Badgers or sea cows/seals

[Herb Evans]

A, B and C all disagree.
A and B admit they don't have a clue.
Given no other information, I will go with C.

A.F.

He I am going on 71, and i can't remember who C was. Give me a break. --Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

There is a lack of logic here. A, B and C all disagree. That doesn't prove that either A, B or C is wrong.

Correct! Also logically, if A, B, and C do not agree, it is also possible that:
1) they are all right
2) none are right

I read some wise advise once: It is better to remain silent (when you don't know the answer for sure) and seem foolish, than to open your mouth (or write) and remove all doubt.

At least some translations admit in the notes that they don't know.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...This is one of those places where the original Hebrew word should have been transliterated rather than translated as the original meaning of the word is so uncertain.

I totally agree!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

He I am going on 71, and i can't remember who C was. Give me a break. --Herb Evans

C was DeHann's favorite.

 

[Herb Evans]

Correct! Also logically, if A, B, and C do not agree, it is also possible that:
1) they are all right
2) none are right

I read some wise advise once: It is better to remain silent (when you don't know the answer for sure) and seem foolish, than to open your mouth (or write) and remove all doubt.

Too bad you did not take it. :laugh: -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

I totally agree!

On what basis do you agree to something that there was no basis for saying. :smilewinkgrin: -- Herb Evans

 

[Lacy Evans]

Man you fellows even jump on badgers to prove your doctrines. As if our new body needed to be cleaned at the JSOC. I wonder if DeHaan had a scripture for that or if you do. Oops! this is not the place for this. Brother moderator, forgive us both. -- Herb Evans

It's called a signature. It's at the bottom of all my posts. I can change it if I like. DeHaan is not a MEer. I would never jump on a King James badger because that badger is immovable and immutable.

Lacy

 

[Keith M]

On what basis do you agree to something that there was no basis for saying. :smilewinkgrin: -- Herb Evans

No basis, Herb? You're barking up the wrong tree, Brother.

Herb, Franklin was agreeing to something that there was a basis for saying. I said the Hebrew tachash should have been transliterated rather than "translated" because no one knows what the original word meant. That is a mystery that we will learn in heaven. But the translators of the various Bible versions have chosen different words to "translate" the original Hebrew word despite the fact that they really don't know what that word meant. Some of the translators were courageous enough to include in footnotes that the meaning of the word is unknown, while the translators of other versions merely placed a word in there at their discretion, apparently wanting people to think they knew what they were doing even though they didn't. Since no one actually knows what the original Hebrew word meant, the use of any word in "translating" the original is a little misleading unless there is a footnote or something to indicate the meaning of the original Hebrew word is unknown.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Herb, but there was a basis for saying what I said. Obviously, Franklin saw that and he agreed, and stated his agreement. If you don't agree then you don't agree - that's up to you. But, quite obviously, there is no basis for what you said.

 

[Herb Evans]

It's called a signature. It's at the bottom of all my posts. I can change it if I like. DeHaan is not a MEer. I would never jump on a King James badger because that badger is immovable and immutable.

Lacy

Yes, I know that it is a signature, a signature with a subtle design and message to Herb Evans. I did not waste the time to get involved in dueling signatures. I prefer to keep that stuff on Temporary 1-8 and not mix it with KJB defense. -- Herb Evans

 

[Keith M]

I would never jump on a King James badger because that badger is immovable and immutable.

...and the meaning of the Hebrew word unknown.

Badger is "immovablde and immutable" only if you blindly accept the "translation" that was supplied by the KJV translators. They supplied the word badger even though the meaning of the original Hebrew word was unknown.

Ed, or someone else with a 1611 KJV reprint, did the 1611 KJV include a footnote that the original Hebrew word had an unknown meaning, or did the translators merely lead others to believe they knew what the word meant?

The Nelson King James Study Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible (NKJV) both contain the footnote "or dolphin" for Ex 25:5, indicating the fact that there is some uncertainty over the original Hebrew word.

 

[Herb Evans]

No basis, Herb? You're barking up the wrong tree, Brother.

Herb, Franklin was agreeing to something that there was a basis for saying. I said the Hebrew tachash should have been transliterated rather than "translated" because no one knows what the original word meant. That is a mystery that we will learn in heaven.

The word "could" have been so transliterated but "SHOULD" implies that you have some authority to demand it. To assume no one knew (including you) because there are a variety of differences proves that you have no authority to say "should." According to what I think that someone posted, the word was transliterated in one of the early Bibles, but that KJB and post KJB Bibles ignored that for whatever reason. -- Herb Evans

But the translators of the various Bible versions have chosen different words to "translate" the original Hebrew word despite the fact that they really don't know what that word meant.

