"hare" in the KJV's Deu. 14:7

[robycop3]

Sounddoctrine 04:robycop3...I posted the reason why "slew and hanged" is entirely appropriate and not an error. Are you just going to ignore it and keep raving on or are you going to admit that the two occured simultaneously ("slew AND hanged" not "slew THEN hanged") and not consecutively?

You posted A guess, a POSSIBILITY, and not a proven reason. Given the writing style of the KJV, the ways its writers used "and" elsewhere, it appears that they were indicating consecutive events. This is in light of virtually every modern English version reading "killed by hanging". Now, while TCassidy reminds us that "slay" could also have meant "beat" in the 1600s, the GREEK word used here "anaireo", has several English meanings, ampng them, "take up" ot "lift up", but not "beat".(The AV translators rendered that word"take up" in Acts 7:21.) This word appears frequently in Acts, and the AV men usually translated it "kill", "slay".

There's no doubt the AV men meant "killed" when they wrote "slew" in Acts 5:30 and 10:39. A clincher for this is in Acts 2:23 where they wrote "crucified and slain". This also adds to the consecutive meaning of "and" further on in Acts.

Your analogy of driving & listening to the radio isn't too hot. Why? Because both driving and listening are ongoing events, while slaying is not. And, assuming the person was listening to the car radio, he/she would hafta be driving first, or at least have the car started, ready to drive, before beginning to listen to its radio.

A BETTER rendering coulda been "lifted up and slain", which is quite allowable from the Greek, as "lifted up" was a euphemism for "crucified".

Unlike those who have fallen for the KJVO myth, I can provide explanations, evidence, and reasons.

I have noticed that you use the same tactics as the Mormons, Catholics, JW's et al in your debating --- when faced with a dilema regarding your position, you simply ignore it and keep repeating the same point, or move on to another objection. If you wish to engage in intellectually honest discussion, then don't use such inferior tactics.

I use such tactics ONLY because the KJVOs fail to answer or simply make lame excuses based upon guesswork. And that's all your "reason" was...GUESSWORK, not supported by any fact.

Now, please post any question asked of me here that I haven't answered...or ask me some NEW ones. God Willing, I WILL answer them shortly. Now, I don't read Greek or Hebrew, nor do I know a lot about manuscripts, but just about anything else pertaining to the KJVO myth, I'll answer...AND I'LL STILL DEMAND THAT THE KJVOS SUSTAIN THEIR DOCTRINE BY REAL EVIDENCE & NOT GUESSWORK.


How about trying THIS one on for size...As a Christian, how can you believe the KJVO myth when it's entirely man-made, and is NOT SUPPORTED WHATSOEVER BY SCRIPTURE FROM THE KJV ITSELF?

 

[Sounddoctrine04]

Response to Robycop3's post June 11 @ 7:05 PM

I see that you have no heart for a rendered reason because even the event itself (the crucifixion) shows that my position regarding "slew AND hanged" is simultaneous, not consecutive. There is no guesswork whatsoever involved here because the meaning fits the actual facts of the event as well as the definition of "slew" in Acts 10:39 as given in Strong's (see below).

You then claim that "lifted up" is better than "slew" even though there is no support in the TR for such a rendering. The phrase "I be lifted up"--as used to describe being crucified in John 12:32--is (transliterated) "hupsoo" whereas "slew" is from the word "anaireo" as given in your challenge verse, Acts 10:39. In case you didn't notice, they are two different words.

Additionally, the word "anaireo" is ALSO translated "take up." Looking at Strong's, one would at once see the connection to "slew" in Acts 10:39 and the crucifixion because the definitions are given as follows:

1) to take up, to lift up (from the ground)
1a) to take up for myself as mine
1b) to own (an exposed infant)
2) to take away, abolish
2a) to do away with or abrogate customs or ordinances
2b) to put out of the way, kill slay a man

Your argument is simply one of grasping at straws, and you go perpetually from straw to straw. Since you are so ready to play fast and loose with word translation there is absolutely no common ground for reasoning with you. We are coming at the same argument from two polar-opposite positions.

Your final "question" would be funny if it weren't so sad. You attack the KJV-only position by demanding proof from the KJV. Some verses in Proverbs 26 come to mind after reading your "question" and I must refrain from further discussion with you on this matter.

 

[robycop3]

Sounddoctrine 04:I see that you have no heart for a rendered reason because even the event itself (the crucifixion) shows that my position regarding "slew AND hanged" is simultaneous, not consecutive.

My point exactly...Jesus was ALIVE when crucified, so therefore to say He was slain and hanged is wrong. The AV translators consistently used "and" to link consecutive events, I.E. 'And God said, "Let there be light": and there was light.'

Since the passages in question, let's see how the AV men used "and" in other passages:
Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

I could post ten pages of similar usages. Point is, almost always, the AV men connected CONSECUTIVE events involving verbs with "and".

