, then you have failed already.

Again, Majority Text did not begin until 400 AD. Textus Receptus until 1500s. And the alterations and such involved are not theories and such. They are documented and known historical facts.

So, if you have manuscript history linking back into the origins of the Greek manuscripts used to formulate the Majority Texts, please provide it. I would love to study it.

But that will not and does not overcome the known changes made when moving from the Majority Texts to the Textus Receptus. Those problems I would love to see you arguments for.

Really, created in the 1500s and they are suppose to be THE Bible?
So,have at it;show me your Bible.:tiphat:
Start another thread to discuss other versions. But make sure you answer the questions to the issues you started here. Part of our rules is to not run away from one argument to restart issues elsewhere.
Do both if you wish. But don't dodge answering here as well.:tiphat:

That rule exists because it is so common, on other forums, for people to get boxed in on an argument, then just stop posting there while cranking up the issues again on another topic. An endless cycle of preaching the same position but never answsering challenges.

If you can give us the evidence, please do so. Truth is our goal here.

eahaddix

04-09-2006, 05:44 PM

PeterAV, you never answered my question for you.

That is all corrected,and you can be certain of having a pure Holy Bible in the English just like God said his word is.
Every word of God is pure.
Thy word is very pure,therefore thy servant loveth it.

This sounds like faith-based dogma, not substantiated fact. Can you prove that today's King James Version is "pure" and/or "inspired"? Or that the original translators performed inerrant work?

conan

04-09-2006, 10:24 PM

Fasting is not in the Greek. It is an add.

And the 'good will' is a flat out mistranslation.

CoreIssue, this is not a translation issue, but a Textual one.

http://web.ovc.edu/tc/lay06luk.htm

Luke 2:14:

TEXT: "on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"
EVIDENCE: S* A B* D W lat vg cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "on earth peace, good will among men!"
EVIDENCE: Sc B3 K L P Delta Theta Xi Psi f1 f13 28 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect syr(s,h,pal) syr(p) ("good hope to men") cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NEBn

COMMENTS: The text reading can also be translated "on earth peace among men of good will," but the sense seems to be "men of [God's] good pleasure." This is a Semitic expression found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The difference between the two readings is only one of one letter, the Greek letter "sigma" or "s" at the end of the word. Where the word occurs at the end of a line, the letter "sigma" is written as a little raised "c" which it would be possible for a copyist to overlook. Therefore, the change from "among men of good pleasure" to "good pleasure among men" may have happened either accidently (when the "sigma" was overlooked) or deliberately (by copyists who did not understand that in the Semitic expression "men of good pleasure" the good pleasure was God's).

CoreIssue

04-09-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:
Fasting is not in the Greek. It is an add.

And the 'good will' is a flat out mistranslation.

CoreIssue, this is not a translation issue, but a Textual one.

http://web.ovc.edu/tc/lay06luk.htm

Luke 2:14:

TEXT: "on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"
EVIDENCE: S* A B* D W lat vg cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "on earth peace, good will among men!"
EVIDENCE: Sc B3 K L P Delta Theta Xi Psi f1 f13 28 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect syr(s,h,pal) syr(p) ("good hope to men") cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NEBn

COMMENTS: The text reading can also be translated "on earth peace among men of good will," but the sense seems to be "men of [God's] good pleasure." This is a Semitic expression found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The difference between the two readings is only one of one letter, the Greek letter "sigma" or "s" at the end of the word. Where the word occurs at the end of a line, the letter "sigma" is written as a little raised "c" which it would be possible for a copyist to overlook. Therefore, the change from "among men of good pleasure" to "good pleasure among men" may have happened either accidently (when the "sigma" was overlooked) or deliberately (by copyists who did not understand that in the Semitic expression "men of good pleasure" the good pleasure was God's).
Such an error on the 'peace' issue is indeed possible. I cannot answer that absolutely either way.

But most assuredly the fasting, Genesis 1:2 and such are deliberate, doctrinal based errors.

An interesting presentation on the 'peace' issue though. That one I had not seen before. But will remember it.:D

Steven Avery

04-10-2006, 02:57 AM

CoreIssue

04-10-2006, 12:49 PM

Hi Folks,

Lets take this one, since it is a good beginning.
Thank you Lord Jesus for your beautiful word.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

First, the real issue here is 'was' or 'became' ... conjunctions are frequently added (or subtracted) between languages in good language translation.
No the issue is the full phrase, including the critical 'and' that sets the contextual meaning of 'was.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Now, check out 'was' and see the Hebrew word means became, not was..... A clear Catholic doctrine interjected into the translation. The KJV is wrong.

Please, Core...

Do you actually accuse teams of world-class scholars who lived and breathed the languages, and read and knew Kimchi, Rashi and Ibn Ezra, simply by looking at a concordance or a lexicon ???? ... Now that is truly chutzpah.
First, they were not a team.

Second, they never worked on the KJV.
Third, Kimchi lived 400 years before the KJV was written. Rashi ahd Ezra 600.
Your statement is misleading.
Do you even at least go to any modern Hebrew-savvy folks such as the biblical Hebrew forum before you look foolish as a false accuser of the word of God ?
Bury yourself deeper here. I actually have actually heard linquists on this issue. Not doctrinal proponents.
Do you even look at the Jewish translations, which are often superior on Hebrew grammar and often agree with the King James Bible against modern Christian versions (suggestion .. study Jeremiah 8:8) ?
First, Jeremiah 8:8 says identically the same thing as the NIV and NASB.
You are looking at Jewish Torah translation made in archaic English. Try modern on Jeremiah for a change. There is nothing sacred about archaic English.
Judaica Press,
"Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water."

Soncino - (also JPS-1914)
"Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters."

Are these Jewish translations "catholic" in giving
the common translation of hayah as "was" ?
No. And they do not agree with the KJV.
Again, you are not paying attention. 'And' is used in the KJV. 'Now' is used in the modern translations. 'And' grammatically sets 'was' as the condition of verse one. 'Now' sets 'was' as the condtion the earth 'became' after verse one.
Your own postings agree with the NIV and NASB, both of which use 'was.' But 'was' meaning 'became.' Became would still have been a better word. Less vague.
So, you just shot down the KJV as being in error in Genesis 1:2.

For more depth, some might appreciate this article,
which goes into the grammar deeper.

http://cdelph.org/was.html (http://cdelph.org/was.html)
Should 'was' be 'became' in Genesis 1:2 ? - by John W. Adey
Linquistics of 'become' / 'became'

You are referencing a Christadelphian as proof for a Biblical discussion? Really?

Core, I do understand you pick up nonsense accusastions like this from articles like the error-laden Richard Nickels article. Please realize that they generally do not research what they write deeply, and it is foolish to depend on such articles and a lexicon or concordance.

But it is okay to go to a Christadelphians for answers?
And definitely not to accuse the word of God.
The KJV is not THE Bible. It is A Bible.
In general, the folks at WhichVersion on Yahoogroups can answer one at a time for you if you are interested in learning about all the errors you are parrotting . I just pulled this one out because it is interesting and a good example, and I love Genesis and desired to learn more about the word of God.
Actually, I believe your answers just got answered pretty solidly. Jeremiah in the KJV says the same as the modern. And the Torah does not agree with the KJV in Genesis. It agrees with the NIV and NASB.

(Also you had apparently spent a few minutes on it.. rather than just cut-and-paste).
Don't believe in just cut and paste, unless excellent work.

Steven Avery

04-10-2006, 07:28 PM

Hi Core,

Essentially you have abandoned your main argument on Genesis 1:2, the "was/because" argument ... then you go all over the map with was/because/became. Tis a joke now, and sad to see how Bible correctors end up tripping over themselves.

Anyway, someday you should read Jeremiah 8:8 in the Jewish translations. It will open your eyes that, as the KJB shows, the verse is not a reference to "lying scribes" (who could be tampering with the word of God). The historic and accurate Hebraic understanding is mirrored in the King James Bible.