Who says that they all did not know and that all arbitrarily "CHOSE" something just to have something? Such ominicience is a bit hasty to say the least. -- Herb Evans

Some of the translators were courageous enough to include in footnotes that the meaning of the word is unknown, while the translators of other versions merely placed a word in there at their discretion, apparently wanting people to think they knew what they were doing even though they didn't. Since no one actually knows what the original Hebrew word meant, the use of any word in "translating" the original is a little misleading unless there is a footnote or something to indicate the meaning of the original Hebrew word is unknown.

So, you follow a note from folks that don't know and that assume no one else knows rather than follow a time tested translation that is consistent in its use of "badger," while the others follow the JW bible's lead in using seals. And you call it courageous? -- Herb Evans

Sorry to burst your bubble, Herb, but there was a basis for saying what I said. Obviously, Franklin saw that and he agreed, and stated his agreement. If you don't agree then you don't agree - that's up to you. But, quite obviously, there is no basis for what you said.

Again, I say that you have no basis for saying "SHOULD," and I have a basis for saying that.

Odd that the Lamsa Eastern translation, apart from the KJB translators, translates it badger in Ex. 39:34; 36:19; Num. 4:6,8,10,12. I guess they did not know either. -- Herb Evans


-- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

...and the meaning of the Hebrew word unknown.

Badger is "immovablde and immutable" only if you blindly accept the "translation" that was supplied by the KJV translators. They supplied the word badger even though the meaning of the original Hebrew word was unknown.

Ed, or someone else with a 1611 KJV reprint, did the 1611 KJV include a footnote that the original Hebrew word had an unknown meaning, or did the translators merely lead others to believe they knew what the word meant?

The Nelson King James Study Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible (NKJV) both contain the footnote "or dolphin" for Ex 25:5, indicating the fact that there is some uncertainty over the original Hebrew word.

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans

 

[Keith M]

Who says that they all did not know and that all arbitrarily "CHOSE" something just to have somthing? Such omnicience is a bit hasty to say the least.

Uh, Herb, I didn't say that and I certainly didn't claim the "omnicience" you accuse me of. Omniscience is something that belongs only to God. I see you so readily fall into the old and bad KJVO habit of tossing around false accusations and trying to refocus the discussion when you really can't stand behind your unfounded claims.

So, you follow a note from some folks that don't know and that assume no one else knows rather than follow a time tested translation that is consistent in its use of "badger," while the others follow the JW bible's lead in seals. And ou call it courageous?

Herb, can you show without doubt that the KJ V translators knew absolutely and with a doubt what the Hebrew word meant? I didn't think so. Since there is no conclusive proof as to what the Hebrew meant, then it is absolutely safe to say that neither the KJV translators nor translators of later versions knew absolutely what the word meant. If anyone knew with no doubt, then maybe they possess that omniscience you falsely accused me of thinking I possess.

And, just for the record, Herb, if you mean the NWT when you say "the JW biel" then you should know that many JWs use the KJV just as many other folks do. Now which "JW bible" is it that you're referring to in your confusion. And even though it is true that the NWT uses the word "sealskins" in Ex 25:5, a quick axamination would have saved you the embarassment of saying "the others follow" the use of this word. If you had checked for yourself before you made this false accusation, you would have seen that some of the modern versions may use this word, but that many don't. Please check on your "facts" before you show us how much you really know ab out post-KJV Bibles.

Again, I say that you have no basis for saying "SHOULD," and I have a basis for saying that.

Well, Herb, if that's your opinion even though I showed why the word should have been transliterated rather than "translated" then go right ahead and believe your misinfirmed opinion. You showed no acceptable evidence to support your opinion, because all your "evidence" does not stand up. Even the KJV translators didn't follow what many of the previous translations had used in this verse - so since the KJV rendering was different than many of the preceding Bible versions, following your own line of reasoning, the KJV "badgers" must be wrong.

Herb, I have stood against the KJV myth for many years. I know many of the tactics followers of the man-made KJVO myth use, and I am prepared for them. The "evidence" you show, much of which was wrong from the beginning, does absolutely nothing to support your position. I pray that you will one day learn the truth and stop following the KJVO myth, but that day may not come in this life. I will still continue to pray that the Holy Spirit reaches out to you to show you how wrong the man-made KJVO myth really is.

 

[Herb Evans]

Uh, Herb, I didn't say that and I certainly didn't claim the "omnicience" you accuse me of. Omniscience is something that belongs only to God. I see you so readily fall into the old and bad KJVO habit of tossing around false accusations and trying to refocus the discussion when you really can't stand behind your unfounded claims.

Herb, can you show without doubt that the KJ V translators knew absolutely and with a doubt what the Hebrew word meant? I didn't think so. Since there is no conclusive proof as to what the Hebrew meant, then it is absolutely safe to say that neither the KJV translators nor translators of later versions knew absolutely what the word meant. If anyone knew with no doubt, then maybe they possess that omniscience you falsely accused me of thinking I possess.

