Definitions, Please

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
[QB"God forbid" is NOT what they said in the koine. They said "MA GENOITO". Which translated correctly (as do many MVs)
means "may it never be". [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, actually, the Greek "me" (pronounced "may") is a primary particle of qualified negation meaning "no." Genoito is a primary verb, second aorist, middle deponent, optative meaning "to become." So, if you want to be picky and translate it literally (and you do seem to want to be picky) it would have to be "no to become." However, the force of the phrase in Greek is much stronger than the literal phrase in English so the translators (correctly, in my opinion) chose a dynamic equivalent that best conveys the force of the Greek phrase. It is not wishful thinking "may it never be" but a very strong "God forbid!"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Hebrew word translated "candlestick(s)" in the KJV is "menoraw'" from "maw-nore'" meaning a beam and "neer" meaning to glisten. Literally it is a "glistening beam." But my point was, the word "candlestick" meant the same thing in 1611.

<LI>....if you want to be picky and translate it literally (and you do seem to want to be picky) it would have to be "no to become." However, the force of the phrase in Greek is much stronger than the literal phrase in English so the translators (correctly, in my opinion) chose a dynamic equivalent that best conveys the force of the Greek phrase. It is not wishful thinking "may it never be" but a very strong "God forbid!"
[/list]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious... why is it that you insist on slavish literal accuracy being utilized in regard to the personal-pronoun and verb-ending questions, but then turn around and defend the use of idiomatic dynamic equivelences in these and probably many other instances?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Candlestick, "formerly a general name including chandeliers, simple, or branched, upright or pendent, branches, lusters, etc." Oxford English Dictionary.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word "candlestick" implies an object that holds one or more candles. Candles didn't exist in biblical times either. Nice try, but your dictionary definition does not disprove anything I said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Cherub, cherubim, and cherubims are not Hebrew words, they are English words. The Hebrew words are ker-oob' and ker-oobim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what difference does that make?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The plural of the English Cherubim is Cherubims,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is inane and even laughable.

Look in any Bible dictionary, commentary or whatever. The word "cherubim" is already plural, and there is NO SUCH THING as "cherubims". "Cherubims" is an error in the KJV -- whether it is an improper translation or improper English usage (or both).

Thus, your hyper-educated attempt at correcting me is not only lame, it is utter nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
just as baptism is an English word, not a Greek word, and the plural is baptisms.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see to the logic in comparing "cherubim" (plural) with "baptism" (singular). The issue here is superfluous pluralization, in case you didn't notice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If that is the best you caon do in pointing out errors in the KJV maybe you better just retire now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the best you caon spell?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
So, if you want to be picky . . . (and you do seem to want to be picky)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're one to talk, Thomas.

TLB

 

I think the question ought to be, when the original Jewish readers saw this word, "Menorah", what did it mean then? In 2001, should we read "candlestick" or "lampstand"? Virtually all versions disagree with the KJV's translation of the word "candlestick", and to insist on keeping it as such (imho), begs the issue.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
Curious... why is it that you insist on slavish literal accuracy being utilized in regard to the personal-pronoun and verb-ending questions, but then turn around and defend the use of idiomatic dynamic equivelences in these and probably many other instances? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are comparing apples and oranges. The Greek makes a distinction between the case/number of the pronouns. The use of idiomatic language to describe a candlestick is simply that, and is essentially the same thing as "God forbid." I find it odd that you object to "God forbid" because it is idiomatic, then defend the must greater use of idiomatic language in the newer versions.

 

Terry, you seem confused (as usual). I suggest you go back to 2nd grade and study English. You will note that 2nd graders understand that the way of making a word into a plural in English is by adding an "s." As the word cherubim is an English word, not a Hebrew word, the way to make it a plural is to add an "s." If you are still having trouble understanding that very simple fact, just ask any 2nd grader, he will be more than happy to explain it to you.

Oh, and by the way, if you have nothing better to do than mock a man's typing ability, especially in light of the fact I suffer from a neurological disorder called BET or Benign Essential Tremor which causes my hands to tremble resulting in a loss of fine motor control, then you need to see someone other than that 2nd grader. Perhaps you should seek some counseling, both emotional and spiritual.

I certainly hope this post is typed better than the last one. I asked my wife to type it for me to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.