The team referred to the KJB translators, who were very familiar with the Hebraic understandings, including Kimchi, Rashi and Ibn Ezra.

The conjunction "and" does not "set .. the condition". Where do you come up with this stuff ?

If an orthodox Jew or a Christadephian understands Hebrew grammar, then they are a good reference for Hebrew grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

CoreIssue

04-10-2006, 08:04 PM

Hi Core,

Essentially you have abandoned your main argument on Genesis 1:2, the "was/because" argument ... then you go all over the map with was/because/became. Tis a joke now, and sad to see how Bible correctors end up tripping over themselves.
Actually, I have not.

Look at the meaning. You just keep disregarding it.

Contextually 'was' in the KJV is 'was' as it existed in verse one. If one insists on keeping the 'And,' which absolutely should not have been used, then the translation demands the usage of 'became' and not 'was,' because the Hebrew denotes a change of condition from verse 1 to verse 2.

But, when you use the NIV or NASB 'was' still means the condition it 'became,' in constrast to what the earth 'was' in verse 1.

The KJV translators failed totally when the added 'And.' There is no linquistic justification for that word to be there.

It is an issue of proper meaning in contextual usage. The KJV fails.
Anyway, someday you should read Jeremiah 8:8 in the Jewish translations.
I have. There is no problem.
It will open your eyes that, as the KJB shows, the verse is not a reference to "lying scribes" (who could be tampering with the word of God). The historic and accurate Hebraic understanding is mirrored in the King James Bible.

And again you disregard the word meanings. The Hebrew word means lie and deceit. Which is what archaic English translation used in both the old Torah and KJV English means.

A perfect example of where the archaic English is a stumbling block for modern English users.

And yet, here you are refusing to accept the meaningof the word 'rgX.'
8 How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes.
From the Torah. In deceit the scribes written falsely.
The team referred to the KJB translators, who were very familiar with the Hebraic understandings, including Kimchi, Rashi and Ibn Ezra.
And which they did not follow exactly.

And they are included in references from Torah sites.

But the KJV did not include all they wrote. And the KJV does not agree with the Torah on Genesis 1:2, in example.
The conjunction "and" does not "set .. the condition". Where do you come up with this stuff ?

It is called grammar. Plus, the word 'and' is not in the Torah, NKJV, NIV, NASB and so on. 'Now' is. Or a form that shows change from verse 1 to 2.
If an orthodox Jew or a Christadephian understands Hebrew grammar, then they are a good reference for Hebrew grammar.
And the Torah rejects the KJV translation.

And no, I am not going to accept anything from a Christadelphian, who rejects the Trinity and claims they base it on the Bible.

Steven Avery

04-10-2006, 08:42 PM

Hi Core,

Jeremiah 8:8
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?
Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

"shequer" has a wide ranger of meaning than you seem to realize.

Here are a few examples.

Ps 33:17
An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.

Pr 31:30
Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Jer 3:23
Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel.

I am curious what is your doctrine that you are concerned that the King James Bible Genesis reading contradicts.. a pre-adamic race or something ?

Oh, and your linguists ... would you like to reference their writing on Genesis 1:2 and join me in bringing their "became" theory over to the b-hebrew (biblical hebrew) forum. We could go a bit deeper in that way, and we could bring over the John Adey view for comment as well.

Since you are using this as a primary claim of error and tampering in the King James Bible, would you like to learn more ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

CoreIssue

04-10-2006, 10:06 PM

Hi Core,

Jeremiah 8:8
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?
Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

"shequer" has a wide ranger of meaning than you seem to realize.
Not in the Hebrew. Or your examples.

I posted its meaning. Disregard if you will.

Here are a few examples.

Ps 33:17
An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.
NASB
17A (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%2033:17;&version=49;#cen-NASB-14384A))horse is a false hope for victory;
Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength.

Pr 31:30
Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

You should have checked it. The Hebrew here is 'Hebel,' not 'shequer.'

And that had a different meaning and form of being vain in the English.

See, what you are doing is using the English meaning and not realizing it just might take more than one Hebrew word to encompass all the English meanings.

Jer 3:23
Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel.
All mean the same, as being a form of being false.

Yep. False hope of salvation.

I posted the meaning in the Hebrew. You assumed meanings.

Your error, not mine. Again, you make declarations based on dogmatic doctrine, not facts.
I am curious what is your doctrine that you are concerned that the King James Bible Genesis reading contradicts.. a pre-adamic race or something ?
Yep. Pre-Adamic. Read here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1919&highlight=pre-adamic)and you will find a lot of facts backing it. And the Bible does back it.
Oh, and your linguists ... would you like to reference their writing on Genesis 1:2 and join me in bringing their "became" theory over to the b-hebrew (biblical hebrew) forum. We could go a bit deeper in that way, and we could bring over the John Adey view for comment as well.
Your forum is hidden. I prefer open daylight for the lurkers as well to read.

Why go there when it is started here? You want to bring in evidence from there, go ahead. Or other posters from there? They are welcome here.

As for the linquists, just look at those for the Torah, NIV, NASB, NKJV and so on to begin with. All reject 'and' and use the change of state 'now, then or similar.' Quite a list of linquists.
Since you are using this as a primary claim of error and tampering in the King James Bible, would you like to learn more ?
You are amazing. Shown proof you are wrong over and over and you still are thinking we need your instruction to get facts straight.

Just on the issue of 'vain' here it is obvious you assumed the Hebrew to English was one word for each.

Tell me one thing. Do you reject Strong's definitions? Because you are rejecting him here, as regards the issues on the word 'vain.'

And if you reject him what Hebrew dictionary do you use?

Steven Avery

04-10-2006, 10:48 PM

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the correction on Proverbs 31:30.

The most important example of course is Jeremiah himself ..
What you say

"false hope of salvation" for
"truly in vain" is similar to

"false usage of the pen of the scribes" for
"the pen of the scribes is in vain"

The KJB and Geneva and Jewish translation reading of Jeremiah 8:8
Showing a wide range of meaning of sheqher, including false usage.

And we see your opposition on all this is really doctrinal. You really don't know about the Hebrew, but you attack the King James Bible because it doesn't fit your pre-adamic race doctrine. hmmmmm .. rather telling.

b-hebrew is an open forum. Here are the archives
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/
I can understand your reluctance to have your theories examined by folks who know Hebrew well. You prefer vapid concordance analysis However we see you don't have any grammatical evidence at all from linguists to offer on "became" versus "was", so there is nothing to check from you.

Strong's definitions are often one-dimensional at best, and should never be relied upon to give the full sense of a word. Quite clearly you have never participated on forums where these types of scholarship issues are discussed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

CoreIssue

04-10-2006, 11:23 PM

The most important example of course is Jeremiah himself ..
What you say

"false hope of salvation" for
"truly in vain" is similar to

"false usage of the pen of the scribes" for
"the pen of the scribes is in vain"
False hope of salvation.

The writings of the scribes are false.
The KJB and Geneva and Jewish translation reading of Jeremiah 8:8
Archaic English is obviously going to sound different than modern English. But say the same thing.
Showing a wide range of meaning of sheqher, including false usage.
Nope. Just shows you do not understand the meaning of sheqher. And you refuse to accept that all English meanings are not encompassed in a single Hebrew word. As demonstrated using your own examples.
And we see your opposition on all this is really doctrinal.
Nope. I posted the Hebrew definition. I cannot help it if you reject it.
You really don't know about the Hebrew,
Neither of us are linquist. But at least I know how to use a Hebrew lexicon. And do seem to understand archaic English better as well.
but you attack the King James Bible because it doesn't fit your pre-adamic race doctrine. hmmmmm .. rather telling.
What is telling is that you again made false and 'vain' assumption. I don't believe in a Pre-Adamic Race.

You really should read before you critique. Very smart thing to do.;)
b-hebrew is an open forum. Here are the archives
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/ (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/)
Hmmm. The link in your sig line suddenly disappeared. And it was most assuredly a members only link.
I can understand your reluctance to have your theories examined by folks who know Hebrew well.
Very strange coming from someone who has made so many fundamental errors.
You prefer vapid concordance analysis However we see you don't have any grammatical evidence at all from linguists to offer on "became" versus "was", so there is nothing to check from you.
And once shot down you return to rhetoric.