Well perhaps that was too strong of a word, but you did say what you did with such certainty. Excuse me if I ruffled your feathers. That is a herb Evans habit rather than a KJVO habit that you accuse me of. -- Hreb Evans

And, just for the record, Herb, if you mean the NWT when you say "the JW biel" then you should know that many JWs use the KJV just as many other folks do. Now which "JW bible" is it that you're referring to in your confusion. And even though it is true that the NWT uses the word "sealskins" in Ex 25:5, a quick axamination would have saved you the embarassment of saying "the others follow" the use of this word. If you had checked for yourself before you made this false accusation, you would have seen that some of the modern versions may use this word, but that many don't. Please check on your "facts" before you show us how much you really know ab out post-KJV Bibles.

The JW's only use the KJB when forced in all the encounters that I have had with them. That was the purpose of the NWT -- to get rid of their KJB's. Oh, you mean the ones that use sea cows? -- Herb Evans

Well, Herb, if that's your opinion even though I showed why the word should have been transliterated rather than "translated" then go right ahead and believe your misinfirmed opinion. You showed no acceptable evidence to support your opinion, because all your "evidence" does not stand up. Even the KJV translators didn't follow what many of the previous translations had used in this verse - so since the KJV rendering was different than many of the preceding Bible versions, following your own line of reasoning, the KJV "badgers" must be wrong.

There you go again, with such certainty saying "should have" without any authorative basis except to assume assumptions. The KJB translators have inserted a hundred transliterations and have been scolded for it. It is a damned if you do and a damned if you do not. The KJB if you want to bring that into the discussion, considered the previous translations as well as other language translations, i.e. the German Bible and possibly the Eastern Peshita. Why should they have only considered one from the translations that differed? -- Herb Evans

Herb, I have stood against the KJV myth for many years. I know many of the tactics followers of the man-made KJVO myth use, and I am prepared for them. The "evidence" you show, much of which was wrong from the beginning, does absolutely nothing to support your position. I pray that you will one day learn the truth and stop following the KJVO myth, but that day may not come in this life. I will still continue to pray that the Holy Spirit reaches out to you to show you how wrong the man-made KJVO myth really is.

Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them. -- Herb Evans

 

[Lacy Evans]

Yes, I know that it is a signature, a signature with a subtle design and message to Herb Evans. I did not waste the time to get involved in dueling signatures. I prefer to keep that stuff on Temporary 1-8 and not mix it with KJB defense. -- Herb Evans

You kill me. (I forget, you are notorious!:tongue3: ) I've had that particular signature since long before you, MR Evans, showed up.) You're the one who "wasted time" attacking my signature in the first place.

You're a piece of work, friend.

lacy

 

[Herb Evans]

Herb, can you show without doubt that the KJ V translators knew absolutely and with a doubt what the Hebrew word meant? I didn't think so. Since there is no conclusive proof as to what the Hebrew meant, then it is absolutely safe to say that neither the KJV translators nor translators of later versions knew absolutely what the word meant. If anyone knew with no doubt, then maybe they possess that omniscience you falsely accused me of thinking I possess.

I can't show you anything absolutely about the KJB, despite my longevity. I was not there then, and I can only guess at some things. I do not have to prove a negative here. Nevertheless, you seem able to do that for them with certainty as well as the others. In fact you did. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

You kill me. (I forget, you are notorious!:tongue3: ) I've had that particular signature since long before you, MR Evans, showed up.) You're the one who "wasted time" attacking my signature in the first place.

You're a piece of work, friend.

lacy

No, not Herb, God is going to kill you at the JSOC unlss you shape up. And you are now becoming notorious. Now, enough of the nonsense, unless you are out to kill the thread. -- Herb Evans

 

[robycop3]

Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them. -- Herb Evans

Ahh, but being prepared and being RIGHT are often two different things, eh, Dr. Evans?

So, can ya say WITH CERTAINTY it was badgers?

 

[Herb Evans]

robycop3]Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them. -- Herb Evans

Ahh, but being prepared and being RIGHT are often two different things, eh, Dr. Evans?

Yes, Philip, I wish you would do it more. -- Herb Evans

So, can ya say WITH CERTAINTY it was badgers?

More certain than you are that they are not. Seems like all the uncertainty is on your side. -- Herb Evans

 

[robycop3]

robycop3]Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them. -- Herb Evans

Ahh, but being prepared and being RIGHT are often two different things, eh, Dr. Evans?

Yes, Philip, I wish you would do it more. -- Herb Evans

And I do...Come up with any more Onlyist excuses lately? Yer last ones tanked....

So, can ya say WITH CERTAINTY it was badgers?

More certain than you are that they are not. Seems like all the uncertainty is on your side. -- Herb Evans

Yes, ya certainly GUESS...That's fer certain...Howdja ketch them bajjerzz...wiff yer UNICORN'S HORN?