[Brother Tim]

Cody, this guy sounds very much like a man that I have debated for a long time on another forum. If you want to see just how much time you will waste, just check out our numberless posts. His handle there is 'steelmaker', but he also goes by robycop3 and a few other similar names. I finally tore myself loose for the last time, although he still hasn't stopped his mantra. The link is below for the board. Pick any one of the threads because they always seem to come back to "prove it", "Wilkerson", "KJVO myth", "Easter", "root of all evil" in some combination.

http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/...ich-Bible.html

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Manny.
Thanks for the excellent material about early King James Bible defenders, Psalm 12 and more.

While your analysis of Psalm 12 is excellent I believe you misunderstand one point about the margin note, which we both agree is not the inspired word of God.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

the footnote in the AV1611 is wrong and so is everyone who agrees with it.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=651
Heb.him.i
every one of them

This footnote is showing the technical Hebrew grammatical form as a singular and it is indicating that it is a collective-type of singular in the Hebrew that translates best into an English plural. Every one of the words of God are preserved from this generation for ever. (This would be the primary understanding.)

Manny, your grammar analysis looks fine, my concern is that you are misunderstanding the King James Bible margin note.

Please look at another example :

Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=806
Heb. deathes

Here the Hebrew technical grammar form is plural. The proper translation is in the text since in this verse the Hebrew grammar plural form indicates a plural of intensity, not a plural of number. Being aware of Hebrew grammar (eg. Kimchi and Rashi and Nachmanides discuss the nature of this plural) the King James Bible translators are simply showing the reader the grammatical distinction involved.

Very similar to Psalm 12:7 and other verses. Such a margin note should not be read as in tension with the text, it is an auxiliary help, designed a bit more for the scholarly or skilled linguist reader than the layman.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

In conclusion, Ps. 12:6-7 is indeed a reference to the preservation of God's words, NOT the "poor and needy". ...

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Manny.
Thanks for the excellent material about early King James Bible defenders, Psalm 12 and more.

While your analysis of Psalm 12 is excellent I believe you misunderstand one point about the margin note, which we both agree is not the inspired word of God.


Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=651
Heb.him.i
every one of them

This footnote is showing the technical Hebrew grammatical form as a singular and it is indicating that it is a collective-type of singular in the Hebrew that translates best into an English plural. Every one of the words of God are preserved from this generation for ever. (This would be the primary understanding.)

Manny, your grammar analysis looks fine, my concern is that you are misunderstanding the King James Bible margin note.

Please look at another example :

Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=806
Heb. deathes

Here the Hebrew technical grammar form is plural. The proper translation is in the text since in this verse the Hebrew grammar plural form indicates a plural of intensity, not a plural of number. Being aware of Hebrew grammar (eg. Kimchi and Rashi and Nachmanides discuss the nature of this plural) the King James Bible translators are simply showing the reader the grammatical distinction involved.

Very similar to Psalm 12:7 and other verses. Such a margin note should not be read as in tension with the text, it is an auxiliary help, designed a bit more for the scholarly or skilled linguist reader than the layman.

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

I was approaching the AV1611 footnote by giving the opponent the benefit of a doubt that his interpretation of the footnote was correct. But after looking at it a second time, after reading your post, you may be correct that it is actually explaining the literal Hebrew rendering from the strictest sense, which in actuality is in support of our position of the preserved WORDS rather than preserved PEOPLE. If so, I digress. I was more concerned in engaging the opponents argument than interpreting the footnote. Either way, my argument for Ps. 12:6-7 as speaking of the preservation of God's words rather than the "poor" and "needy" still stands, as I know you are in full agreement with Bro. Avery.

God bless.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

I was approaching the AV1611 footnote by giving the opponent the benefit of a doubt that his interpretation of the footnote was correct.

Right, I understand. You can (generally) count on the opponents to misunderstand the King James Bible in full, text and margin notes . In that sense they are consistent.

We do agree on the verse and its interpretation.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

you may be correct that it is actually explaining the literal Hebrew rendering from the strictest sense

This seems to indicate that the plain reading of the King James Bible is not “the strictest sense”, nor “literal”... and that going to the marginal notes can help validate the “actual” and “correct” meaning.