And no evidence? Yeesh! How about all the translations, including the Torah in English?

No, you are back to trying to pull semantical and rhetorical arguments.

And simple rules of grammar.
Strong's definitions are often one-dimensional at best, and should never be relied upon to give the full sense of a word. Quite clearly you have never participated on forums where these types of scholarship issues are discussed.
You have demonstrated where you are coming from. Post a reputable linquistic source I can study from.

I have studied hundreds over my 45 years of study. And they don't agree with you.

CTZonEdit

04-10-2006, 11:26 PM

Strong's definitions are often one-dimensional at best, and should never be relied upon to give the full sense of a word. Quite clearly you have never participated on forums where these types of scholarship issues are discussed.

This is quite telling.

Never seen anyone reject Strong's scholarship. Yep very telling indeed.

CoreIssue

04-10-2006, 11:36 PM

b-hebrew is an open forum. Here are the archives
I was curious why you sent me to the archive.

b-hebrew (http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew) is members only. Just as I said.

Why did you say it was open when it was not?

No search function, no subjects. You have to open each separately to even see what it is about.

Steven Avery

04-11-2006, 01:21 AM

I was curious why you sent me to the archive. b-hebrew (http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew) is members only. Just as I said. Why did you say it was open when it was not? No search function, no subjects. You have to open each separately to even see what it is about.Sheesh. lol.. its open in that basically anyone can join, and anyone can read the archives and anyone can post (sensibly). Like here, you do need to register, yet this is an open forum. What is unique is that they specialize in biblical-hebrew. So you can get some good insights there. As an example, we discussed Jeremiah 8:8 a bit.

PeterAV

04-11-2006, 01:23 AM

This is from Teno Gropi and Steven
Hi Folks,

Peter,

> > In the Genesis 1:2 'and' is not to be found in ANY Hebrew manuscript. And 'was' is an error. The correct word is became. ......
> I got them from a Moderator named Core Issue.Post #8 at
> http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742)

Teno

Oh man, I don't want to get into another forum, but not only is he wrong, but he's setting himself up to look really foolish. 256 of the 262 times hayah is used in the Pentateuch it's translated 'was' not 'became'. Genesis 1:1-2 gets it right. The Bible deniers are wrong from the very first verse. That Hebrew fact ought to appeal to them.
Schmuel
It looked interesting, so I decided to address this one a bit, too.
Just a couple of translations and one article reference :-)
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742&page=2 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742&page=2)

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Judaica Press,
"Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water."

Soncino - (also JPS-1914)
"Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters."

http://cdelph.org/was.html (http://cdelph.org/was.html)
Should 'was' be 'became' in Genesis 1:2 ? - by John W. Adey
Linquistics of 'become' / 'became'

Steven Avery

04-11-2006, 01:24 AM

This is quite telling. Never seen anyone reject Strong's scholarship. Yep very telling indeed. You ought to go on some scholar's forums. You will see the warnings about concordance scholarship. This is quite well understood. Of course Strong's can be a helpful tool ... but that is about all, it should not be relied upon as the primary source of information on a word.

Steven Avery

04-11-2006, 01:32 AM

Hmmm. The link in your sig line suddenly disappeared. And it was most assuredly a members only link.Messianic_Apologetic is open to all to join and read and post, the archives are also open, however it is a fairly heavily moderated forum (by myself and another). The great majority of posts go through fine.

And it has no connection whatsoever with b-hebrew.

And Bible version issues are significant but not the primary issue discussed.

And I don't always put my name or the link in when I post elsewhere :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

04-11-2006, 01:41 AM

Hi Folks,

btw, the best way to search b-hebrew is ..
a) receive the email and search your folder
b) google

Now, on Jeremiah 8:8 for some reason Core thinks the translation difference is only archaic English. The skeptics and islamists and such use the modern mistranslation all the time to attack the Bible. The modern version text is so off I really would prefer to simply omit it in this post.

Here are some of the Jewish translations and commentary, which match the King James Bible in understanding the phrase, and are radically different than the modern version pointing to 'lying scribes'.

Jeremiah 8:8 (KJB)
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?
Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

================================================== ===================
JEWISH TRANSLATIONS - COMMENTATORS - WITH SAME SENSE AS KING JAMES BIBLE

Note the David Kimchi commentary, translated ad hoc by my Jewish friend from the Hebrew. Radaq is the Biblical Hebrew vocabulary and grammar giant. The King James Bible translators were very familiar with his books and his deep knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, the modern Christian translators are essentially clueless. Sometimes you get the feeling they translate from lexicons.

Jerusalem Bible - Koren
How can you say, We are wise, and the Tora of the LORD is with us?
Surely, the pen wrought in vain, in vain the scribes.
The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken:
lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

JPS - 1917
Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought
The vain pen of the scribes

JPS-1985
Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored,
For naught the scribes !

Yair Davidy Commentary
Lo, certainly in vain made he it;
the pen of the scribes in vain
Commentary: The time has come to repent and correct ourselves.

David Qimchi (Radaq) - loose impromptu translation, Radaq and Rashi
If God's torah is with you, of what use is it if you observe it not!!! he who used the pen to write it, did so in vain..likewise...the futility [sheqer] of the scribes. They have written it in vain. Since you observe it not, it is as if it weren't written.....
"LA-SHEQER".....[this means] in vain as [in the verse] " Truly in vain have I heeded...
(Schmuel: this may be an idiomatic usage)

Rashi -
"Indeed your wisdom is for nought to you, to heal you frivolously" - he links the verse to
Jeremiah 8:11
For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying,
Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

Excellent translations and commentaries of Jeremiah 8:8 :-)
================================================== =============

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PeterAV

04-11-2006, 02:19 AM

Using LexICONS.
by GAR

The next time you hear a pastor proclaim, "The Greek here really means .... "(yea hath God said?), be forewarned that his pronouncements are an echo from history past. Their hollow sound is one of Kittel's spiritually bankrupt grammatico-historico method of exegesis used by today's lexicons. Carson (The King James Debate, p. 89) reveals: "I have heard pastors with two or three years of Greek behind them explain to their congregation what a certain Greek word means by citing all the entries in some lexicon."

The Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and dictionaries are written by men, "most of whom are unbelievers," writes Princeton and Yale scholar Edward Hills. A few examples will suffice: 1) The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon's editor (Briggs) was defrocked by the 'liberal' Presbyterian Church for his 'liberalism'. 2) Trench, author of the much used Synonyms of the New Testament, was a member of Westcott's esoteric clubs, as was Alford, whose Greek reference works are still used. 3) J. Henry Thayer, author of the New Thayer's Greek Lexicon, was a Unitarian who vehemently denied the deity of Christ. (Thayer was also the dominant member of the ASV committee!) His Lexicon contains a seldom noticed warning by the publisher in its Introduction (p. vii). It cautions readers to watch for adulterations in the work relating to the deity of Christ. 4) The acclaimed A.T. Robertson's Greek Grammar also sends up a red flag in its preface saying, "The text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all its essentials." 5) Conclusions drawn by Kurt and Barbara Aland of the Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament elicit the response by Phillip Comfort that "the Alands' designations must be taken with caution. 6) James Strong, author of Strong's Concordance was a member of the corrupt ASV Committee.

Just as Black's Law Dictionary switched definitions to match progressively liberal legal interpretations, likewise most Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and interlinears have now adopted definitions based on Kittel's expanded dictionary, or the like, which define words based on citations by ancient Greeks like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and other pagan sources. When applied to bible words, these pagan interpretations serve, not as a magnifying glass, as most suppose, but as a glass darkened by the shadow of fallen men. One example will suffice. The word 'love', if defined from the daises of our day, would elicit a definition embracing such connotation as 'a feeling', 'an emotion' or perhaps a sexual sentiment. We have all heard bible teachers, following a Kittel-like Lexicon cite phileo and agapao, as the two Greek words which are translated 'love' in the New Testament. Phileo, according to their grammatico-historico method of exegesis, would mean 'to be a friend'; agapao would mean 'an unselfish Godlike love'. These definitions, garnered from the secular Greek writers of the time, do not represent God's use of the terms.