 

Thomas,

On the cherub/cherubim deal, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Cherub/cherubim are essentially transliterations of Hebrew words. Therefore the plural in English is the same as the plural in Hebrew -- Cherubim. There is no plural of cherubim; it already is plural.

A similar though not identical analogy would be goose and geese. No second grader should say that the plural of geese is geeses ... unless they are educated in the modern day public school system. They understand that geese is already plural. So no "second grade Hebrew student" is going to say that the plural of cherub is cherubims.

 

Thomas,
Slow down and take a deep breath my friend. No need to stoop to a derogatory level as we make a point. We all have our moments, but let's not get too chippy, okay?

And as for you, Terry Burnett, let's stick to the facts and cut the "nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo" stuff that my six year old niece would scoff at, okay?

From Baptist Board's resident equal opportunity offender,
Tom

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
On the cherub/cherubim deal, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Cherub/cherubim are essentially transliterations of Hebrew words. Therefore the plural in English is the same as the plural in Hebrew -- Cherubim. There is no plural of cherubim; it already is plural.

A similar though not identical analogy would be goose and geese. No second grader should say that the plural of geese is geeses ... unless they are educated in the modern day public school system. They understand that geese is already plural. So no "second grade Hebrew student" is going to say that the plural of cherub is cherubims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Pastor Larry. It seems that Mr. Cassidy would rather enjoy a game of Ad Hominem rather than acknowledge my point. With luck, maybe he'll understand your explanation.

TLB

 

Thomas Cassidy said:

Terry, you seem confused (as usual). I suggest you go back to 2nd grade and study English. You will note that 2nd graders understand that the way of making a word into a plural in English is by adding an "s."

And those same second-graders learn pretty quickly that "mouses," "foots," "boxs," and "childs" are not proper plurals. Come on, Thomas, you know that the pluralization rules in English are more complicated than that.

Besides, I thought the KJV translators were of such great erudition that they were supposedly able to read Hebrew from the age of five? They should have known better than the average second grader, should they not?

The plain fact is, the KJV made an editorial oops with "cherubims." The word "cherub" is an English transliteration of a Hebrew singular, and "cherubim" would have been the proper transliteration of the plural. "Cherubims" is just plain sloppy and, all KJV-only pretensions aside, a clear error - of style, if not of fact.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Terry, you seem confused (as usual). I suggest you go back to 2nd grade and study English . . .

Oh, and by the way, if you have nothing better to do than mock a man's typing ability . . . Perhaps you should seek some counseling, both emotional and spiritual.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, I must confess that I have failed to turn the other cheek, and have unfortunately returned evil for evil. In that regard, I have not been spiritual, and I apologize.

I'm not going to justify my own lapse of spirituality, but you have a very annoying habit of ridiculing my posts and questioning my intelligence. In fact, I have yet to find one post from you that is complimentary or edifying toward anyone.

When I responded in kind ("if that is the best you can do"), you call it "mocking". I regret that, but what is it called when YOU do it?

TLB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Thomas,
Slow down and take a deep breath my friend. No need to stoop to a derogatory level as we make a point. We all have our moments, but let's not get too chippy, okay?

And as for you, Terry Burnett, let's stick to the facts and cut the "nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo" stuff that my six year old niece would scoff at, okay?

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Sniff, sniff.) But, Mommy . . . HE started it!

TLB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
And those same second-graders learn pretty quickly that "mouses," "foots," "boxs," and "childs" are not proper plurals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right, Ransom. The correct form should be "mices", "feets" and "childrens".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The plain fact is, the KJV made an editorial oops with "cherubims." The word "cherub" is an English transliteration of a Hebrew singular, and "cherubim" would have been the proper transliteration of the plural. "Cherubims" is just plain sloppy and, all KJV-only pretensions aside, a clear error - of style, if not of fact.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Very well said.

TLB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I find it odd that you object to "God forbid" because it is idiomatic, then defend the must greater use of idiomatic language in the newer versions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I don't object... or at least I don't strenuously object anyway. I do admit, that I'm little uncomfortable with inserting the name of God where it's not located, but as far as using an idiomatic phrase, I don't object in principle. So I guess I would have more of a problem with the God Forbid example than I would with the candlestick example.