There is no guesswork whatsoever involved here because the meaning fits the actual facts of the event as well as the definition of "slew" in Acts 10:39 as given in Strong's (see below).

No, it's not guesswork...it's present in the KJV for all to read. However, the KJVO myth itself IS guesswork.

You then claim that "lifted up" is better than "slew" even though there is no support in the TR for such a rendering. The phrase "I be lifted up"--as used to describe being crucified in John 12:32--is (transliterated) "hupsoo" whereas "slew" is from the word "anaireo" as given in your challenge verse, Acts 10:39. In case you didn't notice, they are two different words.

Additionally, the word "anaireo" is ALSO translated "take up." Looking at Strong's, one would at once see the connection to "slew" in Acts 10:39 and the crucifixion because the definitions are given as follows:

1) to take up, to lift up (from the ground)
1a) to take up for myself as mine
1b) to own (an exposed infant)
2) to take away, abolish
2a) to do away with or abrogate customs or ordinances
2b) to put out of the way, kill slay a man

Again, your argument bites itself. "Lift up" was a euphemism for crucify, and that IS one of the meanings for 'anaireo'. The condemned was nailed to either the cross beam, or the entire cross, which was then, if just the cross beam, was lifted up to where it was fitted into a notch in the upright pole, and the feet then nailed to the pole, or the entire cross was lifted up & its base dropped into a hole, with chocks added around the base to keep the cross upright. Either way required a "lifting up".That's why I stated that the AV men blew that one badly...the #1 definition in Strong's says, LIFTED UP! Here's how they rendered 'anaireo' in Acts 7:21...(Speaking of Moses)"And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son."

A synonym for "crucify" was to "hang on a tree", even though this could also mean what we consider hanging, that is, from a rope around the neck. This term came about from ancient times, as the Romans were far from the first people to practice crucifixion. Often, the bodies of enemies killed in battle, or of criminals executed by other means were hanged from or tied to a tree for public display. Joshua did that with the Canaanite kings he killed, but in accordance with God's command, he had the bodies removed & buried at sunset.

Another element mighta influenced Peter's choice of words. Consider the following:

Galatians 3:13..."Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"
At any rate, Peter was clearly referring to the crucifixion.Thus, there's a good case for 'listed up' to have been a better choice of translation for 'anaireo' than "slew" in this case, because there's no doubt that "slew" meant "killed" here.

Your argument is simply one of grasping at straws, and you go perpetually from straw to straw. Since you are so ready to play fast and loose with word translation there is absolutely no common ground for reasoning with you. We are coming at the same argument from two polar-opposite positions.

Difference being I can present REAL EVIDENCE for my view, while YOU can only GUESS at yours.

Your final "question" would be funny if it weren't so sad. You attack the KJV-only position by demanding proof from the KJV. Some verses in Proverbs 26 come to mind after reading your "question" and I must refrain from further discussion with you on this matter.

That's because you simply CANNOT ANSWER w/o either lying or denying the KJVO myth. As a Christian you don't wanna lie, but you just cannot stand to see your KJVO myth proven wrong.

Your wanting to bail out reminds me of another "Sounddoctrine" who added "2000" to his handle instead of "04". He couldn't answer, either.

Let the readership judge who's made the better case here.

And BTW, I still maintain that the arnabeth is not a hare.

 

[kendemyer]

to: robycop3

YOu wrote:

Kendemyer, while I really appreciate your well-researched input, we must remember that by no stretch of the imagination does a hare have hooves or anything resembling hooves. That alone DQs the hare from being kosher w/ nothing further needed. The fact that God gave a further explanation shows the 'arnabeth' to have been some other critter.

My Reply:

Consider:

I agree that that the Hebrew word arnebeth in Leviticus 11: 6 refers to the hare because the word arnab in Arabic means hare according the the online version of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Plus according to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopdia there are ancient Middle Eastern reliefs of hares.

taken from: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=178

TO: ALL

To make a point of clarification:

Hoofin' It

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Bible Wrong About Hares Having Hooves?
James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Deut. 14:7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
It is objected that the proper term for a hare's foot is not a hoof. The Hebrew word here, however, can indicate a claw or a hoof, and hares do have claws. The word is used only 22 times in the OT, but it is derived from this word:

perec, peh'-res; from H6586; a claw; also a kind of eagle:--claw, ossifrage.
As usual, the problem is that critics are assigning technical meaning to a generic term, based on a poor KJV translation.

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hoofit.html

 

[robycop3]

Kendemyer, you at least TRY to answer, unlike certain other people here. While you go into the technical aspects of hares & hyraxes, I cut to the chase, knowing that a hare's feet in no way resemble hooves, and that since God gave a further explanation about the arnabeth, it's not the hare.

It mighta been the AV translators' best guess based upon their knowledge of the fauna of Palestine(They also guessed about unicorns, cockatrices, & satyrs), but the whole point is to once again prove to the KJVOs that the KJV isn't absolutely perfect as they claim.

Again, thanx for your input!