"Every word of God is pure" and "given by inspiration of God"; reference works are not. The bible calls us to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" things (I Cor. 2:13). Studying the context of other verses which also contain the word (listed in a concordance) will reveal God's definition of the word. ('Love', for example, is defined in I John as "keep his commandments." We are to 'act' in love, not to 'feel' love. Going along with the New Age, new versions render Mark 10:21, "felt a love for" rather than "Jesus loved him.") New versions hid this key to understanding bible words by mistranslating I Cor. 2:13. They say, "combining (or expressing) spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." The NASB italicizes 'words' and 'thoughts' because they do not occur in the Greek. The command in all Greek Manuscripts is "comparing," not 'combining' or 'expressing'.

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 09:37 AM

Sheesh. lol.. its open in that basically anyone can join, and anyone can read the archives and anyone can post (sensibly). Like here, you do need to register, yet this is an open forum. What is unique is that they specialize in biblical-hebrew. So you can get some good insights there. As an example, we discussed Jeremiah 8:8 a bit.

Which means one cannot see anything unil the join.

And those who have been on the Internet and forums a long time know that means another means of harvesting emails and such for spam.

So, it is not an openly readable forum.

And it is not like here. One can read all the posts without registering.

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 09:47 AM

This is from Teno Gropi and Steven
Hi Folks,

Peter,
> > In the Genesis 1:2 'and' is not to be found in ANY Hebrew manuscript. And 'was' is an error. The correct word is became. ......
> I got them from a Moderator named Core Issue.Post #8 at
> http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742)

Teno
Oh man, I don't want to get into another forum, but not only is he wrong, but he's setting himself up to look really foolish. 256 of the 262 times hayah is used in the Pentateuch it's translated 'was' not 'became'. Genesis 1:1-2 gets it right. The Bible deniers are wrong from the very first verse. That Hebrew fact ought to appeal to them.
Which totally fails to address the point of 'and' in the verse.

Ask him how 'and' and 'now' affect the context of the verse. If that in fact 'and' conjuncts it to verse 1 while 'now' means it 'became' void.

See what he says on the key issue.
Schmuel
It looked interesting, so I decided to address this one a bit, too.
Just a couple of translations and one article reference :-)
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742&page=2 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742&page=2)

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Judaica Press,
"Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water."

Soncino - (also JPS-1914)
"Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters."

Again note 'now' and 'and.'

Ask him the impact of the two different words on meaning.

http://cdelph.org/was.html (http://cdelph.org/was.html)
Should 'was' be 'became' in Genesis 1:2 ? - by John W. Adey
Linquistics of 'become' / 'became'
And again, a Christadelphian. And not addressing the imact of 'and' and 'now.'

False agruments here on what verse 2 is saying.

Why do KJVO always forget to address 'and?'

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 09:55 AM

You ought to go on some scholar's forums. You will see the warnings about concordance scholarship. This is quite well understood. Of course Strong's can be a helpful tool ... but that is about all, it should not be relied upon as the primary source of information on a word.

Strong's is not a concordance. It is a lexicon.

I do not reply on condordances since they introduce doctrine.

Why are you introducing condordances, here, when none were used?

Why are are you calling Strong's Lexicon a concordance when it is not?

I an not an linquist, but I understand the impact of sentence structure, grammar and such on word usage. But words have meanings and the grammar determines the meaning used.

It is a false argument here to try to expand 'vain' into including definitions not within the Hebrew word itself.

And 'was' does include the meaning of became. Verse 2 was means became by the demand of 'now.'

I stated that if you use 'and' in verse 2 you must use 'became,' not was. But if you use 'now' then 'was' is okay because it was by virtue of becoming.

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 09:57 AM

Messianic_Apologetic is open to all to join and read and post, the archives are also open, however it is a fairly heavily moderated forum (by myself and another). The great majority of posts go through fine.

And it has no connection whatsoever with b-hebrew.

And Bible version issues are significant but not the primary issue discussed.

And I don't always put my name or the link in when I post elsewhere :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
And it is not open to anyone but members to read.

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 10:06 AM

Steven.

I note in all of this you pick the issues you feel are debatable to uphold you KJVO stance.

Please tell me why the KJV makes the error of calling lampstands candlesticks? That is really a glaring, simplistic error.

We know they were lampstands. They held oil lamps, not candles, and they used oil.

Steven Avery

04-11-2006, 11:33 AM

Which means one cannot see anything unil the join. And those who have been on the Internet and forums a long time know that means another means of harvesting emails and such for spam. So, it is not an openly readable forum. And it is not like here. One can read all the posts without registering. What you are saying makes less and less sense. You already saw the archives of b-hebrew, so that means you can read posts without registering. And I've never seen a spam complaint there.

Look, you clearly do not have an interest in scholarship forums, that you have made clear.

That's your right, but fishing for a cause of offense is silly. The Bible-oriented scholarship forums generally are run though listservers or through Yahoogroups and only a couple of smaller ones are webforums. A lot of folks find webforums slow and less convenient, and more resource consuming (especially some overseas folks do not have full-time or fast web). In other ways, especially good subject threading, webforums have siginficant advantages.

All sorts of forums have their place. The older Usenet and list types, the webforums, like this vBulletin software, and email forums like Yahoogroups and Googlegroups and Topica.

However, if you have no interest in the scholarship oriented forums like b-hebrew, thats fine by me. I just shared with you and others the possibility of checking nuanced Hebrew claims there, as I have done that over the years consistently, and it is a very non-snobbish and helpful group. (That does not mean that you won't get contradicting opinions from within the group, nor that there isn't a liberal element in much modern scholarship :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Neachley

04-11-2006, 11:41 AM

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Which means one cannot see anything unil the join. And those who have been on the Internet and forums a long time know that means another means of harvesting emails and such for spam. So, it is not an openly readable forum. And it is not like here. One can read all the posts without registering.

What you are saying makes less and less sense. You already saw the archives of b-hebrew, so that means you can read posts without registering.

Hello! Do you know what archive means??
And I've never seen a spam complaint there.
I did not accuse them of spam. Do you know what Harvesters are?
Look, you clearly do not have an interest in scholarship forums, that you have made clear.

That's your right, but fishing for a cause of offense is silly. The Bible-oriented scholarship forums generally are run though listservers or through Yahoogroups and only a couple of smaller ones are webforums. A lot of folks find webforums slow and less convenient, and more resource consuming (especially some overseas folks do not have full-time or fast web). In other ways, especially good subject threading, webforums have siginficant advantages.

All sorts of forums have their place. The older Usenet and list types, the webforums, like this vBulletin software, and email forums like Yahoogroups and Googlegroups and Topica.
Get over yourself. You are not a scholar.

There is no excuse for an email forum any more. Except to allow mods to pick and choose what will be posted.
However, if you have no interest in the scholarship oriented forums like b-hebrew, thats fine by me. I just shared with you and others the possibility of checking nuanced Hebrew claims there, as I have done that over the years consistently, and it is a very non-snobbish and helpful group. (That does not mean that you won't get contradicting opinions from within the group, nor that there isn't a liberal element in much modern scholarship :-)

I never said they were bad. Never hinted at it.

And you picked your question from here to them and posted what you wanted to in return. Meaning you totally disregarded the issue of 'was' in the context of 'Now' and "And.'

Do not try to paint yourself as wise and me foolish on this point. Deal with the 'And' and 'Now' in the Hebrew semantical meaning of 'was.'

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 02:42 PM

The KJB Translators were perhaps the most learned scholars of their day. People like Andrewes didn`t speak English unless they had to, but would rather speak Hebrew or Greek. They knew these languages inside out and backwards. I cannot believe that they would mistranslate in the way you suggest.

