Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 12-22-2008, 11:03 AM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bro. Parrish,

When I said I'm not saying the KJV is wrong, I was referring to the singular/plural heaven issue of Gen 1:1 when compared to the NKJV, as that was the context of what we were discussing. See my last post.

God bless,
Brian
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #162  
Old 12-22-2008, 11:07 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
I recognize that sometimes a plural can be translated as a singular, and vice versa
Brian, is that your method of a retraction of the three quotes above from you at the top of my post #154 ?

Are any of them still operative ? If so, which ones.

If not, say so clearly, that they were in error.

====================================

Note, for the forum:

Brian is wrong once again, taking the red herring approach. This is not a case of "a plural can be translated as a singular, and vica versa". That discussion, fascinating as it is, is a totally different issue, which most often comes up in collective pronouns and nouns. You can come up with excellent examples even within English, including how the term 'United States' transformed over time.

This is a case that Brian is still totally clueless about the singular/plural aspect of number of the Hebrew grammatical form used in words like Elohim, shamayim and mayim (water). The close English analogy is the word 'sheep'. If anybody claimed that the word sheep was by nature a plural of number they would be in as bad shape in English as Brian is overall, trying to keep his accusation against the pure Bible on the lukewarm burner.

Another analogy for the technicians among us is the usage of grammatical gender in many languages, which has no requirement to translate to biological gender in English.

====================================

Brian, there is no point in our going on until you either attempt to support, or retract, your three quotes in #154. You need to decide the status of each one. May I suggest you take some time, use careful consideration and then respond on your two assertions (the first two quotes can be combined as one). I went to some effort to show you the problem in your assertions in the third quote.

And you need to have the integrity to respond directly to point.

====================================

George, I appreciate what you shared above very much, as being quite accurate and insightful overall. However there is a question here of accountability and timing and even walking an extra few miles. Please bear with my attempt for at least a short season. Thanks .

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-22-2008 at 11:36 AM.
  #163  
Old 12-22-2008, 11:52 AM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve,

It appears to me that you are intent on simply opposing me for opposition's sake, and the result is that you are not clearly understanding what I am saying. I don't know how else to say it, so I'll simply leave you to your contentious and striving strawmen.

God bless,
Brian
  #164  
Old 12-22-2008, 12:24 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
Steve, It appears to me that you are intent on simply opposing me for opposition's sake, and the result is that you are not clearly understanding what I am saying. I don't know how else to say it, so I'll simply leave you to your contentious and striving strawmen.
Brian, please note I am asking you to reply specifically to the refutation of your claims that I documented on post #154 (most especially your very clear claim that a different word would be used for the singular "heaven" in Genesis 1:1). To be fair, I did not directly refute every aspect of your claim in that post, I simply asked you to address the very obvious humongous difficulties, to lead to a proper analysis. To help you see that your argument was fallacious to the max.

It is very likely that the moderator here will note your refusal to be accountable for your own words, that you simply try to bludgeon ahead leaving a totally false accusation against the Bible in your wake, compounding a false Bible accusation with a false personal accusation, attempting to confuse integrity with strife.

And as to your accusations against the Bible:
Refuted yet not responded. No defense nor retraction.

In the better aspects of the scholarly world, this is unacceptable. And on excellently-moderated forums, this is likely to be extremely unacceptable. And in my experience, this has usually been one of the most excellently moderated forums.

Note: I have had no external contact with the moderator, who tends to be very fair. However I know from experience that he is concerned that posters understand that they are accountable for their own words, and especially their own accusations. And that issue is right in front of us today.

So I cordially recommend you try to give a truly substantive response. If you like, if you really somehow do not understand the issues, I will repost the most salient parts from #154, pg. 16, in short-form. However, that really should not be necessary, as I put some effort in to making sure the post was carefully crafted. You made a very direct claim, and attempted to support it with an oblique reference to some verses, and since then have adamantly refused to go into the actual assertion and details, or even the words. You have not even said what specific word you claim would be in Genesis 1:1 for the verse to be singular heaven. And if the possible word is ever used anywhere in such a standalone manner in the Hebrew Bible, outside of the unique idiomatic usage. No examples, no scholars, no nuttin. Nor have you addressed the 500 times that shamayim is used as a singular in every translation, whether all those translations are wrong, as your claim asserts.

Worse, you have accused the attempt to help you dialogue properly on the Bible texts as "contentious" and "strawman". As if you never even made the assertions at all ! Fortunately, we have the full record here.

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-22-2008 at 12:45 PM.
  #165  
Old 12-22-2008, 12:46 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve,

Last try on this subject. The moderators may do what they wish, I will abide by any decision they put forth.

In Hebrew, "-im" suffixes indicate plural. I am not saying that it is always wrong to translate an "-im" word as a singular, but the fact remains that it is a plural form in Hebrew. Commentators for centuries have discussed how "Elohim" is a plural form word for a single God, and used this fact as support for the Trinity doctrine. Without the plural aspect, this support for the Trinity would be fallacious. However, just because this plural form can (and should) be translated as a singular in certain cases does not change the fact that it is in plural form to begin with, nor does it mean we can use the exceptions of a rule to argue against a rule itself. All I'm saying here is that to claim that translating the plural "shamayim" as a plural "heavens" is an error in Gen 1:1, simply because the KJV didn't do it, is a circular argument. I'm not saying it is wrong, but I am saying that you need something a lot more convincing to prove it must be this way in this instance (especially since the exact same Hebrew is translated "heavens" in dozens of other places in the KJV). I am not going to spend time picking apart every other instance, for such an effort would take more time than I am willing to spend on this, especially when the fruitfulness of such a discussion is in serious doubt.