The correct view of the margins is that if the note begins with the word “Or”, the word “Heb.” or the word “Gr.” then it is other than the actual explanation of the meaning. Some notes do give factual information, such as in regards to weights and measures. However, most words in the margin relate to other readings of the original languages and other interpretations or translations into English. They are not “alternative” or “equally valid”.

If we take the Old Testament, we find that the “Masoretic Text” (which was constructed from traditional Hebrew scrolls) is not an infallible guide, but as a critical apparatus, allowed the translators of the King James Bible to select the proper reading. They also consulted other sources in regards to ensuring accurate translation into English. Therefore, what appears in the margin of the King James Bible in the Old Testament include renderings from other sources, or may be what the Bomberg Hebrew had as main reading.

What we can be sure of is that the King James Bible gets it right.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Manny

actually explaining the literal Hebrew rendering from the strictest sense

The phrase I like to use is 'technical grammatical form' since a grammatical form often morphs in translation into the target language, even in the most literal translation. By using the phrase 'literal Hebrew' Matthew's objection :

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This seems to indicate that the plain reading of the King James Bible is not “the strictest sense”, nor “literal”...

comes into play. e.g. 'deaths' in Isaiah 53:9 should not be considered a more literal translation, it does indicate the technical Hebrew language plural grammatical form.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

and that going to the marginal notes can help validate the “actual” and “correct” meaning.

What the margin notes demonstrates, the ones we are discussing, is the very high level of Hebrew understanding and skill of the King James Bible translators. With some unknowledgeable opponents saying that the translation was from the Greek or Latin that extra background is helpful in apologetics and defense. And it is also helpful in understanding cross-language translation issues of grammatical form (the most common one is the singular and plural of Elohim == God or gods).

There is no validation involved in the notes we discussed, or others, and a King James Bible edition has no need, necessity or requirement to publish those notes.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The correct view of the margins is that if the note begins with the word “Or”, the word “Heb.” or the word “Gr.” then it is other than the actual explanation of the meaning.

This is likely true for the great majority of 'or' words, although even then I believe they can give insight and help. e.g. Isaiah 34:7 has "Or 'Rhinocerots' helpful in showing that the unicorn was not considered a mythical creature and even giving an idea of what the King James Bible translators thought it was like.

There are some footnotes that are simply alternative readings, such as MS evidence in the Greek, so those would generally be "other than the actual explanation" and only of interest to those who are involved in the textual analysis discussions. Those are the "many MS" type of notes. We can find those notes helpful in that they demonstrate that the King James Bible translators were well aware of when to divert from majority readings, based on other considerations such as internal evidences.

However I believe that you are simply mistaken in emphasis on margin notes like Isaiah 53:9 and Psalm 12:7, and likely most notes that say "Heb" or "Gr", for the reasons given above. In the cases where they are showing the technical grammatical form they serve a specific function, whether the specific reader cares about that function or not. Thus to indicate that they are primarily or solely "other than the actual explanation" simply overlooks the purpose of the note.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Some notes do give factual information, such as in regards to weights and measures. However, most words in the margin relate to other readings of the original languages and other interpretations or translations into English. They are not “alternative” or “equally valid”.

This is true, however were were not indicating the margin notes as 'alternative' or 'equally valid'. Some confusion was engendered by Manny's usage of the word 'literal', however that should now be clarified above.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.. we find that the “Masoretic Text” (...not an infallible guide, but as a critical apparatus...)

The Masoretic Text was followed very closely and there are only a handful of verses where there can be any possible claim of variance from the Masoretic Text. And those claims generally have to do with taking a minority reading (e.g. Psalm 22:17 and Joshua 21:37-37) that has additional solid Hebraic and/or versional and/or internal supports, thus the Masoretic Text in fullness is still being followed. Most claims of divergence from the Masoretic Text wilt upon examination.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

They also consulted other sources in regards to ensuring accurate translation into English.

Definitely, since the Masoretic Text itself is in Hebrew-Aramaic, lots of auxiliary sources in at least five different languages -- Hebraic, Latin, Greek, and Aramaic and English, were consulted -- in the King James Bible translation into English.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... what appears in the margin of the King James Bible in the Old Testament include renderings from other sources, or may be what the Bomberg Hebrew had as main reading.

