Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Greetings, Manny.
Thanks for the excellent material about early King James Bible defenders, Psalm 12 and more.
While your analysis of Psalm 12 is excellent I believe you misunderstand one point about the margin note, which we both agree is not the inspired word of God.
Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=651
Heb.him.i
every one of them
This footnote is showing the technical Hebrew grammatical form as a singular and it is indicating that it is a collective-type of singular in the Hebrew that translates best into an English plural. Every one of the words of God are preserved from this generation for ever. (This would be the primary understanding.)
Manny, your grammar analysis looks fine, my concern is that you are misunderstanding the King James Bible margin note.
Please look at another example :
Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=806
Heb. deathes
Here the Hebrew technical grammar form is plural. The proper translation is in the text since in this verse the Hebrew grammar plural form indicates a plural of intensity, not a plural of number. Being aware of Hebrew grammar (eg. Kimchi and Rashi and Nachmanides discuss the nature of this plural) the King James Bible translators are simply showing the reader the grammatical distinction involved.
Very similar to Psalm 12:7 and other verses. Such a margin note should not be read as in tension with the text, it is an auxiliary help, designed a bit more for the scholarly or skilled linguist reader than the layman.
Amen.
Shalom,
Steven
|
I was approaching the AV1611 footnote by giving the opponent the benefit of a doubt that his interpretation of the footnote was correct. But after looking at it a second time, after reading your post, you may be correct that it is actually explaining the literal Hebrew rendering from the strictest sense, which in actuality is in support of our position of the preserved WORDS rather than preserved PEOPLE. If so, I digress. I was more concerned in engaging the opponents argument than interpreting the footnote. Either way, my argument for Ps. 12:6-7 as speaking of the preservation of God's words rather than the "poor" and "needy" still stands, as I know you are in full agreement with Bro. Avery.
God bless.