Definitions, Please

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

You are one to talk about admitting when you are wrong. I have yet to see you do it in the face of evidence that you appear to be wrong on different issues. Simply refusing to answer does not constitue accuracy. However, I am not going to start a spitting match with you over it. But be that as it may ...

Cherubim is still the plural of cherub. The OED is probably citing an ancient or little used variant would be my guess but since I don't have one so I can't check it out. I don't think it matters. In the interest of accuracy, cherubim is the proper rendering of the plural form of the angelic beings referred to.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[CorpseNoMore]

I have an Idea, Dr. Cassidy let's close this topic. I'll start a new thread.

 

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The silence regarding cherubims is deafening! I wonder where all the "experts" are? I guess they lack the character to admit they were wrong. Rather sad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not many of us can afford to buy the $1000 set of volumes which comprise the Oxford English Dictionary, and I doubt that many of us have had the opportunity within the last 24-48 hours to make a special trip to the local library to see if they have it.

In other words, I am momentarily unable to verify your suspicious assertions about "individual" and "collective" plurals. The OED appears to be the only dictionary in existence which says such a thing, which I find a little strange.

But, once I have a chance to verify your OED reference, I will concede that "cherubims" appears to be an obsolete archaism instead of an error, and admit that I was wrong.

Unfortunately, just like a juvenile, you can't resist attacking the character of other members, merely because we are temporarily forced to take your word for something and cannot offer a timely reply.

Quite frankly, I think you "lack the character" to be moderator of this Christian group.

TLB

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
OK , my Webster's has:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My quotes come from the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard reference work for the English language, 16 volumes. I suspect it is a lot more comprehensive then Websters.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
Quite frankly, I think you "lack the character" to be moderator of this Christian group.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, of course. Proving you wrong shows an terrible lack of character on my part! LOL!

 

[HankD]

TC says...

&gt;&gt;My quotes come from the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard reference work for the English language, 16 volumes. I suspect it is a lot more comprehensive then Websters&gt;&gt;

Mama Mia! (is that good English)?

OK, then what about Rephaims, Zuzims and Emims, (all double plurals) are they in Oxford's?

KJV Genesis 14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim.

HankD

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
OK, then what about Rephaims, Zuzims and Emims, (all double plurals) are they in Oxford's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The first two are not but Zuz, with a plural of Zuzim, is, but is identified as a quarter of a silver shekel.

By the way, I have long contended that a man cannot consider himself a theologian until he first becomes a philogian. A dictionary with a good philology section is a must for any serious student of the bible. The OED is the most exhaustive reference book on the English language containing both an etymology and philology section. As to the cost, don't let the nay-sayers scare you off. I have several copies, including one which I keep on my desk. Rather than buying the large library edition, you can opt to purchase the "Compact Edition" which puts four pages on each page, using what they call "micro print." You may need a good pair of reading glasses or a magnifying glass to read some of the small print, but it shrinks the dictionary down to a managable and affordable 2 volumes. If you purchase them new they are about $525, but if you live in or near a college town, many used book stores sell them for around $75. It seems that parents of college students give them to their kids as gifts, and the kids promptly sell them to the used book stores. Their loss is our gain!

Look around where you live, and if you can't find one, let me know and I will check the book stores here in San Diego and ship it to you.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The OED is the most exhaustive reference book on the English language containing both an etymology and philology section. As to the cost, don't let the nay-sayers scare you off. I have several copies, including one which I keep on my desk. Rather than buying the large library edition, you can opt to purchase the "Compact Edition" which puts four pages on each page, using what they call "micro print." You may need a good pair of reading glasses or a magnifying glass to read some of the small print, but it shrinks the dictionary down to a managable and affordable 2 volumes. If you purchase them new they are about $525, but if you live in or near a college town, many used book stores sell them for around $75.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has Dr. Cassidy or anybody else ever ran across the OED on CD-ROM?

cordially,

CNM

 

[Chris Temple]

OED Online

The world's greatest dictionary is now available online at http://www.oed.com/public/publications/online.htm

 

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
OED Online The world's greatest dictionary is now available online...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Chris, I found this page at the site...

Questions and answers: OED (Second Edition) on CD-ROM, OED Online FAQs

 

[Pastor Larry]