Looking at Isaiah 53:9 "deaths" afaik nobody has that as a literal reading. The commentaries are very clear that this is the Hebrew technical grammatical form, yet not one Hebraic commentator supports translating it into an English plural. That example is outside your parameters of explanation, while giving additional background information, demonstrating the Hebrew technical grammatical form, fits perfectly.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

What we can be sure of is that the King James Bible gets it right.

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

The margins do indeed show the masterful knowledge of the 1611 translators and subsequent editors of the greater issues concerning text, translation and interpretation, including technical details, and convey to us their sound judgment in the kinds of things which they rejected or did not allow to stand as Scripture.

Steven Avery wrote:

although even then I believe they can give insight and help. e.g. Isaiah 34:7 has "Or 'Rhinocerots' helpful in showing that the unicorn was not considered a mythical creature and even giving an idea of what the King James Bible translators thought it was like.

Unicorn is a name, whereas the margin contains an interpretation (a classical, not ancient interpretation). To find out anything about what the unicorn really is, our most solid evidence is the conference of Scripture itself. To what degree can we allow the margin to be (remotely) "helpful" in finding out the meaning of the text? Since we cannot be certain, the safest course is to regard the margin with suspicion.

Steven Avery wrote:

the most common one is the singular and plural of Elohim == God or gods

This is where we come to real problems with various “Christians”. Unlike them, if we true believers accept the English as it stands, and are "blind" (Isaiah 42:19) to the Hebrew, we are not going to be led astray. Even though the same word "elohim" may be translated "God", "gods" or "angels", we can extrapolate that the sense of that word in Hebrew must be what we can see in our English forms. Not the other way round. The so-called Hebrew meaning no longer has bearing on truth. Yet, people think that they could use this to prove that "God" is plural (which is an invalid method of proof for us), or that man was not made a little lower than the angels, but God (which is a false teaching). If we rely solely upon the (Holy Ghost’s use of the) English Bible, we should be able to come to the proper conclusions, and have sound doctrine. All reference to "elohim" is therefore vain speaking now.

Likewise, it must be that “Yahweh” is well and truly dead. Our way is to restore “JEHOVAH”. If the Jews presently disavow the name of their God, it is so that we have the true ownership of knowledge.

Clearly the Masoretic Text was a reliable basis for the King James Bible, and now that the King James Bible is, and that it has been demonstrably vindicated time and again, the plan is now to vindicate to King James Bible upon its own merits, rather than to continue to measure against the Hebrew. (That witness as a whole is bequeathed to us.) I have no intention of making the Hebrew fall down, but when God shakes, as it were, then those things would tumble down in importance, because that the King James Bible now stands as supersuccessionary, that is, being instead of, and greater than, the Hebrew wall. It stands as a city on a hill, which cannot be hid, “a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.” (Ezekiel 40:2b).

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This seems to indicate that the plain reading of the King James Bible is not “the strictest sense”, nor “literal”... and that going to the marginal notes can help validate the “actual” and “correct” meaning.

The correct view of the margins is that if the note begins with the word “Or”, the word “Heb.” or the word “Gr.” then it is other than the actual explanation of the meaning. Some notes do give factual information, such as in regards to weights and measures. However, most words in the margin relate to other readings of the original languages and other interpretations or translations into English. They are not “alternative” or “equally valid”.

If we take the Old Testament, we find that the “Masoretic Text” (which was constructed from traditional Hebrew scrolls) is not an infallible guide, but as a critical apparatus, allowed the translators of the King James Bible to select the proper reading. They also consulted other sources in regards to ensuring accurate translation into English. Therefore, what appears in the margin of the King James Bible in the Old Testament include renderings from other sources, or may be what the Bomberg Hebrew had as main reading.

What we can be sure of is that the King James Bible gets it right.

Let me clarify my statement. I was not trying to imply that the KJV footnote is necessary in order to understand the "true meaning" of the passage. I am not of the school of thought that the KJV could be improved upon. I believe the KJV is perfect in the sense that it is without error whatsoever. I doubt any scholarship today could even hold a candle to the superior scholarship that the KJV translators possessed. I believe you would have to be deluded to think that you can suggest a "better rendering" than what the 54 translators collectively determined.

