Is the (AV) Translated from the Textus Receptus (TR)?

[Keith M]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that all the words in black in your quote above are accurately and "literally" translate in the "formal equivalence" mode, does not the addition of this conjunction in red, for the supposed purpose of harmonizing verses that appear elsewhere in Scripture amount to adding to the words of the words of the book, as warned against in Prov. 30:5-6 and Rev. 22:18?

If not, why not?

Was not the Holy Spirit capable of giving the word exactly as He intended to give it?? Why would He need us to add something to it as given, in order to support some alleged time-line in the rendering?

Ed

Amen, Brother Ed! Preach it!

It seems Eliyahu is manufacturing "evidence" to support an argument that has no foundation when he claims a different reading for Ezek. 45:21...

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shll be eaten. Ezek. 45:21 NKJV

vs.

In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, then a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. Ezek 45:21 Eliyahu's non-existing version

I'll stick with a REAL Bible translation. At least the real Bible translations don't add to this verse in a futile effort to make the verse say something it doesn't say. Relying on Eliyahu's "version" in this verse is like basing your theological view of Jesus' deity on John 1:1 in the NWT.

:tonofbricks:

 

[Eliyahu]

Amen, Brother Ed! Preach it!

It seems Eliyahu is manufacturing "evidence" to support an argument that has no foundation when he claims a different reading for Ezek. 45:21...


I'll stick with a REAL Bible translation. At least the real Bible translations don't add to this verse in a futile effort to make the verse say something it doesn't say. Relying on Eliyahu's "version" in this verse is like basing your theological view of Jesus' deity on John 1:1 in the NWT.

Keith, have you ever read the Hebrew Bible ? YOu may have read it with Strong numbers, then just quote the various Bibles. Then how can you say which Bible is correct, which Bible is incorrect?

Do you judge the translations based on the rumours or conjectures?

Haven't you read the Hebrew Bible omitting the conjunction " va" at all?

There are many, many verses which omit the conjunction in Hebrew MT, but to save time, I will show you only 2 verses.

NUmbers 3:19
19 And the sons of Kohath by their families; Amram, and Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel.

Here between Izehar and Hebron, there is no "and" and even in MT, there is no "va", but the meaning of the sentence is that Izehar and Hebron, as we see the " and " between Amram and Izehar, and " and" between Hebron and Uzziel.

Exodus 25:6-7
Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil ==> there is no conjunction "va" but it doesn't mean that spices belong to the Oil, and therefore it should be considered as " Oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil.

Between verse 6 and 7, there is no conjunction "va" but we know that Bible is illustrating another item, item by item. So, the Bible illustrate many items without conjunction " va", and the translator can omit it and state it by comma, or can add " and" too.

As you assert my translation is wrong, you are strongly confessing that you don't know very much about the Hebrew grammar and practices in the Bible.

In addition you are claiming that the 14th day of the first month has 7 days, 168 hours.

Remember this, in Hebrew the conjunction "va" can be omitted often when it simply mean " and".
Passover and the 7 days are the separate days in Ezekiel 45:21.
Check with all the other Bible verses in Hebrew.
How can the day " 14th" become 7 days? 7 days are the 168 hours starting from 15th of the first month.

I will show you :

14th - Passover
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 - 7 days - Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Is 14th still 7 days?

I can bring hundreds of the examples where the conjunctions are omitted, we can put either and or then, if I am given the time enough.

 

[Eliyahu]

I want to show you how the multitude of the translations can be wrong:

Let's see Mark 2:26


NIV

In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."


Mark 2:26 (King James Version)

26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?




Mark 2:26 (New King James Version)

26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”




Mark 2:26 (New American Standard Bible)

26how he entered the house of God in the time of (A)Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which (B)is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"




Mark 2:26 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar (A) the high priest (B) and ate the sacred bread (C) —which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests (D) —and also gave some to his companions?"




Mark 2:26 (American Standard Version)

26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?


Mark 2:26 (American Standard Version)

26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?
Mark 2:26 (Today's New International Version)

26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."



( Bible quotation from Biblegateway.com)

If you read 1 Samuel 21, you will find the High Priest at that time when David entered the Temple was Ahimelek, not Abiathar. Ahimelek was Abiathar's father.

