Why I am KJV Only (Page 21)

I am going to try this one more time. If the material does not post or is deleted I will wash my hands of this entire forum, shake the dust off my feet, and consider the forum to be anathema.

Askjo, I know you can't read Hebrew, that is very clear from what you have posted. I also know that you lack good research materials and seem to rely solely on Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, which is universally understood to be one of the worst ever published. Strong leaves out words, contains many, many errors, and is guilty of the worst examples of the root fallacy.

Take your Strong's Concordance and drop it in the nearest waste basket, then go online and buy "The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" revised and corrected by John Kohlenberger and James Swanson. (You can buy it right here http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310259088/qid=1082136565/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0018081-0656958?v=glance&s=books for $13.98. It will be the best money you ever spent.)

Then, using that Stronger Strong's look up the word "help" and you will see Strong's number 5828 for the passage in Genesis 2:18. The Hebrew word is "ezer" and means "help" or "helper."

Now look up the word "meet." Your old Strong's will say "5828" but that is WRONG. It is one of the errors in Strong's Concordance. Look the word "meet" up in the Stronger Strong's and you will see, for Genesis 2:18 the Strong's number 5048 + 3509.1. That is the Hebrew word combination which is translated "meet for" in the KJV.

Now go to 5048. It is the Hebrew word "neged" - but there are several additional numbers added which affect the meaning of the word. Look down to +3509.1 and you will see the reading of Genesis 2:18 "meet for."

Now go to 3509.1 in your new Stronger Strong's and you will see that the word is "ke" and is a "marker of comparison." It causes the word it is attached to to carry the additional meaning of "similarity" or "correspondence."

In Genesis 2 Adam was alone. He looked at all the animals and could not find one "meet for" him. That is, he could not find one "like him" or "comparable to him." All the animals were very different from Adam. They were not like him at all. So God made Eve, suitable for Adam and like him, comparable to him, and perfect for him.

All of them. Every Hebrew mss contains the "ke" marker. B19a. The Aleppo Codex. And even the most recent finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QGen/g, 4QGen/b, and 4QGen/h2.

All Hebrew texts contain the "ke" marker. Bomberg. Kittle (all three editions). Stuttgartensia. All of them.

 

I don't think it is a conspiracy unless being stupid constitutes a conspiracy.

 

Why is this book not recommend? </font>[/QUOTE]Why is it not recommend by only one person? Simple. He looked up a word and found what he thinks is the wrong Hebrew word.

Why does he think it is the wrong Hebrew word? Simple. The Stronger Strong's, like its predecessor, follows the Hebrew text of Bomberg (ben Chayyim, the one which is behind the KJV). If a person is reading the NIV, and using the text behind the NIV (ben Asher), when he looks up the word he will find the "wrong" Hebrew word, the word behind the KJV instead of the word behind the NIV! Some people claim that makes the concordance "wrong." There are 8 such places where the ben Asher text differs from the ben Chayyim text and this "reviewer" will probably say all 8 of those places are "wrong" because they follow the reading of the KJV instead of the reading of the NIV.

It is funny that Askjo, a KJVO, is saying he will reject Stronger Strong's on the basis of ONE (count 'em, only ONE) negative review, and that from an NIV totin' liberal! Askjo is now taking the advice of an NIV totin' liberal about which Hebrew text is "right" and which is "wrong." Does this mean that Askjo has now abandoned his KJV and has joined the ranks of the NIV totin' liberals?

If Askjo will reject the Stronger Strong's on the basis of a charge of ONE error (and that by an NIV totin' liberal) does that mean he will reject the Old Strong's even more for the 100s of documented errors, such as the one in Genesis 2:18 where the Old Strong's misidentifies the Hebrew word behind "meet" as being ezer (5826) even though we all know it is really the words neged (5048) and ke (3509.1)?

Seriously, Askjo, as you have not posted anything more regarding the Hebrew reading I posted, can I assume you capitulate and now know that all Hebrew manuscripts and texts read "ke + neged" for "meet" and that it means "meet," "the same as" or "comparable to" just as the NKJV and the KJV say?

See what happens when you listen a little instead of just assuming you and your badly flawed concordance/lexicon are right? Now you know something all your KJVO friends don't know. You will be much sought after for your wisdom and understanding because you now have a better understanding of what the bible (KJV) says.

 

Well, Askjo, cat got your tongue?

 

From Adam Clarke's excellent commentary.

For those of you not familar with Adam Clarke, he was one of the greatest scholars of his age (1760-1832). He was fluent in at least twenty languages and among his publications were the revised edition of Rymer's Foedera of the Public Records, and his famous Commentary on the Bible which is still in print.