1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

Issues with the KJV

Discussion in 'King James Version' started by CoreIssue, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Hi Core,

    Jeremiah 8:8
    How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?
    Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

    "shequer" has a wide ranger of meaning than you seem to realize.

    Here are a few examples.

    Ps 33:17
    An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.

    Pr 31:30
    Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

    Jer 3:23
    Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel.

    I am curious what is your doctrine that you are concerned that the King James Bible Genesis reading contradicts.. a pre-adamic race or something ?

    Oh, and your linguists ... would you like to reference their writing on Genesis 1:2 and join me in bringing their "became" theory over to the b-hebrew (biblical hebrew) forum. We could go a bit deeper in that way, and we could bring over the John Adey view for comment as well.

    Since you are using this as a primary claim of error and tampering in the King James Bible, would you like to learn more ?

    Steven Avery
  2. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member


    Not in the Hebrew. Or your examples.

    I posted its meaning. Disregard if you will.

    You should have checked it. The Hebrew here is 'Hebel,' not 'shequer.'

    And that had a different meaning and form of being vain in the English.

    See, what you are doing is using the English meaning and not realizing it just might take more than one Hebrew word to encompass all the English meanings.
    Yep. False hope of salvation.

    I posted the meaning in the Hebrew. You assumed meanings.

    Your error, not mine. Again, you make declarations based on dogmatic doctrine, not facts.

    Yep. Pre-Adamic. Read here and you will find a lot of facts backing it. And the Bible does back it.

    Your forum is hidden. I prefer open daylight for the lurkers as well to read.

    Why go there when it is started here? You want to bring in evidence from there, go ahead. Or other posters from there? They are welcome here.

    As for the linquists, just look at those for the Torah, NIV, NASB, NKJV and so on to begin with. All reject 'and' and use the change of state 'now, then or similar.' Quite a list of linquists.

    You are amazing. Shown proof you are wrong over and over and you still are thinking we need your instruction to get facts straight.

    Just on the issue of 'vain' here it is obvious you assumed the Hebrew to English was one word for each.

    Tell me one thing. Do you reject Strong's definitions? Because you are rejecting him here, as regards the issues on the word 'vain.'

    And if you reject him what Hebrew dictionary do you use?
  3. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Hi Folks,

    Thanks for the correction on Proverbs 31:30.

    The most important example of course is Jeremiah himself ..
    What you say

    "false hope of salvation" for
    "truly in vain" is similar to

    "false usage of the pen of the scribes" for
    "the pen of the scribes is in vain"

    The KJB and Geneva and Jewish translation reading of Jeremiah 8:8
    Showing a wide range of meaning of sheqher, including false usage.

    And we see your opposition on all this is really doctrinal. You really don't know about the Hebrew, but you attack the King James Bible because it doesn't fit your pre-adamic race doctrine. hmmmmm .. rather telling.

    b-hebrew is an open forum. Here are the archives
    I can understand your reluctance to have your theories examined by folks who know Hebrew well. You prefer vapid concordance analysis However we see you don't have any grammatical evidence at all from linguists to offer on "became" versus "was", so there is nothing to check from you.

    Strong's definitions are often one-dimensional at best, and should never be relied upon to give the full sense of a word. Quite clearly you have never participated on forums where these types of scholarship issues are discussed.

    Steven Avery
  4. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member


    False hope of salvation.

    The writings of the scribes are false.

    Archaic English is obviously going to sound different than modern English. But say the same thing.

    Nope. Just shows you do not understand the meaning of sheqher. And you refuse to accept that all English meanings are not encompassed in a single Hebrew word. As demonstrated using your own examples.

    Nope. I posted the Hebrew definition. I cannot help it if you reject it.

    Neither of us are linquist. But at least I know how to use a Hebrew lexicon. And do seem to understand archaic English better as well.

    What is telling is that you again made false and 'vain' assumption. I don't believe in a Pre-Adamic Race.

    You really should read before you critique. Very smart thing to do.;)

    Hmmm. The link in your sig line suddenly disappeared. And it was most assuredly a members only link.