Was Jesus wrong when He mentioned about Abiathar?

Was the writer of Gospel Mark ( I believe Mark himself was the writer) wrong?

Was the TR wrong? or WH-NA wrong?

Were all the translators wrong?

Should I follow the multitude of the human beings?

 

[Trotter]

Don't blow a gasket, Eliyahu. The bible frequently interchanged father and son, as the son is seen as an extension of the father. Jesus is the Son of God in the same way, but we don't get that because we don't see a son as an exact image of his father. The Hebrews looked at life this way.

 

[EdSutton]

Amen, Brother Ed! Preach it!

It seems Eliyahu is manufacturing "evidence" to support an argument that has no foundation when he claims a different reading for Ezek. 45:21...



vs.



I'll stick with a REAL Bible translation. At least the real Bible translations don't add to this verse in a futile effort to make the verse say something it doesn't say. Relying on Eliyahu's "version" in this verse is like basing your theological view of Jesus' deity on John 1:1 in the NWT.

:tonofbricks:

Are you sure you are not confusing me with "'tother Ed" namely Ed Edwards, here?

Seriously, I have personally checked this verse (Ezek. 45:21) in more than 40 different English Bible versions, including some I personally possess, with the remainder to be found "on-line" on Bible gateway, studylight.org, and biblos.com. These represent English versions from the days of Wycliffe, in 1382, through 2008. This represents more than 6 1/4 Centuries, according to my math. In addition, I checked on more than 10 Commentaries that are to be found on above said sites, as well. There is not a single one of these, that I found that is supporting what Eliyahu is proposing here, with each and every one of them offering renderings consistent with the reading of the KJV.

I do not make any self-serving declaration or claim to being any "Bible scholar" and certainly not any "OT Scholar." (FTR, I have never heard the first individual whom I would actually consider worthy of these sort of designations, such as that of "Bible scholar" to make any such claim, either. And I happen to be able to count a handful of Hebrew students and instructors, the most notable of whom is likely Dr. Bill Arnold, the Distinguished Professor OT at Asbury Seminary, as personal friends.) Nor do I profess to even recognize a single Hebrew letter on sight, aside from "Aleph," which letter I probably would not even recognize, if the Codex Sinaiticus did not carry this designation, although I might recognize some Hebrew letters as such, without being able to differentiate between them.

So I make no claim to being able to accurately render anything from Hebrew, being forced to depend on others. That said, the 40 some-odd versions and the above written commentaries represent the labors of a few hundred translators who are Hebrew students. Over and against that, I only see one individual's idea that this rendering is likely incorrect, for the Hebew could "possibly" be rendered in the manner in which he is suggesting. Given that these are the ONLY two options offered here, with my choice being one vs. several hundred, and with no disrespect intended to anyone, I simply choose "the safe route" here, and follow the crowd, including the KJV and NKJV, according to the Bible's own twice given proclamation.

Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety. (Prov. 11:14 - NKJV)

and in the multitude of counselors there is safety. (Prov. 26:4b - KJV)

"Makes sense to me."

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Don't blow a gasket, Eliyahu. The bible frequently interchanged father and son, as the son is seen as an extension of the father. Jesus is the Son of God in the same way, but we don't get that because we don't see a son as an exact image of his father. The Hebrews looked at life this way.

Where did the Bible interchange father and son?
My Lord Jesus is not confused between the father and the son.

 

[Eliyahu]

Are you sure you are not confusing me with "'tother Ed" namely Ed Edwards, here?

Seriously, I have personally checked this verse (Ezek. 45:21) in more than 40 different English Bible versions, including some I personally possess, with the remainder to be found "on-line" on Bible gateway, studylight.org, and biblos.com. These represent English versions from the days of Wycliffe, in 1382, through 2008. This represents more than 6 1/4 Centuries, according to my math. In addition, I checked on more than 10 Commentaries that are to be found on above said sites, as well. There is not a single one of these, that I found that is supporting what Eliyahu is proposing here, with each and every one of them offering renderings consistent with the reading of the KJV.