I agree with Thomas that a good theologian needs to be a good philologian. However, the emphasis needs to be on the original languages. I question the wisdom of investing in an OED to study the English language translation of the Bible. An OED, helps out to define the out-dated words or the ones that have changed meaning in order to defend the KJV, but does not help all that much to learn more about the Scripture itself. Besides, if you would surround yourself with a NKJV, NIV, and NASB you would virtually do away with the need for the OED since the modern versions usually use common words and lessen the need for an English dictionary. While it is perfectly good and fine to have an OED, one who wants to study the Scripture would be much better off with a good original language set such as NIDOTTE, NIDNTT, TDNT, TDOT, TWOT, EDNT, TLOT, TLNT, etc. Being able to defend why KJV translators chose the words they did helps to defend the supposed lack of "error of fact" in a translation but does but is not of great value for anything else. As I say, modern versions would eliminate the problem and free up time to spend on theological study rather than outdated English study. What we need to study is why Paul, Peter, Isaiah, etc. chose the words they did. These types of works mentioned above usually give theological syntheses as well as definitions and prove much more helpful. I suspect that Thomas's affinity for the OED is driven by his use of the KJV in which there is a great need to find out what words meant 400 years ago.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Cherubim is still the plural of cherub. The OED is probably citing an ancient or little used variant would be my guess but since I don't have one so I can't check it out. I don't think it matters. In the interest of accuracy, cherubim is the proper rendering of the plural form of the angelic beings referred to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me see if I follow you. The OED can't possibly be right because you disagree. But, even if it is right, it doesn't matter. And, just to be on the safe side, it does matter but it is wrong, and you are right. Sure. Okay!

As you your willingness to check out the OED, don't you think the time to do your research was before you ex-cathedra announcement that you were right and the KJV translators were all wrong?

Oh, and, by the way, in reference to your post just above this one. By all means, everybody, throw away any dictionary you may own that may prove Larry to be wrong. After all, I did not attack any of the new versions, but Larry did attack the KJV and claim there was an error in the translation of cherubims. He castigates me for using a good dictionary to prove him wrong, but fails to realize that I would not have had to prove him wrong if he had not made a false claim regarding the word ccherubims. As my grandmother used to say, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
In other words, I am momentarily unable to verify your suspicious assertions about "individual" and "collective" plurals. The OED appears to be the only dictionary in existence which says such a thing, which I find a little strange.

But, once I have a chance to verify your OED reference, I will concede that "cherubims" appears to be an obsolete archaism instead of an error, and admit that I was wrong. [vicious ad hominem snipped]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The OED disagrees with you so my quote of the OED is "suspicious." And the OED, because it gives the etymology of "cherubims" is "a little strange" again, because it disagrees with your authoritative statements.

I ask you also, don't you think the time to do your research into the word was before your authoritative pronouncements regarding the "error" of the KJV translators? Shouldn't you have verified your "facts" before you posted them?

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Dear Friends, the OED is the Final Authority on the English language and Bro Thomas's reading of it as well.Methinks that almost all MV's disagree with this silliness about Cheribim and Cheribims that has been stated by our dear brother, T. Cassidy. Virtually all MV's are wrong, and the KJV, and Dr Cassidy are the only ones right, don't any of us stubborn people get that? I simply am missing the point appararently, but after reading these post the last few days, I will throw out all my MV's, Ryrie Study Bible, MacArthur Study Bible, New Geneva Study Bible, Nelson Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, Life Application Study Bible, any Bible that mistranslates"Cheribims" as Cheribim or Cherubs and seek to buy a KJV Cassidy Study Bible with OED attached.I've sown the wind, now I'm gonna reap the whirlwind! Whew!

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: RevKevin77 ]

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: RevKevin77 ]

 

[CorpseNoMore]

I guess I was wrong when I suggested this thread should be closed (since it looked like it was becoming an all-purpose KJV thread). It appears that this thread is about definitions after all, just not the original definitions Dr. Bob asked for.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas, man, it appears that you have something stuck in your craw. I hope you find it soon. I have not deceived anybody and you know it. You have misrepresented what I said.

Read again what I said. I said that “cherubims” was probably an archaic form and that the plural of cherub was still cherubim. I was commenting on the Hebrew and calling cherubim a transliteration. I don’t really care one way or the way. It doesn’t matter. I didn’t even say that the OED was wrong. That was your incorrect assertion. You are deceiving people as to what I did say. Read it again: I said it was probably an archaic form but you didn’t reference that. You misquote it to say what you want it to say and then castigate me unfairly. I don’t have an OED but the dictionaries I have checked do not give “cherubims” as a modern form further supporting my claim that “cherubims” is probably archaic. Furthermore, I didn’t make any ex-cathedra announcement. I simply said you were barking up the wrong tree. This part of this conversation is just a dumb conversation to be having. It seems to me that your problem is that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong. In another thread, I asked some simple questions and showed my reasoning and your response was to claim the KJV was right and my exegesis was wrong.

Furthermore, if you read my above post I didn’t say anything about throwing out any dictionary that “proved” I was wrong. In fact, I said that owning one was good and fine. (You failed to quote that too.) I said simply that there was a bigger issue and that is the original language text. I further said that rather than defending an English translation, we should primarily be going to original language sources. I do not need an OED because I am concerned with what the original author wrote, not how someone in 1600 translated it. This is so simple I can’t believe it is being discussed or that you are arguing with it. If your seminary classes are devoted to defending (400 year old) English renderings, perhaps you should reconsider your curriculum. We need to be teaching our pastors to use the original language and the appropriate sources whether we use the MajT, the TR, or the eclectic text.

