so there may be unicorns, but Cockatrices?

There are a lot of good reasons for why hte KJV is not the best translation to use today. Using "fish" instead of "whale" is not among them. That is a non-issue. Focus on the real things. This is a rabbit trail.

 

timothy 1769 said:

it means that "whale" doesn't necessarily mean what best supports your position.

No, it means exactly what I said it did.

The second OED definition exists ONLY because the KJV calls Jonah's fish a whale. Therefore, it is circular reasoning to appeal to it.

As for three and four, the animal in question was neither a "whale of the river" (since Jonah was on his way west in the sea), nor an object resembling a whale.

Hence, it is as I said: definition two is tautologous, and three and four are irrelevant.

if the OED doesn't satisfy you regarding the sense of words, i don't know what possibly could.

Oh, I am quite satisfied with the OED's definition.

It is your attempt at importing every possible definition to this discussion, in the hope one "sticks," that is unsatisfactory.

this use of "whale" is not an error in the kjv translation.

I didn't say it was an error, I said that a KJV-onlyist "creation scientist" erroneously identified whales as fish.

 

Originally posted by Ransom:
No, it means exactly what I said it did.

the word means a number of things, hence the different senses.

The second OED definition exists ONLY because the KJV calls Jonah's fish a whale. Therefore, it is circular reasoning to appeal to it.

not true, the first citing of "whale" used in that sense was from 950AD, long before the kjv was translated.

As for three and four, the animal in question was neither a "whale of the river" (since Jonah was on his way west in the sea), nor an object resembling a whale.

it didn't resemble a whale? it was big, it lived in the water, it had a mouth and a belly. seems to resemble a whale to me.

Hence, it is as I said: definition two is tautologous, and three and four are irrelevant.

you can see how two and four could apply, three is just more evidence that "whale" need not mean only what you seem to think, and was an explicit example of "whale" indentifying a kind of fish.

It is your attempt at importing every possible definition to this discussion, in the hope one "sticks," that is unsatisfactory.

trust me, there were more. every quoted sense served a purpose.

I didn't say it was an error, I said that a KJV-onlyist "creation scientist" erroneously identified whales as fish.

so does the kjv, in at least one instance, without error.

all whales are fish and some fish are whales, based on the definitions quoted above.

 

As do MV's.

He didn't say "whale" nor did he inspire "fish". Those are the words chosen by the KJV translators to translate a Hebrew word that means large fish or sea monster and a Greek word that means large fish or sea monster.

Jesus didn't write the KJV any more than He wrote the NKJV. Neither version directly benefited from His "prerogative"- regardless of what YOU extend to either.

And you have also shown very inconsistent argumentation. You refuse to apply the same standards of criticism to the KJV as you do all others. If it were truly the one and only Word of God in English, it should easily stand such scrutiny.

 

Originally posted by Scott J:
He didn't say "whale" nor did he inspire "fish". Those are the words chosen by the KJV translators to translate a Hebrew word that means large fish or sea monster and a Greek word that means large fish or sea monster.

well, duh, scott, though of course the exact sense of the hebrew and greek is up for debate.

Jesus didn't write the KJV any more than He wrote the NKJV. Neither version directly benefited from His "prerogative"- regardless of what YOU extend to either.

did too! did too!

And you have also shown very inconsistent argumentation. You refuse to apply the same standards of criticism to the KJV as you do all others. If it were truly the one and only Word of God in English, it should easily stand such scrutiny.

i don't see it so please lay it out for me again. but be sure type it out slowly using only monosyllabic words.... after all i'm merely kjvo.

 

Well put...

Really, so Jesus didn't inspire the KJV?

Huh? Now He did inspire the KJV... Please make up your mind!

See the previous two responses for an example of inconsistency.