So I make no claim to being able to accurately render anything from Hebrew, being forced to depend on others. That said, the 40 some-odd versions and the above written commentaries represent the labors of a few hundred translators who are Hebrew students. Over and against that, I only see one individual's idea that this rendering is likely incorrect, for the Hebew could "possibly" be rendered in the manner in which he is suggesting. Given that these are the ONLY two options offered here, with my choice being one vs. several hundred, and with no disrespect intended to anyone, I simply choose "the safe route" here, and follow the crowd, including the KJV and NKJV, according to the Bible's own twice given proclamation."Makes sense to me."

Ed

So, why don't you follow the multitude of Billions of people, bound for the Hell today ?

There is nothing wrong with the translation without the conjunctive, but even in that case, the translators may still have the belief that Passover and FULB are the separate matters. That kind of understanding is still possible.

However, more precisely, as there are certain choices by the translators, they should have reflected the context.

Of course, KJV followed the Word-to-Word principle here, then the interpretation is the job for the comentaries and for the readers.

In case of other verses, the readers would have no problem in understanding them as if there were the conjunctives.

Let me show some further examples:

Exodus 37:17 - his branch, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers
Genesis 14: 1 - Amraphel King of Shinar, Arioch King of Elasar, Chedolaomer.....

In these cases, there is no conjunctive in Hebrew when there is no conjunction "and" in English.

You won't claim that his branch is his bowls, and his bowls are his knops, or Amraphel is Arioch, and arioch is Chedolaomer, etc.

So, the meaning is the same as if there were a conjunction.

So, in a certain sense, all the translations have left this matter to the interpreters. Because the job of the translators is not to provide the commentaries to the readers. There must be a distinction between the translators' job and the commentators' job.

Apparently they left these to the readers.

So, even if the translators stated that 14th Abib is the Passover, a feast of seven days, they didn't mean that 14th is the 7days feast.
At best, it could mean that 14th is the Passover, to be followed by the feast of 7 days.
The inner meaning must be the same as the other verses in OT.

We can say that the translators left the interpretation of Ezekiel 45:21, and that therefore there is no conjunction.

But I have found several more in NT where I disagree with the multitudes of the translations, because I don't care about the number of the human race. I already showed you Mark 2:26.

But what about Luke 2:7, do you agree with Inn as the most( maybe all) translations translate " Kata Luma" into Inn ? Of course I disagree with them !
The number of the translations are not very much important for me.
If I have to follow them and if they are correct, why should I work for the translation of the Bible? Just to add the number of the versions? Nope!

You are judging the various Translations without comparing them to the original texts or manuscripts, just based on the criticism by MV's, or by comparing with other English translations. How can you be correct in judging the translations, without knowing and checking the exact meaning of the Bible in the original languages?

That's why you are repeating the same argument all the time here.

Simply speaking, KJV has many dusts and motes in its eyes, but MV's have the beams in their eyes.

 

[EdSutton]

So, why don't you follow the multitude of Billions of people, bound for the Hell today ?

There is nothing wrong with the translation without the conjunctive, but even in that case, the translators may still have the belief that Passover and FULB are the separate matters. That kind of understanding is still possible.

However, more precisely, as there are certain choices by the translators, they should have reflected the context.

Of course, KJV followed the Word-to-Word principle here, then the interpretation is the job for the comentaries and for the readers.

In case of other verses, the readers would have no problem in understanding them as if there were the conjunctives.

Let me show some further examples:

Exodus 37:17 - his branch, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers
Genesis 14: 1 - Amraphel King of Shinar, Arioch King of Elasar, Chedolaomer.....

In these cases, there is no conjunctive in Hebrew when there is no conjunction "and" in English.

You won't claim that his branch is his bowls, and his bowls are his knops, or Amraphel is Arioch, and arioch is Chedolaomer, etc.

So, the meaning is the same as if there were a conjunction.

So, in a certain sense, all the translations have left this matter to the interpreters. Because the job of the translators is not to provide the commentaries to the readers. There must be a distinction between the translators' job and the commentators' job.

Apparently they left these to the readers.

So, even if the translators stated that 14th Abib is the Passover, a feast of seven days, they didn't mean that 14th is the 7days feast.
At best, it could mean that 14th is the Passover, to be followed by the feast of 7 days.
The inner meaning must be the same as the other verses in OT.