If you read histories of the translation, you will see that not only did each individual translator spend hours pouring over their work, they then went to sub committees who did the same (and who would argue over the right usage and translation), and then onto a final committee who would do the same.

These men did not make mistakes with the text.
They were excellent for their day.

What you are missing is language evolution. Ancient Hebrew and Greek were different than in their day and both are different in our day. Just as the KJV English of 1611 bears little resemblence to the English of today.

And linquists now actually have a clearer understanding of the ancient forms than they did. Not assumption but fact.

Like it or not they did mistranslate. And is not in Genesis 1:2. That is doctrinal.

And far more batant was candlesticks. Oil lamps, not candles. Lampstands for oil, candlesticks for candles. Absolutely not the same.

And the Hebrew word means lampstand. Not candlestick.

Steven Avery

04-11-2006, 04:42 PM

The KJB Translators were perhaps the most learned scholars of their day. People like Andrewes didn`t speak English unless they had to, but would rather speak Hebrew or Greek. They knew these languages inside out and backwards. I cannot believe that they would mistranslate in the way you suggest. Amen. That is why so many of these laundry-lists of "King James Bible errors" are so funny and sad. They include verses about which the King James Bible translators were well-informed, and make excellent decisions, you can even see this in the footnotes where they will show a 'literal' Hebrew that is not the best translation (example Isaiah 53:9).

In contrast, the accusers often know diddles about the verses at issue, like we see here, and they pretend that the 50 or so King James Bible translators didn't know some elementary Hebrew grammar or translation issue. The attackers simply fall prey to a spirit of false accusation. That is why it is best to simply take a couple of the seemingly more interesting or substantive accusations and handle them in some depth, and then move into the big picture.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 07:56 PM

Does someone have an answer why they got the lampstands translation wrong?

Neachley, the problem here, for Steven, is that he has taken the absolutist stance there are no problems in the KJV. That it is pure and perfect word for word error free.

Therefore he cannot even admit an error on something as simple as the candlesticks.

Others can understand that God's message has been preserved. That does not require word for word perfection. He does not understand that.

Candlesticks is an error in the translation sense. But nothing is lost in the message in the meaning sense.

In my 45 years of study, which includes listening to many Christian linquists, I have never heard one say any translation is word for word preservation. Message is preserved, not no word for word preserved Bible exists.

CoreIssue

04-11-2006, 08:25 PM

Here is another gem.

Acts 12:4 KJV
4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Easter? Easter is the Catholic holiday derived from the absorption of Ishtar worship.

The Jews did not celebrate it. The early Christians did not celebrate it.

Someone want to tell me this is not a blatant doctrinal add as a translation?

The Greek word is pascha in the verse. It does not mean Easter.
Strong's Number: 3957 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3957&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originpavscaof Aramaic origin cf (06453 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=6453&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3957&version=kjv#Legend) EntryPascha5:896,797Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechpas'-khah http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3957g) Noun Neuter Definition
the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt)
the paschal lamb, i.e. the lamb the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of the day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings; Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb
the paschal supper
the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan
Passover. The Jewish Passover. Not Easter.

This is absolutely a doctrinal translation error.

Steven Avery

04-12-2006, 02:48 PM

Does someone have an answer why they got the lampstands translation wrong? Core.. it is hard for me to even fathom that you are reduced to something like this as a core issue attack on the King James Bible.. incredible. Where do you get this stuff ? Is it from Maxey, or Nichols again ?

===========================
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/archerr.html
candle - candlestick - Will Kinney
As any good dictionary tells us, one of the meanings of a candle is an artificial light of any kind as opposed to the natural light of the sun or moon. And what, pray tell, comes to mind when you read the word "lampstand"?

Cambridge International Dictionary - "Lampstand, a heavy, often decorative, base for an electric light which stands on a table or the floor." Is this what Moses used in the tabernacle? I think not.

Encyclopedia.Com. The evidence of ancient writings is not conslusive as to the history of the candle; words translated as "candle" may have meant "torch" or "lamp" and the "candlestick" was a stand for one of these lights.

Easton Bible Dictionary
Candle - Heb. ner, Job 18:6; 29:3; Ps. 18:28; Prov. 24:20 The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch. It is used as a figure of conscience (Prov. 20:27), of a Christian example (Matt. 5:14, 15), and of prosperity (Job 21:17; Prov. 13:9).
Webster's Dictionary

CANDLE, n.
1. A long, but small cylindrical body of tallow, wax or spermaceti, formed on a wick composed of linen or cotton threads, twisted loosely; used for a portable light of domestic use.
2. A light.
3. A light; a luminary. In scripture, the candle of the Lord is the divine favor and blessing, Job 14:3; or the conscience or understanding. Prov. 20:27.

Not only does the King James Bible use the words candle and candlestick but so also do the Coverdale translation, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Young's, the Amplified, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the Message! and the New Living Translation! (See Isaiah 43:17).
So Mr. Maxey's "lampstand" is better than "candlestick", huh? He is really straining at gnats with this "error" and yet he uses the NIV which has a multitide of serious problems, both textual and theological. This is a case of the blind leading the blind.
=========================

And the Soncino translation also has candlestick,

Judaica Press uses Menorah
(which is often called a candlestick today, far more than "lampstand")

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_exodusmenorah.htm
Exodus Passage on the Construction of the Menorah Candlestick for the Temple

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Heaton1.html
Mr. Weiss failed to tell his readers that his "esteemed" Bible has invented words. In Mark 4:21, Revelation 2:5, etc., the K.J.B. uses the word "candlestick." In the N.I.V. the word has been changed to "lampstand." However, when one seeks for this word in the dictionary he finds that NO SUCH WORD EXISTS! You read the statement correctly. You will find the words "lamp" and "stand", but not as a compound word. Thus the editors and revisors of the N.I.V. have invented a word. I guess it would not be archaic or hardly obsolete!

True, it is at best an oddball or new construction .... check www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

Core...
Please, can you understand that at the very most you would try to say that the King James Bible reading for candlestick is an anacrhonism, in terms of modern English. Yet even that is untrue. Then when we get to your claim that the King James Bible reading here is "wrong" or a "glaring, simplistic error" you are simply showing the desperation and unusual scholarship of folks who are trying hard to try find an error in the word of God, perhaps to salve a seared conscience of textual apostasy (why else would folks embrace arguments like this ?).

Please, don't take hold of stuff like this if you really want to be taken seriously .

Shalom,
Steven Avery

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 04:36 PM

Steven, it was a lampstand. Lampstands held oil lamps. Candlestick have candles stuck on their holders, thus why they are called candlesticks.

There are 7 oil lamps in the OT Temple fed by the oil reserve at the top. Post all the definitions of candles you want and that does not make oil lamps candles.

How convenient you avoided the Temple lamps in your examples. Deliberate, I would say.

Look at your first verse, Job 18:6 and the definition of candle there.
Strong's Number: 05216 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=5216&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originrynfrom a primitive root [see (05214 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5214&version=kjv)); (05135 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5135&version=kjv))] properly, meaning to glistenTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05216&version=kjv#Legend) EntryNiyrTWOT - 1333bPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechneer http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5216h) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5216hb) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5216hc) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5216hd) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5216he) Noun Masculine Definition

lamp
NIV and NASB says lamp. More accurate. To assume either candle or oil is simply that, an assumption.

Now, for the temple.
Strong's Number: 04501 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=4501&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originhrwnmfrom (04500 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=4500&version=kjv)) (in the original sense of (5216 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5216&version=kjv)))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04501&version=kjv#Legend) EntryM@nowrahTWOT - 1333cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechmen-o-raw' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4501h) Noun Feminine Definition

lamp stand
Look at that. A different word with a different meaning.

Is there any justification for saying candlestick over lamp stand? None at all.

Is there justification for rejecting candlestick? Most assuredly.
Exodus 25

31And thou shalt make a candlestick...
... 37And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof: and they shall light the lamps thereof, that they may give light over against it.
And lamp is ryn. Hmmm.