    Very strange coming from someone who has made so many fundamental errors.

    And once shot down you return to rhetoric.

    And no evidence? Yeesh! How about all the translations, including the Torah in English?

    No, you are back to trying to pull semantical and rhetorical arguments.

    And simple rules of grammar.

    You have demonstrated where you are coming from. Post a reputable linquistic source I can study from.

    I have studied hundreds over my 45 years of study. And they don't agree with you.
  5. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member


    This is quite telling.

    Never seen anyone reject Strong's scholarship. Yep very telling indeed.
  6. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member


    I was curious why you sent me to the archive.

    b-hebrew is members only. Just as I said.

    Why did you say it was open when it was not?

    No search function, no subjects. You have to open each separately to even see what it is about.
  7. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Sheesh. lol.. its open in that basically anyone can join, and anyone can read the archives and anyone can post (sensibly). Like here, you do need to register, yet this is an open forum. What is unique is that they specialize in biblical-hebrew. So you can get some good insights there. As an example, we discussed Jeremiah 8:8 a bit.
  8. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    This is from Teno Gropi and Steven
    Hi Folks,


    > > In the Genesis 1:2 'and' is not to be found in ANY Hebrew manuscript. And 'was' is an error. The correct word is became. ......
    > I got them from a Moderator named Core Issue.Post #8 at
    > http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1742


    Oh man, I don't want to get into another forum, but not only is he wrong, but he's setting himself up to look really foolish. 256 of the 262 times hayah is used in the Pentateuch it's translated 'was' not 'became'. Genesis 1:1-2 gets it right. The Bible deniers are wrong from the very first verse. That Hebrew fact ought to appeal to them. ​

    It looked interesting, so I decided to address this one a bit, too.
    Just a couple of translations and one article reference :-)

    Genesis 1:1-2
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    And the earth was without form, and void;
    and darkness was upon the face of the deep
    And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Judaica Press,
    "Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water."

    Soncino - (also JPS-1914)
    "Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
    and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters."

    Should 'was' be 'became' in Genesis 1:2 ? - by John W. Adey
    Linquistics of 'become' / 'became'

  9. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    You ought to go on some scholar's forums. You will see the warnings about concordance scholarship. This is quite well understood. Of course Strong's can be a helpful tool ... but that is about all, it should not be relied upon as the primary source of information on a word.
  10. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Messianic_Apologetic is open to all to join and read and post, the archives are also open, however it is a fairly heavily moderated forum (by myself and another). The great majority of posts go through fine.

    And it has no connection whatsoever with b-hebrew.

    And Bible version issues are significant but not the primary issue discussed.

    And I don't always put my name or the link in when I post elsewhere :-)

    Steven Avery
  11. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Jeremiah 8:8 - the pen of the scribes is in vain.

    Hi Folks,

    btw, the best way to search b-hebrew is ..
    a) receive the email and search your folder
    b) google

    Now, on Jeremiah 8:8 for some reason Core thinks the translation difference is only archaic English. The skeptics and islamists and such use the modern mistranslation all the time to attack the Bible. The modern version text is so off I really would prefer to simply omit it in this post.

    Here are some of the Jewish translations and commentary, which match the King James Bible in understanding the phrase, and are radically different than the modern version pointing to 'lying scribes'.

    Jeremiah 8:8 (KJB)
    How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?
    Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.


    Note the David Kimchi commentary, translated ad hoc by my Jewish friend from the Hebrew. Radaq is the Biblical Hebrew vocabulary and grammar giant. The King James Bible translators were very familiar with his books and his deep knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, the modern Christian translators are essentially clueless. Sometimes you get the feeling they translate from lexicons.

    Jerusalem Bible - Koren
    How can you say, We are wise, and the Tora of the LORD is with us?
    Surely, the pen wrought in vain, in vain the scribes.
    The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken:
    lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

    JPS - 1917
    Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought
    The vain pen of the scribes

    Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored,
    For naught the scribes !