We can say that the translators left the interpretation of Ezekiel 45:21, and that therefore there is no conjunction.

But I have found several more in NT where I disagree with the multitudes of the translations, because I don't care about the number of the human race. I already showed you Mark 2:26.

But what about Luke 2:7, do you agree with Inn as the most( maybe all) translations translate " Kata Luma" into Inn ? Of course I disagree with them !
The number of the translations are not very much important for me.
If I have to follow them and if they are correct, why should I work for the translation of the Bible? Just to add the number of the versions? Nope!

You are judging the various Translations without comparing them to the original texts or manuscripts, just based on the criticism by MV's, or by comparing with other English translations. How can you be correct in judging the translations, without knowing and checking the exact meaning of the Bible in the original languages?

That's why you are repeating the same argument all the time here.

Simply speaking, KJV has many dusts and motes in its eyes, but MV's have the beams in their eyes.

Uh- exactly what 'argument' is it that I am allegedly repeating all the time?

FTR, I have cited the renderings of verses in the English language, from at least 30 different versions, at one time or another, from the WYC (1382) thru the TMB (2008), on the BB, when I thought such a rendering was appropriate, in a particular version. That covers a period of >6 1/4 Centuries. I do not particularly care which version it may be, and recall a couple of instances when one of the few versions I cited in support was among the freest of translations, namely the MSG, and at other times perhaps the most stringent of translations, namely the YLT. Plus another 28 or so, in between. And I don't recall claiming other than all versions have their full share of shortcomings, either, although granted, some have more than others, at least IMO.

BTW, all the versions you cited correctly render Abiathar in Mk. 2:26. The English translations are not wrong in how they render this verse from the Greek text(s).

Language Cop is not going to 'proof' this post, with any fine-tooth comb, and I'm certainly not taking the time to study up on Lk. 2:7 at 1:15 AM.

What I am going to do now is :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Uh- exactly what 'argument' is it that I am
BTW, all the versions you cited correctly render Abiathar in Mk. 2:26. The English translations are not wrong in how they render this verse from the Greek text(s).

Language Cop is not going to 'proof' this post, with any fine-tooth comb, and I'm certainly not taking the time to study up on Lk. 2:7 at 1:15 AM.

What I am going to do now is :sleeping_2:

Ed

You repeat the same argument all the time because you don't read the Hebrew Bible.

All the versions that I mentioned were wrong in Mark 2:26, which I won't explain you. You need to study more.

 

[EdSutton]

You repeat the same argument all the time because you don't read the Hebrew Bible.

All the versions that I mentioned were wrong in Mark 2:26, which I won't explain (sic) you. You need to study more.

Well, I note you have offered you opinion as to "why" I "repeat the same argument" but that was not what I asked. What I asked was "'What' is the argument that I am allegedly repeating?"

I fully admit, I did not study Mk. 2:26 in detail, (nor check 40+ versions, this time) in order to see which version or version may have best rendered each and every possible nuance of language, here.

However, I did quickly glance the above verse in several Greek texts - some on-line (W/H, UBS-4, TR1550, Tsch-8, GR. Orth, and TR1894, among them), and the two in 'hard-copy' [UBS-2, MT(2)] that I hold in my hot little paws. (Were I 'forced' to do so, I could even 'dig' on-line for awhile and find photo facsimiles of at least two or three Greek manuscripts for Mk. 2:26, including 'Codex Aleph' among them, but what would be the point?)

Suffice it to simply say that " αβιαθαρ " or " Ἀβιαθὰρ " , and transliterated as "Abiathar" adequately represents the name of the high priest, as the name is given by the writer of Mark' ', as also do all the English versions, you cited.

Hence, your argument is (or should be) with the human author of Mark, and/or the Holy Spirit, here, and not with me, nor how any English translator has rendered this from the Greek text. It simply is impossible to render " Ἀβιάθαρ " in translating, in anything even remotely resembling a legitimate manner, as " Ahimelek ".

>

>

>

>

>

>

Well, impossible to do for me, that is.

But hold on just a sec, here!

I almost forgot -

You are the guy who argues the correct 'translating' (read eisegesis here, instead, for the word, "translate", simply cannot bear the strain, under which you are attempting to place it) of " πάσχα " as "Easter" (as opposed to "Passover" or "Pascha") in Acts 12:4.