Make 7 candles? Nope. 7 lamps.
And what kind of lamps? Oil. The lamps were fed by the oil reserve at the top of the lampstand.
Zec 4
2And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof:
Candlestick is an error here. It is an oil lampstand with 7 oil lamps in it fed by a resevoir on top.

Look even deeper at lamps of Revelation 4:5 where we see the 7 lamps again.
Strong's Number: 2985 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=2985&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originlampavßfrom (2989 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2989&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2985&version=kjv#Legend) EntryLampas4:16,497Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechlam-pas' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=2985g) Noun Feminine Definition

a torch
a lamp, the flame of which is fed with oil
No doubt in the Greek. An oil lamp.

And again, the lampstands in Revelation are called candlesticks in the KJV while the lamps are clearly oil lamps.

lucniva, -a", hJ
a lampstand

Candlesticks do not hold oil lamps. They cannot hold oil lamps. They do not have oil feeds.

Candlestick is an erroneous translation.

And I don't see a word about Easter? No way around that one!

Steven Avery

04-12-2006, 04:53 PM

Hi Folks,

Please. This is getting silly.

Core, you are stuck in your particular mindset of desperately wanting to find errors in the word of God.

Folks even talk about electric candles today .. yet .. can that be ? Sure.. since the usage of candle was and is broader than you want to accept, and it refers to a method of illumination. And a candlestick was a holder, like a menorah today, which is translated in English today as a candlestick. Since you fell for embracing this nonsensical thing at the beginning of the thread, and then kept repeating it, you must beat the horse deader and deader. Please, leave the poor horse alone. Maybe on the next thread somewhere else you will use wisdom and simply drop this thing from your laundry list.

Maybe we will go into Acts 12:4 Easter later. A fascinating question as to the difference in time of the Acts 12:4 pesach versus all the other NT uses.

However, the real issue is the heart of those who copy over such arguments as 'became' instead of 'was' in Genesis 1:2 (without a real grammar analysis, and then falling right into the genetic fallacy when a grammar analysis is offered! .. excuses to the max) or 'lampstand' instead of 'candlestick' as here.

Something very deep is going on .... if somebody will spend all the time and effort trying to repeat, and then justify or even rehabilitate such nonsensical attacks on the word of God.

Let he who has ears to hear...

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

04-12-2006, 05:38 PM

Deal with the 'And' and 'Now' in the Hebrew semantical meaning of 'was.' They are two different conjunctions put in by translators, and each one is used by many translators. Neither one is grammatically 'right' or 'wrong'.

'Now' is the one that would be more 'linked' to Genesis 1:1
(incidentally, I thought that is what you do not want).

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary) - now conjunction - Seeing that; since.
Since there is not a Hebrew base for insisting on such a linkage
between verse one and two, 'and' appears to be the more
natural conjunction.

If someone has another compelling Hebrew/English grammar argument that favors
one over the other, I am all ears. Your arguments however seem to be based on
whatever your doctrinal, not grammatical or textual, horse is here ... combined
with your desire to reject the final authority represented by the tangible
hold-in-your-hands word of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

InTheWind

04-12-2006, 05:49 PM

Hi Steven, are you missing the point that if you use the wrong meaning of a word it could change the meaning of what the verse is saying.
Take for example the virgins at the wedding, they had lanterns, some missed the wedding because they had no oil in their lamps. Would the verse mean the same if the word was lamp, with a candle in it.
Seems that would make it difficult to understand what the writer was saying.

CTZonEdit

04-12-2006, 06:41 PM

Hi Folks,

Please. This is getting silly.

Getting silly because you fail to acknowledge ANY errors in the KJV.

The errors have been pointed out and you just say its silly? No refutation?

Core, you are stuck in your particular mindset of desperately wanting to find errors in the word of God.

No he is tryong to get you to see that the "word of God" is not the KJV, which you clearly believe it is. It has errors which you fail to acknowledge and the scholarship is by todays standards archaic.

With your logic if any encyclopedias existed during the 1600's they would be far superior to the ones today due to the archaic English and the "scientists" that complied them. Your argument is rubbish. The KJV is not THE bible nor is it THE word of God.

Folks even talk about electric candles today .. yet .. can that be ? Sure.. since the usage of candle was and is broader than you want to accept, and it refers to a method of illumination. And a candlestick was a holder, like a menorah today, which is translated in English today as a candlestick. Since you fell for embracing this nonsensical thing at the beginning of the thread, and then kept repeating it, you must beat the horse deader and deader. Please, leave the poor horse alone. Maybe on the next thread somewhere else you will use wisdom and simply drop this thing from your laundry list.

Wrong. Oil lamps and candlesticks have different functions as shown are are not the same as you imply. You just dismiss it because there would be acknowledgement of a flaw in the KJV and you can't have that now can you?

Maybe we will go into Acts 12:4 Easter later. A fascinating question as to the difference in time of the Acts 12:4 pesach versus all the other NT uses.

Later? Got to research that one eh and come up with something that shows the KJV can be wrong? Be waiting to here the excuse here for this one.

Something very deep is going on .... if somebody will spend all the time and effort trying to repeat, and then justify or even rehabilitate such nonsensical attacks on the word of God.

Something is going on and that is blinders being worn by those that refuse to see the errors of the KJV and that compared to todays versions it fails in trying to gather the essence of God's message.

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 06:41 PM

They are two different conjunctions put in by translators, and each one is used by many translators. Neither one is grammatically 'right' or 'wrong'.

'Now' is the one that would be more 'linked' to Genesis 1:1
(incidentally, I thought that is what you do not want).

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary) - now conjunction - Seeing that; since.
Since there is not a Hebrew base for insisting on such a linkage
between verse one and two, 'and' appears to be the more
natural conjunction.

If someone has another compelling Hebrew/English grammar argument that favors
one over the other, I am all ears. Your arguments however seem to be based on
whatever your doctrinal, not grammatical or textual, horse is here ... combined
with your desire to reject the final authority represented by the tangible
hold-in-your-hands word of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
The form of now used in verse 2 is not a conjunction.

At the present time: goods now on sale; the now aging dictator.
At once; immediately: Stop now.
In the immediate past; very recently: left the room just now.
At this point in the series of events; then: The ship was now listing to port.
At times; sometimes: now hot, now cold.
Nowadays.
In these circumstances; as things are: Now we won't be able to stay.

Used to introduce a command, reproof, or request: Now pay attention.
Used to indicate a change of subject or to preface a remark: Now, let's get down to work.

conj. Seeing that; since. Often used with that: Now that spring is here, we can expect milder weather.
n. The present time or moment: wouldn't work up to now.
adj.

Of the present time; current: our now governor.
Slang. Currently fashionable; trendy: the now sound of this new rock band.
The Hebrew verb hayah, i.e., "to be" here translated "was," signifies not only "to be" but also "to become," "to take place," "to come to pass." When a Hebrew writer makes a simple affirmation, or merely predicates the existence of anything, the verb hayah is never expressed. Where it is expressed it must always be translated by our verb "to become," never by the verb "to be," if we desire to convey the exact shade of the meaning of the original...
The Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 requires the rendering of Hayah by the word "became," instead of the word "was" or better still "had become," the separation of the Waw from the verb being the Hebrew method of indicating the pluperfect tense.

http://custance.org/old/time/3ch2.html

The guy has a MA in Oriental languge.

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 06:51 PM

This is quite telling.

Never seen anyone reject Strong's scholarship. Yep very telling indeed.
*******
I thought you said you have gone through the KJB debate several times?Ho HuM stuff.
And you have never seen this?
Obviously you have not debated or you have debated ones that did not know about the history of the various dictionaries and lexicons.Pagan roots ya know.:tiphat:

eahaddix

04-12-2006, 06:51 PM

Here is another gem.

Easter? Easter is the Catholic holiday derived from the absorption of Ishtar worship.

The Jews did not celebrate it. The early Christians did not celebrate it.

Someone want to tell me this is not a blatant doctrinal add as a translation?

The Greek word is pascha in the verse. It does not mean Easter.