The objection here is not as much with the validity of the choices that the KJV translators made; one can criticize any translation. It is the hypocrisy of formal equivalent KJV-Only crowd who typically say that one cannot use dynamic equivalence because it is a corrupt way to translate.

I'm glad to see, as a text-critical scholar, that you affirm the general validity of dynamic equivalence, and presumably see it as a red-herring, when KJV-Onlyites raise the issue against it.

Based purely on my own crude sense of the matter, I would think a combination of formal and dynamic equivalence would be the prudent course to follow... something like literal when possible, dynamic when necessary. I know I don't have any technical expertise to make a definitive opinion on the matter, but I think I understand the spirit of the disputes.

codially,

CNM

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

It seems patently obvious that you have made up your mind and will not be swayed by any facts. The exceptions to the plural rule not only don't prove your assertion, they prove mine! Note that foot is changed to feet. One double vowel is changed to another. Note also that mouse becomes mice, a change of vowel. Child becomes children, a unique suffix. Nowhere in the English language do we ever see "im" used to indicate a plural. One last time, cherubim is an English word and it follows the rules of English grammar. What is so hard about that to understand?

It is obvious that this threat has come to an impass. You insist that the translators made an error somehow because they applied the rules of English grammar to an English word instead of applying the rules of Hebrew grammar to an English word. Go figure!

Now, just some facts. Not opinions, but facts. The English words cherub, cherubin, cherubim, cherubs, cherubins, and cherubims are English words of long standing, not transliterated from the Hebrew in 1611, but coming into English from French, which got it from Latin, which probably got it from the Greek translations of the OT. In Middle English (1100-1500) the forms were cherubin and cherubins (as in French). Wyclif introduced the word cherub into the bible in his version of 1382, and that survived in the subsequent English translations. The Coverdale version has the word cherubims as does the Bishop's Bible, and of course, this reading was carried forward into the version of 1611. Milton, in the 17th century, was the first to use "cherubim" to indicate a plural of "cherub." The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that "cherubims" is the individual plural while "cherubim" is the collective. (OED, "C" volume, page 325)

Briefly then, cherubin and cherubins are the original English forms (from French). Those later evolved into cherub and cherubims, which later was supplanted by cherubim while concurrently, cherub has popularly been fitted with a new plural cherubs. (ibid)

Ignorance is not a virtue.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
Based purely on my own crude sense of the matter, I would think a combination of formal and dynamic equivalence would be the prudent course to follow... something like literal when possible, dynamic when necessary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is exactly the position I take, and that taken by the KJV translators themselves, and most of the KJV defenders I associate with. Literal whenever possible, and dynamic when necessary to preserve meaning.

 

Dear Dr Tom,

RE: May Genoito and Dynamic Equivalence.

You said...

&gt;&gt;That is exactly the position I take, and that taken by the KJV translators themselves, and most of the KJV defenders I associate with. Literal whenever possible, and dynamic when necessary to preserve meaning&gt;&gt;

Great, that's my position also.
So dynamic equivalence is not an "error" in translation when it truly does perserve the meaning.

There is a danger however when dynamic equivalence becomes dynamic deception.
(Such as the NWT John 8:58 "before Abraham was I have been- The NWT dynamic equvalent of ego eimi - Literally - I AM).

HankD

 

The silence regarding cherubims is deafening! I wonder where all the "experts" are? I guess they lack the character to admit they were wrong. Rather sad.

 

Dear bro Cassidy,

Just couldn't leave it alone ey?

&gt;&gt;The silence regarding cherubims is deafening! I wonder where all the "experts" are? I guess they lack the character to admit they were wrong. Rather sad&gt;&gt;

OK , my Webster's has:
Cherub (n. pl cherubim) 2. Pl cherubs.
But I can't find cherubims listed anywhere as a word, singular or plural.

Secondly, seraph (singular) and seraphim (pl)
with a secondary seraphs as plural.
Webster's takes note of the Hebreww origin of this word.

KJV Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

KJV Isaiah 6:6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:


HankD

 

Here is another, two words neither of which is an English word with double (Hebrew and English) pluralization.

Someone should fine out OFFICIALLY if double pluralization is or was (in 1611 or 1769) an allowable practice of English grammar under the umbrella of transliteration.

Personally it doesn't seem like a big deal, but Tom did put forth the challenge to the "experts". Hmm, I wonder if that means me?

KJV Genesis 14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

HankD