I rest my case on Mk. 2:26.

Anyway, thanks for the tip about my need to do more studying.

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Well, I note you have offered you opinion as to "why" I "repeat the same argument" but that was not what I asked. What I asked was "'What' is the argument that I am allegedly repeating?"

I fully admit, I did not study Mk. 2:26 in detail, (nor check 40+ versions, this time) in order to see which version or version may have best rendered each and every possible nuance of language, here.

However, I did quickly glance the above verse in several Greek texts - some on-line (W/H, UBS-4, TR1550, Tsch-8, GR. Orth, and TR1894, among them), and the two in 'hard-copy' [UBS-2, MT(2)] that I hold in my hot little paws. (Were I 'forced' to do so, I could even 'dig' on-line for awhile and find photo facsimiles of at least two or three Greek manuscripts for Mk. 2:26, including 'Codex Aleph' among them, but what would be the point?)

Suffice it to simply say that " αβιαθαρ " or " Ἀβιαθὰρ " , and transliterated as "Abiathar" adequately represents the name of the high priest, as the name is given by the writer of Mark' ', as also do all the English versions, you cited.

Hence, your argument is (or should be) with the human author of Mark, and/or the Holy Spirit, here, and not with me, nor how any English translator has rendered this from the Greek text. It simply is impossible to render " Ἀβιάθαρ " in translating, in anything even remotely resembling a legitimate manner, as " Ahimelek ".

Well, impossible to do for me, that is.

But hold on just a sec, here!

I almost forgot -

You are the guy who argues the correct 'translating' (read eisegesis here, instead, for the word, "translate", simply cannot bear the strain, under which you are attempting to place it) of " πάσχα " as "Easter" (as opposed to "Passover" or "Pascha") in Acts 12:4.

I rest my case on Mk. 2:26.

Anyway, thanks for the tip about my need to do more studying.

Ed

You are repeating the same argument about the translation because you don’t know the Original languages enough to judge the Translations.
How can anyone judge about which translation is correct or wrong, or the best without knowing the meanings of the original texts in original languages?
That is done here everyday!
How can you judge my translation of Ezekiel 45:21 is wrong while you don’t know the meaning of it in depth, in the original language?

How can you judge that my argument on the contradiction of the most translations of Mark 2:26, without knowing the deeper meaning of the Greek words involved in there?
There is nothing wrong with Abiathar, there was nothing wrong with Jesus, and no problem with the 620 manuscripts! But the translation was wrong about “ epi” ! This is a matter of Translators' discretion.

This is the problem that I have seen in this section of BB everyday.
I told you there are several more where I differ from hundreds of translations.
I wouldn’t go further, but simply I want to let you know my understanding. I think I told you in other thread ( maybe last year), that Jesus was not crucified on Friday ( Good Friday is wrong!).
The following is the most plausible schedule that I understand, about Passover-FULB(DULB)-Easter

1. Abib 13 – morning thru even : Disciples asked Jesus where to have Passover, Jews removed Leavens. ( Luke 22:1-10)
2. Abib 13, after Even – Abib 14 by Jewish Calendar – Last Supper with Unleavened Bread( Luke 22:15). Jesus was arrested
3. Abib 14 – Passover ( Lev 23:5) Jesus was crucified in the morning, died in the afternoon and buried by even, Passover Lamb was killed at even.
4. Abib 14 after Even – Jews ate the Passover Lamb, High Sabbath already started ( John 19:31)
5. Abib 15 – High Sabbath, Holy Convocation ( Leb 23:7), Eating UnLeavened Bread
6. Abib 16 – Regular Sabbath ( Matthew 28:1)
7. Abib 17 – the first day of the week, Day of First Fruits ( Lev 23:10-14), Jesus resurrected early in the morning, Jews ate Un-Leavened Bread.
8. Abib 18-20 Days of Unleavened Bread, Peter was arrested ( Acts 12:3)
9. Abib 21 – FULB Sabbath, Last Day of Un-Leavened Bread, Holy Convocation ( Lev 23:8)
10. Abib 22 – Regular Sabbath
11. Abib 23 – “ Day of Holy Sun “ Easter ( Festival for goddess Ishtar) – Myths told the kings that they would lose the kingdoms if they neglected to worship goddess Ishtar. Ref Ezekiel 8:16,