Passover. The Jewish Passover. Not Easter.

This is absolutely a doctrinal translation error.
Source: Post #44 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11876&postcount=44)

:order: Good point. A simple, but irrefutable point, which remains unaddressed. Yet, this debate continues, which is the truly silly issue.

I guess we count the hits, but ignore the misses, eh?

CTZonEdit

04-12-2006, 06:58 PM

*******
I thought you said you have gone through the KJB debate several times?Ho HuM stuff.
And you have never seen this?
Obviously you have not debated or you have debated ones that did not know about the history of the various dictionaries and lexicons.Pagan roots ya know.:tiphat:

No I never said that. CoreIssue said that not me.

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 07:04 PM

Strong's is not a concordance. It is a lexicon.

I do not reply on condordances since they introduce doctrine.

Why are you introducing condordances, here, when none were used?

Why are are you calling Strong's Lexicon a concordance when it is not?

I an not an linquist, but I understand the impact of sentence structure, grammar and such on word usage. But words have meanings and the grammar determines the meaning used.

It is a false argument here to try to expand 'vain' into including definitions not within the Hebrew word itself.

And 'was' does include the meaning of became. Verse 2 was means became by the demand of 'now.'

I stated that if you use 'and' in verse 2 you must use 'became,' not was. But if you use 'now' then 'was' is okay because it was by virtue of becoming.
*******
Which means;
say anything to win at all cost,doesn't matter if I am completely WRONG.

Boy o Boy.:ick:
All you have to do is read the Front cover.
It reads Strong's Exhaustive Lexicon........Right?

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
Concordance:swoon:
with dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek words

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 07:11 PM

Hello! Do you know what archive means??

[COLOR=blue]I did not accuse them of spam. Do you know what Harvesters are?

Get over yourself. You are not a scholar.

[color=blue]There is no excuse for an email forum any more. Except to allow mods to pick and choose what will be posted.

I never said they were bad. Never hinted at it.

And you picked your question from here to them and posted what you wanted to in return. Meaning you totally disregarded the issue of 'was' in the context of 'Now' and "And.'

Do not try to paint yourself as wise and me foolish on this point. Deal with the 'And' and 'Now' in the Hebrew semantical meaning of 'was.'
*******
Now,Now,settle down.
Type the verses out the way you think is perfect then.

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 07:12 PM

All you have to do is read the Front cover.
It reads Strong's Exhaustive Lexicon........Right?

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
Concordance:swoon:
with dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek words
I don't use his concordance parts. Get over it and pay attention.

Since when did an Imterlinear become a concordance? Or a lexicon become a concordance?

And it seems all you have contributed is more person accusations and preaching with no substance attached.

That makes you irrelevant to a debate, really.

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 07:32 PM

In my 45 years of study, which includes listening to many Christian linquists, I have never heard one say any translation is word for word preservation. Message is preserved, not no word for word preserved Bible exists.
None of us are saying word for word as you insinuate.
But what is there is God inspired and good.
There are no errors any more.There may be the odd typo error of Publisher's changes to words,is all.
But it is the correct translation and the only correct translation.All others are rampant with errors on every page and in some places several verses in a row.

Just because there are various ways to say the same thing does not mean that the AV is in error no diferent than any other translation.But when the modern versions start using corrupted manuscripts,whereas the AV uses the correct manuscripts the diference is obvious to the discerning.
45 years of first grade still gets you at first grade.
You obviously do not believe that God preserved his word as he said he would.
You would prefer to play the game of pick and choose.Be mine own god.An Evite.;)
Think about it.
A pure Holy Bible or no pure Holy Bible
God is faithful to his word or God is not faithful nor capable
Humbly believe the word or pridefully critique God's word
Believe what God said or doubt what God said
Confident in his word or self confidence
Side with martyrs or side with the murderers

The choice is yours;choose wisely.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.:swoon:

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 07:41 PM

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 07:51 PM

None of us are saying word for word as you insinuate.
But what is there is God inspired and good.
There are no errors any more.There may be the odd typo error of Publisher's changes to words,is all.
But it is the correct translation and the only correct translation.All others are rampant with errors on every page and in some places several verses in a row.
Wrong. The candles and Easter issues alone prove that.
Just because there are various ways to say the same thing does not mean that the AV is in error no diferent than any other translation.But when the modern versions start using corrupted manuscripts,whereas the AV uses the correct manuscripts the diference is obvious to the discerning.
The KJV used the RT. The RT is a compilation of 6 texts. Now you tell me how 6 manuscripts, that did not agree with each other and did not agree with other manuscripts were combined to be a 100% restoration of the original autographs accuracy?
45 years of first grade still gets you at first grade.

And just accepting doctrines without proving them is foolish and in violation of the Bible.
You obviously do not believe that God preserved his word as he said he would.

God never said he would preserve word for word. And if you read my thread on the Bible Paradox you would have to acknowledge what is said is true.

You would prefer to play the game of pick and choose.Be mine own god.An Evite.;)

Think about it.

And accusations like this is why KJVO has been declared a cult. You just declare the KJV 100% without ANY evidence to back it. Forget manuscript history and all the rest. You just know that is the one.
A pure Holy Bible or no pure Holy Bible
Teachings preserved. But no Bible is word for word 100% accurate.
God is faithful to his word or God is not faithful nor capable
He is faithful. But not as you are claiming.
Humbly believe the word or pridefully critique God's word

I believe God's Bible. And it is more than the KJV Only.
Believe what God said or doubt what God said
God never promised word for word preservation. But he most assuredly has preservered his teachings.
Confident in his word or self confidence
And here you are self-confident. Without any proof you have declared the KVJ the Bible.
Side with martyrs or side with the murderers
So, we are murders if we do not side with you?

Yep, that is why your thinking is called cult. Like Oneness is cult. Either one of you or going to Hell.

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 07:53 PM

PS;I thought you were arguing that the few words in Gensis are not word perfect and now you try to make them word perfect.Hu boy here we go with the circular reasoning AGAIN.
And then you make your defence trying to show there are no word for word translations.ouch!!
Guess we got to the real core issue here.
What I am guessing is that since the accusations of heretic, murder, personal accusations and such just keep flowing from you fingers and all you want to do is preach is that are not going to be here much longer.

Either discuss substance and stop the personal attacks or leave.

I will not tolerate you calling the membership here murders, heretics and more.

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 07:56 PM

Source: Post #44 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11876&postcount=44)

:order: Good point. A simple, but irrefutable point, which remains unaddressed. Yet, this debate continues, which is the truly silly issue.

I guess we count the hits, but ignore the misses, eh?
Yep.

The argument that that the phrasing demands Easter because it was not the Feast of Unleaven Bread and the Passover had ended is bogus.

Reading the various verses you see Passover, as a general term, was used to include the Unleaven Bread.

And here are some verses from the KJV to defend that statement.

Luke 22:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&verse=1&version=9&context=verse)
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Luke 22:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Luke 22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Luke 22:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
Luke 22:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&verse=6&end_verse=8&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Luke 22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Does that not say the Feast of Unleavend bread was also called the Passover?

The KJV disproving the KJV.

The KJV is a Bible. But it is neither 100% accurate or the best.

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 08:00 PM

[/quote]The KJV is not THE bible nor is it THE word of God.[/quote]
Out of the abundance of the heart,the mouth speaketh.

PeterAV

04-12-2006, 08:04 PM

What I am guessing is that since the accusations of heretic, murder, personal accusations and such just keep flowing from you fingers and all you want to do is preach is that are not going to be here much longer.

Either discuss substance and stop the personal attacks or leave.

I will not tolerate you calling the membership here murders, heretics and more.
This is your saying it NOT mine.You can read anything into it you want,go for it.
You know very well I was refering to the murdering catholics vs the likes of Tyndall and such.Waldensians...
So keep missapplying my quotes to dodge the real issue which is your hatred for the word of God.
If any book in the world deserves anything,it is the good old book.
Eatser?you haven't even given your renition of genesis.
And you think I am dodging.ya.right.