    Yair Davidy Commentary
    Lo, certainly in vain made he it;
    the pen of the scribes in vain
    Commentary: The time has come to repent and correct ourselves.

    David Qimchi (Radaq) - loose impromptu translation, Radaq and Rashi

    If God's torah is with you, of what use is it if you observe it not!!! he who used the pen to write it, did so in vain..likewise...the futility [sheqer] of the scribes. They have written it in vain. Since you observe it not, it is as if it weren't written.....
    "LA-SHEQER".....[this means] in vain as [in the verse] " Truly in vain have I heeded...
    (Schmuel: this may be an idiomatic usage)

    Rashi -
    "Indeed your wisdom is for nought to you, to heal you frivolously" - he links the verse to
    Jeremiah 8:11
    For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying,
    Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

    Excellent translations and commentaries of Jeremiah 8:8 :-)

    Steven Avery
  12. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    Using LexICONS.
    by GAR

    The next time you hear a pastor proclaim, "The Greek here really means .... "(yea hath God said?), be forewarned that his pronouncements are an echo from history past. Their hollow sound is one of Kittel's spiritually bankrupt grammatico-historico method of exegesis used by today's lexicons. Carson (The King James Debate, p. 89) reveals: "I have heard pastors with two or three years of Greek behind them explain to their congregation what a certain Greek word means by citing all the entries in some lexicon."

    The Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and dictionaries are written by men, "most of whom are unbelievers," writes Princeton and Yale scholar Edward Hills. A few examples will suffice: 1) The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon's editor (Briggs) was defrocked by the 'liberal' Presbyterian Church for his 'liberalism'. 2) Trench, author of the much used Synonyms of the New Testament, was a member of Westcott's esoteric clubs, as was Alford, whose Greek reference works are still used. 3) J. Henry Thayer, author of the New Thayer's Greek Lexicon, was a Unitarian who vehemently denied the deity of Christ. (Thayer was also the dominant member of the ASV committee!) His Lexicon contains a seldom noticed warning by the publisher in its Introduction (p. vii). It cautions readers to watch for adulterations in the work relating to the deity of Christ. 4) The acclaimed A.T. Robertson's Greek Grammar also sends up a red flag in its preface saying, "The text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all its essentials." 5) Conclusions drawn by Kurt and Barbara Aland of the Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament elicit the response by Phillip Comfort that "the Alands' designations must be taken with caution. 6) James Strong, author of Strong's Concordance was a member of the corrupt ASV Committee.

    Just as Black's Law Dictionary switched definitions to match progressively liberal legal interpretations, likewise most Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and interlinears have now adopted definitions based on Kittel's expanded dictionary, or the like, which define words based on citations by ancient Greeks like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and other pagan sources. When applied to bible words, these pagan interpretations serve, not as a magnifying glass, as most suppose, but as a glass darkened by the shadow of fallen men. One example will suffice. The word 'love', if defined from the daises of our day, would elicit a definition embracing such connotation as 'a feeling', 'an emotion' or perhaps a sexual sentiment. We have all heard bible teachers, following a Kittel-like Lexicon cite phileo and agapao, as the two Greek words which are translated 'love' in the New Testament. Phileo, according to their grammatico-historico method of exegesis, would mean 'to be a friend'; agapao would mean 'an unselfish Godlike love'. These definitions, garnered from the secular Greek writers of the time, do not represent God's use of the terms.

    "Every word of God is pure" and "given by inspiration of God"; reference works are not. The bible calls us to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" things (I Cor. 2:13). Studying the context of other verses which also contain the word (listed in a concordance) will reveal God's definition of the word. ('Love', for example, is defined in I John as "keep his commandments." We are to 'act' in love, not to 'feel' love. Going along with the New Age, new versions render Mark 10:21, "felt a love for" rather than "Jesus loved him.") New versions hid this key to understanding bible words by mistranslating I Cor. 2:13. They say, "combining (or expressing) spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." The NASB italicizes 'words' and 'thoughts' because they do not occur in the Greek. The command in all Greek Manuscripts is "comparing," not 'combining' or 'expressing'.
  13. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Which means one cannot see anything unil the join.