This was called Pasahu as well, then translated into Paska in Greek, the same word Paska was used for both Pesach and for Pasahu as they are very similar each other in time schedule too.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/moorman-easter.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter2.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answer/gipp_answer_02.html
http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/passovereaster.htm

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes%3Bread=31275

Passover- One day before the first full moon after Vernal Equinox.
Easter – 14 days after Vernal Equinox

2 Festivals are quite similar in time schedule.

12. Abib 24 or after.
Peter was scheduled to be handed over to the Jews

 

[Eliyahu]

So I make no claim to being able to accurately render anything from Hebrew, being forced to depend on others. That said, the 40 some-odd versions and the above written commentaries represent the labors of a few hundred translators who are Hebrew students. Over and against that, I only see one individual's idea that this rendering is likely incorrect, for the Hebew could "possibly" be rendered in the manner in which he is suggesting. Given that these are the ONLY two options offered here, with my choice being one vs. several hundred, and with no disrespect intended to anyone, I simply choose "the safe route" here, and follow the crowd, including the KJV and NKJV, according to the Bible's own twice given proclamation."Makes sense to me."

Ed

Before we close this thread completely, I want to point out the way of our debate and study.
I don't bring this issue for arguing with you and Keith M, but I want to remind you of our Truth. If we are dealing with a Social Science, your way and approach may be right. However, we are dealing with the Truth that has endured all the extreme situations throughout the history.

Therefore if hundreds of Bibles are wrong, then they are WRONG.

I already pointed out Mark 2:26 which contradicts 1 Samuel 21 because David didn't meet Abiathar, but Ahimeleck.

Then I pointed out Pastor in Ephesians 4:11 as Poimen is translated as Shepherd all the time ( ca. 20 times as verbs, 10 times as a noun in NT)

Another example, Heb 3:5 which mentions Moses as a Servant. But read the Greek text there! Is it Doulos ? Do we have to follow it if all the versions render it as " Servant" ?

I hope you remember my interpretation on Matt 28:1 about the Sabbath. Which version has translated the Sabbatwn as plural Sabbath there?
Was Jesus wrong when He said He would be in the heart of the Earth for 3 nights and 3 days? Ed, I explained you about this before!

I don't follow any translation, but you may be following many English translations all the time, then compromise with them or follow the majority of them!
Do I have to follow all the other translations? Then my own translation would not be necessary!

How can you expect that a great man of God would not come to this BB ? If he comes here and comment on the Bible, his interpretation may be totally different from others, from all the other translations in some verses.

Especially at the time of Harvest, God may send a great man of God who may differ from many other believers in many ways.
Therefore such stance as to follow the majority is not right.
I do understand your concern and that of Keith, but such comment that I added a word unto the Bible, is from the ignorance about the Hebrew Bible, by the people who have never read the Bible in Hebrew.

Today I read the Numbers and found some more examples. In fact I found more than a dozen of the cases where " va" is omitted but the sentence has the meaning of "and" as follows:


1) Numbers 7: 87 between bullocks, rams,
2) Numbers 7:88 between bullocks, rams, goats, lambs
These don't have conjunction " va"
3) Numbers 9:23 at the commandment of the LORD they journeyed: they kept the charge of the LORD...
Between journeyed and they, there is "and" in meaning.

This kind of omission is not unusual and the meaning of the sentence contains the conjunctive in fact.

Am I manufacturing a Bible as Keith said? You can comment on me like that ONLY after you can properly read the Greek NT and Hebrew OT.

None of you presented the proper comment based on the Hebrew expertise.

But please don't accept this as an attack on you, but understand the way of our approaches and of tolerating others' opinions.

 

[EdSutton]

Before we close this thread completely, I want to point out the way of our debate and study.
I don't bring this issue for arguing with you and Keith M, but I want to remind you of our Truth. If we are dealing with a Social Science, your way and approach may be right. However, we are dealing with the Truth that has endured all the extreme situations throughout the history.

Therefore if hundreds of Bibles are wrong, then they are WRONG.