Additionally, I didn’t attack the KJV. I don’t know if it uses cherubims or not. I haven’t looked and I don’t care. I said the plural of cherub was cherubim in the Hebrew. Your accusing me of deception is completely and totally uncalled for. I didn’t deceive anybody. I made a comment on Hebrew and said that I believed cherubim to be a transliteration. You said it wasn’t a transliteration and I dropped it. However, I was right on the plural form of a Hebrew word and you know it. Your education is better than you are letting on here. I don’t have a problem with the KJV even if it does say “cherubims.” My issue with the KJV is that I simply think there are some places where the KJV could use a better text or render the text it uses in a more precise fashion. Four hundred years of linguistic study has been a great profit. We should avail ourselves of it.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor KevinR]

A word that we should consider is "synagogue". It is found in the OT in Psalm 74:8(KJV). When this Psalm was written, synagogues did not exist, they came into being during the Intertestmental Period. Now it's true that in 1611 that it has become an English word, but when Asaph penned this Psalm, it referred to meeting places, especially the Temple.

 

[Ransom]

Thomas Cassidy said:

It seems patently obvious that you have made up your mind and will not be swayed by any facts.

Au contraire: the facts are on my side. You are simply trying to confuse the issue.

Nowhere in the English language do we ever see "im" used to indicate a plural. One last time, cherubim is an English word and it follows the rules of English grammar.

Oh, come on!

By the same argument, "cherub" is also an English word and follows the rules of English grammar. By your own argument, therefore, the plural of "cherub" in English is not "cherubims," but "cherubs." Because by your own argument, nowhere in the English language do we see -ims used to indicate a plural, either!

But let's just take your "argument" to its logical conclusion. If:

"cherub" = 1 cherub

and

"cherubims" = many cherubs

then how many cherubs in a "cherubim"? how many "cherubim" do you need before you have "cherubims"? Is "cherubim" singular or plural?

Please explain which "rules of English grammar" allow for two levels of plurality. Apparently this one managed to escape the attention of all those English and linguistics profs I had to listen to through university.

What is so hard about that to understand?

The only thing hard to understand is your stubborn insistence on defending a weird copyediting error.

 

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I agree with Thomas that a good theologian needs to be a good philologian. However, the emphasis needs to be on the original languages.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An excellent point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I question the wisdom of investing in an OED to study the English language translation of the Bible. An OED, helps out to define the out-dated words or the ones that have changed meaning in order to defend the KJV,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I wondered about that, too.
Even though I have agreed to accept the (alleged) appearance of "cherubims" in the Oxford English Dictionary, I do find it interesting that Oxford has been a major printer of KJV Bibles for several centuries. That doesn't seem to be the case with other well-known dictionary publishers.

No doubt, Oxford felt it necessary for their comprehensive OED to be an Oxford KJV Bible dictionary as well. That means all of the words contained in the KJV have to be official English words, because Oxford put them in the OED! What a deal . . .

Question: What does that do to Oxford's objectivity on the "cherubims" issue? Can anybody guess?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Besides, if you would surround yourself with a NKJV, NIV, and NASB you would virtually do away with the need for the OED since the modern versions usually use common words and lessen the need for an English dictionary.
&lt;snip&gt;
As I say, modern versions would eliminate the problem and free up time to spend on theological study rather than outdated English study.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, brother!

TLB

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The OED disagrees with you so my quote of the OED is "suspicious." And the OED, because it gives the etymology of "cherubims" is "a little strange" again, because it disagrees with your authoritative statements.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The professor knows very well that is not what I said. Either he has a reading deficiency, or he is being intentionally deceptive. My guess is the latter, which means he should consider hiring out as a Gore campaign spin-meister.

If he could somehow learn to read whole sentences, and not make lame assumptions from the parts he cuts out and throws back at people, he would see that I have already accepted the "disagreement" between me and the OED.

And, what I said was "suspicious" and "strange" is that the OED appears to be the only dictionary in existence which mentions any double-talk about "individual" and "collective" plurals!

Of course, the above statement means little to a someone like the professor who is OED-ONLY. It seems that no other English dictionary counts for anything, and since he knows that most people don't have access to a 16-volume set, he wins by default. And, that gives him a perfect opportunity to gloat about it shamelessly -- ad nauseam.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I ask you also, don't you think the time to do your research into the word was before your authoritative pronouncements regarding the "error" of the KJV translators? Shouldn't you have verified your "facts" before you posted them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are valid questions. The answer is yes, I should have, and actually I believed that I did so. I have a veritable multitude of dictionaries and reference tomes in my library, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of them provided ANY indication that "cherubims" is a valid English word.

Now, I ask the professor again, isn't that strange?

TLB