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 08:05 PM

The KJV is not THE bible nor is it THE word of God.
Out of the abundance of the heart,the mouth speaketh.

Either get to posts with substance or leave.
Official Warning. Your preaching and accusations are not welcome and are not productive.

CoreIssue

04-12-2006, 08:09 PM

This is your saying it NOT mine.You can read anything into it you want,go for it.
You know very well I was refering to the murdering catholics vs the likes of Tyndall and such.Waldensians...

No, I don't. You associated it with the KJVO position with your words.

So keep missapplying my quotes to dodge the real issue which is your hatred for the word of God.
If any book in the world deserves anything,it is the good old book.
Eatser?you haven't even given your renition of genesis.
And you think I am dodging.ya.right.

You are dodging.

No more warnings.

CTZonEdit

04-12-2006, 11:55 PM

PS;I thought you were arguing that the few words in Gensis are not word perfect and now you try to make them word perfect.Hu boy here we go with the circular reasoning AGAIN.
And then you make your defence trying to show there are no word for word translations.ouch!!
Guess we got to the real core issue here.

No, what is clear is that in your blind alligence to the KJV only cult you belong to you are unwilling to see the evidence before you and apply any logic.

Which is why the reasoning fails you and the above post by you is complete nonsense to all the readers here.

I suggest you re-read this post (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11920&postcount=51) ( which was avoided completely I see ) and reply in a logical and rational manner. Any more attacks or any more rhetoric and you will be banned.

Last chance to see some clear thinking out of you.

PeterAV

04-13-2006, 03:02 AM

It sure is amazing to think that now adays if one actually believe the Holy Bible IS the Holy Bible,one gets labelled as in a cult,with blind allegience,which means it is complete nonesense to those that have no faith in a pure Holy Bible.

Don't forget it is state and federal law to answer all posts.Ya right.

Holy Bible
There is only one.
PeterAV

CoreIssue

04-13-2006, 09:57 AM

It sure is amazing to think that now adays if one actually believe the Holy Bible IS the Holy Bible,
KJV, NIV, NASB and some others are all Holy Bibles. Not just the KJV.
one gets labelled as in a cult,with blind allegience,which means it is complete nonesense to those that have no faith in a pure Holy Bible.
Foolish rhetoric.

Christ did not promise a word for word preserved Bible. He promised meaning for meaning preserved scriptures.

Scriptures began as individual letters. The letters were gathered together into Bibles.

The KJV was created from the RT. The RT was a critical creation from 6, not one, manuscrpt. Therefore none alone agree with the KJV.

Tell me then, if Christ promised perfectly preserved word for word, where was it before 1611? For it not to have been there would make Christ a liar if he had indeed made such a promise.

Such a simple question that no KJVO has ever answered. In typical cult fashion they simple act as if they never heard it.

Why? Because it undermines their thinking. And their dogmatic doctrine is more important that the facts.
Don't forget it is state and federal law to answer all posts.Ya right.
No, it is the rule of any proper debate. One must respond answer challenges or concede they are wrong.

Again, you have been answered.

Holy Bible
There is only one.

Indeed only one Bible. But in many version forms.

And it is not the KJB. It is the KJV. Further, the scriptures do not belong to KJ. They belong to God.

CoreIssue

04-13-2006, 10:01 AM

In addition, you dodged, as CTZonEdit pointed out you have been doing, the issues again.

Steven Avery

04-14-2006, 05:38 PM

Hi Folks,

Tis truly amazing that after this post..
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11834&postcount=17
you still want to beat the poor horse more about Genesis 1:1-2.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The form of now used in verse 2 is not a conjunction. If it is technically an adverb tis fine, it matters not, it is in the spot of the Hebrew vav which is commonly translated as a conjunction. And either 'and' or 'now' is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation for the vav.

Harold Holmyard
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
In Hebrew when there is a wav conjunction followed by a noun and a verbless clause as in Gen 1:2, this ordinarily represents a background circumstance. It introduces a circumstances clause. This is sometimes called an "off-line" clause, since it is off the main narrative advance,giving addtional information.... Either "and" or "now" could work.

Vadim Cherny
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028099.html
Both readings, "and" and "now/when" are not far apart semantically. Sort of deictic shift. When the author says, "and," he means sequence of events, notsimply their conjunction. That could be paraphrased, "It was the beginning,and then the earth was such-and-such."

Karl Randolph
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028109.html
The Waw tacked on the beginning of the second and following sentences indicate continuation of narration. This is not a complex sentence with verse one as a subordinate clause. If you insistthat these make up one sentence, then what we have is a typical run-on sentence connected by "and"s.

Not one person knowledgable on biblical Hebrew would even criticize the "and",
much less yet call it an error. Only folks with a doctrinal ax, little
knowledge of the language, and a desire to fabricate King James Bible errors.

http://custance.org/old/time/3ch2.html
The guy has a MA in Oriental languge.Notice what Harold says about your Arthur Custance link on "was" and "become"
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
"This seems a false statement because hayah stands in Gen 3:1 where the meaning does not seem to be "became" but simply "was" in a predication of existence ..(continues)

The late Arthur Custance did a lot of good writing, but he was fishing for gaps in this one.

With this type of stuff, (and the lampstand fiasco is quite similar) one wonders. We compare the beauty and majesty and purity of the King James Bible, and against that we have the strange spirit of accusation that comes over men, confused, seeking an error, bringing accusations against the Bible. These men cannot accept that God has really given us His word, pure and perfect, readable, in our hands, to be accepted and appreciated by the ploughman, and yes, even available, if they will receive it, for the scholar, those who are wise in this world.

God's word, pure and perfect.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

CoreIssue

04-14-2006, 08:46 PM

Hi Folks,

Tis truly amazing that after this post..
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11834&postcount=17
you still want to beat the poor horse more about Genesis 1:1-2.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If it is technically an adverb tis fine, it matters not, it is in the spot of the Hebrew vav which is commonly translated as a conjunction. And either 'and' or 'now' is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation for the vav.

Harold Holmyard
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
In Hebrew when there is a wav conjunction followed by a noun and a verbless clause as in Gen 1:2, this ordinarily represents a background circumstance. It introduces a circumstances clause. This is sometimes called an "off-line" clause, since it is off the main narrative advance,giving addtional information.... Either "and" or "now" could work.

Vadim Cherny
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028099.html
Both readings, "and" and "now/when" are not far apart semantically. Sort of deictic shift. When the author says, "and," he means sequence of events, notsimply their conjunction. That could be paraphrased, "It was the beginning,and then the earth was such-and-such."

Karl Randolph
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028109.html
The Waw tacked on the beginning of the second and following sentences indicate continuation of narration. This is not a complex sentence with verse one as a subordinate clause. If you insistthat these make up one sentence, then what we have is a typical run-on sentence connected by "and"s.

Not one person knowledgable on biblical Hebrew would even criticize the "and",
much less yet call it an error. Only folks with a doctrinal ax, little
knowledge of the language, and a desire to fabricate King James Bible errors.

Notice what Harold says about your Arthur Custance link on "was" and "become"
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
"This seems a false statement because hayah stands in Gen 3:1 where the meaning does not seem to be "became" but simply "was" in a predication of existence ..(continues)

The late Arthur Custance did a lot of good writing, but he was fishing for gaps in this one.

With this type of stuff, (and the lampstand fiasco is quite similar) one wonders. We compare the beauty and majesty and purity of the King James Bible, and against that we have the strange spirit of accusation that comes over men, confused, seeking an error, bringing accusations against the Bible. These men cannot accept that God has really given us His word, pure and perfect, readable, in our hands, to be accepted and appreciated by the ploughman, and yes, even available, if they will receive it, for the scholar, those who are wise in this world.

God's word, pure and perfect.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

No one knowledgable in Hebrew would criticize 'and' and then you address my post where a MA in Oriental Languages did.

And so do a lot of other linquist, including those who translated the NASB, NIV and others.

And so did a lot of others in the past.

If y