I already pointed out Mark 2:26 which contradicts 1 Samuel 21 because David didn't meet Abiathar, but Ahimeleck.

Then I pointed out Pastor in Ephesians 4:11 as Poimen is translated as Shepherd all the time ( ca. 20 times as verbs, 10 times as a noun in NT)

Another example, Heb 3:5 which mentions Moses as a Servant. But read the Greek text there! Is it Doulos ? Do we have to follow it if all the versions render it as " Servant" ?

I hope you remember my interpretation on Matt 28:1 about the Sabbath. Which version has translated the Sabbatwn as plural Sabbath there?
Was Jesus wrong when He said He would be in the heart of the Earth for 3 nights and 3 days? Ed, I explained you about this before!

I don't follow any translation, but you may be following many English translations all the time, then compromise with them or follow the majority of them!
Do I have to follow all the other translations? Then my own translation would not be necessary!

How can you expect that a great man of God would not come to this BB ? If he comes here and comment on the Bible, his interpretation may be totally different from others, from all the other translations in some verses.

Especially at the time of Harvest, God may send a great man of God who may differ from many other believers in many ways.
Therefore such stance as to follow the majority is not right.
I do understand your concern and that of Keith, but such comment that I added a word unto the Bible, is from the ignorance about the Hebrew Bible, by the people who have never read the Bible in Hebrew.

Today I read the Numbers and found some more examples. In fact I found more than a dozen of the cases where " va" is omitted but the sentence has the meaning of "and" as follows:


1) Numbers 7: 87 between bullocks, rams,
2) Numbers 7:88 between bullocks, rams, goats, lambs
These don't have conjunction " va"
3) Numbers 9:23 at the commandment of the LORD they journeyed: they kept the charge of the LORD...
Between journeyed and they, there is "and" in meaning.

This kind of omission is not unusual and the meaning of the sentence contains the conjunctive in fact.

Am I manufacturing a Bible as Keith said? You can comment on me like that ONLY after you can properly read the Greek NT and Hebrew OT.

None of you presented the proper comment based on the Hebrew expertise.

But please don't accept this as an attack on you, but understand the way of our approaches and of tolerating others' opinions.

I don't take any of this as any attack, FTR.

However, for the most part, I really have no clue as to what you are actually driving at.

(BTW, as Language Cop, I am also fully aware of the so-called 'rule' that one should never end a sentence with a preposition. Frankly, I consider 'said rule' to be nothing more than confusing drivel, of the sort that with which the up I will not put!)

FTR, the YLT, MBE and LIT all correctly render the plural of "sabbatOn" as "sabbaths" in Mt. 28:1, meaning at least some few did 'get it' at least in this spot.

I also have no real clue, as to what you are talking about, as to the 'three days' bit, either. Perhaps you should mention the post, in this.

Gotta' run, for now (after having to "log on" 6 different times, thus far, just to get this post properly completed. )

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

FTR, the YLT, MBE and LIT all correctly render the plural of "sabbatOn" as "sabbaths" in Mt. 28:1, meaning at least some few did 'get it' at least in this spot.

I also have no real clue, as to what you are talking about, as to the 'three days' bit, either. Perhaps you should mention the post, in this.


Ed

I thought you would remember my discussion with you on the other thread in Other Denomination Discussions( maybe last year) where you agreed with me, that Jesus didn't die on Good Friday!) If you cannot remember it, it is OK. Have a good trip! Eliyahu

 

[EdSutton]

I thought you would remember my discussion with you on the other thread in Other Denomination Discussions( maybe last year) where you agreed with me, that Jesus didn't die on Good Friday!) If you cannot remember it, it is OK. Have a good trip! Eliyahu

I don't necessarily remember the specifics of a discussion of a year ago, but I have always said (at least on the BB and for more than 35 yrs) that the crucifixion occurred on Thursday, as we reckon time, these days. That would be during the daylight hours of 14 Nisan/Abib which occurred on the 5th day of that week.

Ed

 

[Keith M]

If Jesus was crucified on Friday as tradition has it, then Matthew is wrong.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:40 NKJV

 

[Eliyahu]

If Jesus was crucified on Friday as tradition has it, then Matthew is wrong.

You are sometimes right.