    And those who have been on the Internet and forums a long time know that means another means of harvesting emails and such for spam.

    So, it is not an openly readable forum.

    And it is not like here. One can read all the posts without registering.
  14. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Which totally fails to address the point of 'and' in the verse.

    Ask him how 'and' and 'now' affect the context of the verse. If that in fact 'and' conjuncts it to verse 1 while 'now' means it 'became' void.

    See what he says on the key issue.

    Again note 'now' and 'and.'

    Ask him the impact of the two different words on meaning.

    And again, a Christadelphian. And not addressing the imact of 'and' and 'now.'

    False agruments here on what verse 2 is saying.

    Why do KJVO always forget to address 'and?'

  15. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Strong's is not a concordance. It is a lexicon.

    I do not reply on condordances since they introduce doctrine.

    Why are you introducing condordances, here, when none were used?

    Why are are you calling Strong's Lexicon a concordance when it is not?

    I an not an linquist, but I understand the impact of sentence structure, grammar and such on word usage. But words have meanings and the grammar determines the meaning used.

    It is a false argument here to try to expand 'vain' into including definitions not within the Hebrew word itself.

    And 'was' does include the meaning of became. Verse 2 was means became by the demand of 'now.'

    I stated that if you use 'and' in verse 2 you must use 'became,' not was. But if you use 'now' then 'was' is okay because it was by virtue of becoming.
  16. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    And it is not open to anyone but members to read.
  17. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member


    I note in all of this you pick the issues you feel are debatable to uphold you KJVO stance.

    Please tell me why the KJV makes the error of calling lampstands candlesticks? That is really a glaring, simplistic error.

    We know they were lampstands. They held oil lamps, not candles, and they used oil.
  18. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    What you are saying makes less and less sense. You already saw the archives of b-hebrew, so that means you can read posts without registering. And I've never seen a spam complaint there.

    Look, you clearly do not have an interest in scholarship forums, that you have made clear.

    That's your right, but fishing for a cause of offense is silly. The Bible-oriented scholarship forums generally are run though listservers or through Yahoogroups and only a couple of smaller ones are webforums. A lot of folks find webforums slow and less convenient, and more resource consuming (especially some overseas folks do not have full-time or fast web). In other ways, especially good subject threading, webforums have siginficant advantages.

    All sorts of forums have their place. The older Usenet and list types, the webforums, like this vBulletin software, and email forums like Yahoogroups and Googlegroups and Topica.

    However, if you have no interest in the scholarship oriented forums like b-hebrew, thats fine by me. I just shared with you and others the possibility of checking nuanced Hebrew claims there, as I have done that over the years consistently, and it is a very non-snobbish and helpful group. (That does not mean that you won't get contradicting opinions from within the group, nor that there isn't a liberal element in much modern scholarship :-)

    Steven Avery
  19. Neachley

    Neachley Guest

    The KJB Translators were perhaps the most learned scholars of their day. People like Andrewes didn`t speak English unless they had to, but would rather speak Hebrew or Greek. They knew these languages inside out and backwards. I cannot believe that they would mistranslate in the way you suggest.

    If you read histories of the translation, you will see that not only did each individual translator spend hours pouring over their work, they then went to sub committees who did the same (and who would argue over the right usage and translation), and then onto a final committee who would do the same.

    These men did not make mistakes with the text.
  20. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Hello! Do you know what archive means??

    I did not accuse them of spam. Do you know what Harvesters are?

    Get over yourself. You are not a scholar.

    There is no excuse for an email forum any more. Except to allow mods to pick and choose what will be posted.
    I never said they were bad. Never hinted at it.

    And you picked your question from here to them and posted what you wanted to in return. Meaning you totally disregarded the issue of 'was' in the context of 'Now' and "And.'

    Do not try to paint yourself as wise and me foolish on this point. Deal with the 'And' and 'Now' in the Hebrew semantical meaning of 'was.'

Share This Page