Many of these footnotes are just showing other ways the passage could have been translated. Anyone that has taken a course in the original languages (I took 3 years of Greek) knows that oftentimes there are more than one way a passage can be translated. And sometimes, translating something in the most literal and strictest sense (formal equivalence), which I believe is the proper method of translating and should be the primary goal of the translator, does not always make sense in the receptor language. So sometimes the translators must take the liberty to determine a way to render the translation in a way that makes sense in the receptor language grammatically, while at the same time retaining the integrity of it's equivalence in the base language.

I hope that clarifies my position better.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

All reference to "elohim" is therefore vain speaking now.

And thus when a bible corrector makes a false claim about Elohim Matthew will be of absolutely no assistance in correcting their error. And Matthew will instead attack those who do refute the false claim of the Bible corrector.

In fact Matthew probably should not even have referenced 'elohim' to give the background as to its meaning God, gods or angels - by his own standards . Nobody else even mentioned the translation as angels, except Matthew, thus he transgressed his own directives.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Likewise, it must be that “Yahweh” is well and truly dead. Our way is to restore “JEHOVAH”. If the Jews presently disavow the name of their God, it is so that we have the true ownership of knowledge.

To be clear, afaik the religious Jews are actually not supporting the 'yahweh' corruption. I do not think you will find that in the English translations that are of Orthodox perspective, such as Stone, Living Torah, Judaica Press or Soncino. (I do not say this definitively, however I do not ever remember seeing yahweh written or defended in those versions, which vary somewhat in degrees of Orthodox perspective. Examples of non-Orthodox versions from Jewish sources are the various JPS editions and the translations of the Penteteuch of Fox and Alter and even there you would have to check what each one does.) Nor have I heard any Orthodox writers defending yahweh.

And one of the best articles disassembling the yahweh corruption was written by the Karaite Jew, Nehemiah Gordon, who strongly defends a form very close to Jehovah. It is true that the religious Jewish perspective is generally not to pronounce the Tetragram, so in that sense it may be fair to say that the knowledge passed on to Christians through the Reformation and the King James Bible.

Yet why does Matthew even raise the issue of the views of religious Jews on the Tetragram. If he feels the issue is dead, then Matthew should not write about it at all, who supports what, what arguments they give, truth and falsehood. Let Matthew himself be silent where he insists (wrongly) that others be silent.

Shalom,
Steven

[Brother Tim]

Steven, and Matthew,

I am driven to interject here for the sake of some level of unity.

Matthew, you know from my prior writings here and elsewhere that I am fiercely in support of the KJB and specifically the PCE. So what I write here must not diminish that fact.

Steven, I have great respect for your knowledge and experience in the field of apologetics, particularly in respect to the textual fight and the supremacy of the KJB.

That said, and hopefully without sounding wimpish, there is a grave danger here that damage can be done to the stand for the truth in our time.

Matthew, God has given you a wonderful gift of seeing what will be in time to come, when the true believing church will providentially gravitate to the KJB as the pure and full final authority. He has enabled you to begin turning the eyes of many toward that reality. The danger that exists for you is that you might, because of a sense of urgency, attempt to expedite His timing. As you have stated in another place, because it is of God, it will not fail to come to pass. Be patient to allow the transition to take place in His way and time. Just as the world influence of the English language is not fully complete, the ability to provide pure copies to the world is not yet a reality. If everyone had the necessary access and ability to read the electronic form, we would be closer, but that is not present reality. Do what God has called you to do. Allow those who are fighting the same battle near by to get their eyes focused more clearly by the Spirit of God.

Steven, your abilities in the realm of languages and your skill as a debater have equipped you to fill a place that few can comprehend. The hazard that is present is that your skills, when misdirected, could be used by those who seek even the slightest crack in the wall to gain advantage. I would caution you to walk carefully. While I could not begin to match your intellect, I have attempted to debate on a number of fronts those who question the KJB position. Though I thought that I had at times landed a few blows, the end result has always been that nothing changed. Have the results been different with you? I have come to the conclusion that we must present truth, but not be surprised if that truth is completely ignored. That does not negate our responsibility.

What Matthew appears to claim is that Steven's work is unnecessary and useless. What Steven appears to claim is that Matthew is not equipped to fight the battle that exists. What I would say is that each has his own God-given arena of warfare, and that both need to face the same direction when fighting, and not at each other.

In love,