In other words, I am not saying there is an error in the KJV in this verse, I am saying that I believe there is an error (or at least a glaring inconsistency) in the logic behind the accusation against the NKJV in this verse. If you are really interested in integrity, you will deal with the points I am actually making rather than the points I am not.

God bless,
Brian
  #166  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:24 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT Post #146
In Hebrew, the suffix "-im" (pronounced "eem") indicates a plural ending, as "-s" does for English. The singular form of this word (without the "-im" suffix) appears in verses that have both "heaven" and "heavens" in the same verse, such as Deut 10:14, 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chron 2:6, 2 Chron 6:18, and Neh 9:6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
I am not going to spend time picking apart every other instance
Brian, I simply asked you to properly address the very instances you gave the forum.

Precisely what word (or word-form) you claim that is in Deut 10:14 should be in Genesis 1:1 if Genesis 1:1 is meant to be a singular.

That is your clear assertion above. Live with it, defend it, or retract it as an error.

And I asked you to explain how this assertion relates to the hundreds of singular references to 'heaven' throughout the Tanach (OT). Why do you think they should also have your Deut 10:14 form plugged in as well ? ie. If the verses need to be the singular 'heaven'. Or is Genesis 1:1 exceptional in some way ? Simply asking for consistency.

==================

Only after you finally address this, then I will relate to your various assertions, and your various errors (there is an abolute beauty-blunder in the first quote above) as to the nature of the plural form in Hebrew words that are indistinct of number. Where number is determined by surrounding grammar and context.

And only after that is straightened out, only after you show some truth and accuracy on the basics, only after you take some responsibility to deal with your false accusations against the pure word of God .. only then I will be very happy to discuss with you the specifics of the King James Bible superiority to the NKJV in Genesis 1:1, and exactly how and why superior.

A before B before C.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-22-2008 at 01:33 PM.
  #167  
Old 12-22-2008, 02:34 PM
Bro. Parrish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT View Post
Steve,

It appears to me that you are intent on simply opposing me for opposition's sake, and the result is that you are not clearly understanding what I am saying.
LOL, opposing you? No, we are opposing your opposition to the KJV, and we are opposing your promotion of the deceptive material men have purposed to replace it. (NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, or whatever else you refer to as the Word of God this week).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT View Post
Bro. Parrish,
When I said I'm not saying the KJV is wrong, I was referring to the singular/plural heaven issue of Gen 1:1 when compared to the NKJV, as that was the context of what we were discussing.
LOL, unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that you have ALREADY STATED THE KJV IS WRONG. While you were busy straining at gnats, we have been examining x-rays of the giant camel you already swallowed. Let's all compare Brian's two contradicting positions again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT Post #146
I am not arguing that the KJV is wrong ... I am not saying the KJV is in error here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"


Brian; the numbers and locations of perceived errors are not the issue.
If any of it is wrong, it's ALL wrong. There is no further reason to debate about how many petals were on the flowers in King Solomon's bathroom.
  #168  
Old 12-22-2008, 02:41 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve, I responded to you in email.

Bro. Parrish, the only thing I agree with from your post is where you said ""

God bless,
Brian
  #169  
Old 12-22-2008, 02:56 PM
pbiwolski's Avatar
pbiwolski pbiwolski is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Penna.
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT View Post
I believe there is an error (or at least a glaring inconsistency) in the logic behind the accusation against the NKJV in this verse.
Here's is the ultimate end of our logic: we have in one volume, the very perfect and perserved words of the living God in the King James Bible.

If it ain't King James, it aint' right (making it wrong - logically)!

There's no "reasoning" here, it's belief. This is what you lack.

What a blessing it is to have a final authority - something that sets the standard for truth vs error and right vs wrong. With an authority, doubts are dismissed - the authority says, "I'm right." With an authority that equals God's words, the opinions ("wisdom") of all mankind are foolishness. Who needs a man when you already have it from God?

Got a question about the translation of a Hebrew/Greek word? Check the authority; it will guide you into all truth.

I like what I heard a preacher once say, "I'm just 'dumb' enough to believe that God gave us the King James Bible." Amen and Amen!


On a side note: I too am getting tired of reading the leaven you've been sowing in the minds of Bible believers. You will never get us to doubt the veracity of ANY word of the AV, nor will we ever consider an alternate reading to be acceptable.

So...I'll also ask, "Why are you still here?" Would you consider it to be a victory if you cause someone to lose their faith in the perfect Book that we love? Isn't that what you really want? If so, who did you get your orders from? Who's "side" are you on? Gen. 3:1
  #170  
Old 12-22-2008, 03:21 PM
ltpage's Avatar
ltpage ltpage is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Charleston, IL
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
I know he hasn't technically broken any rules, but would a majority vote to ban him be sufficient?
BrianT obviously loves his NKJV and I thought this was a KJV site.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com