@contiricci The whole KJV only debate is in my opinion a very serious issue as it requires its followers to ignore historical and archeological evidence and instead take the KJV translation at face value. The problem is that the KJV translation is inaccurate and causes serious error in Biblical interpretation.
@contiricci You still didn't provide me any evidence in your defense. Please provide me examples to defend your position and show how I am wrong. Thank you.
@contiricci You claim this is misleading, but you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary. You are correct that a plural noun can grammatically be used as a singular and this is common with the name Elohiym, but I have never seen Shamayim used in this way. Do you have an example you can share to prove your point?
I guess it's of Theological significance. The Jews in Alexandria transtated Shamayim into the Greek Ouranos, which is singular in Greek in both cases. However, Jerome, when translating it into Latin used Caelus (singular) for the former, and Caeli (plural) for the latter. I'm guessing the singular form of heaven in Hebrew was the name of a Canaanite God, so the author of the Hebrew wanted to exclude it. In Greek thought, however, the concept of heavens would be confusing.
@LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS Because the Greek-speaking Jews certainly would have known about the Greek Pantheon, due to Hellenization, and Ouranos is the Sky-God, but later became synonymous with Sky/heaven. Because in Greek, it was associated with one divinity, it would not culturally make sense to have multiple heavens. This would not, however, apply to Roman thought, since there was never a god named Caelus, so Jerome could get more abstract with the number of heavens.
@MrAlanNZ The sad truth is that most modern English translations of the Bible, including the kjv, rely more heavily on the Greek Septuagint than the Hebrew text. The reason is that Hebrew is not only a different language, but a completely different philosophy. Since English is a Greco-Roman language and philosophy, the translators are more comfortable and familiar with the Greek. The Hebrew is just to foreign for them.
Now I am confused! Heavens plural? Because of the ending of "im". Genesis 1:1 Elohim, isn't it plural? KJV translation "G-d"? Hebrew translation "gods"? But the Hebrew translate it as "G-d's" creation. Why couldn't "heaven" be a majestic plural as well?
@myshoesgofast Several Hebrew words are always written in the plural, but used in a singular sense. Another example is paniym. This word literally means "faces" but it doesn't mean more than one face. Eyts is a singular word, but it can mean "tree" or "trees." When eyts is in the plural form, etsiym, it always means "wood." The word shamayim is a plural word, but it is used in the singular sense. The Elohiym is different, it is the plural form of elo'ah. Continued...
@myshoesgofast Continued... But some Hebrew plural nouns can be used in a plural or singular sense. The grammar of the sentence determines if it is being used in plural or singular sense. In Gen 1:1 the verb bara identifies elohiym as a singular, but in Exodus 20:3 the grammar identifies elohiym as a plural.
I believe what you are saying is that the verbs and nouns in the sentence makes it plural or singular? So which words in that sentence makes heaven plural? Because the Earth 'was with out form', wouldn't this indicate the Earth at this point had no atmosphere? And it refers to the universe?
@myshoesgofast In my opinion, Genesis is written from the perspective of the ancient Hebrews, who had no concept of "atmosphere" or "universe." Simply put, the word shamayim is constructed as a plural, indicated by the "yim" suffix. This word means "sky" and can be written as sky or skies, in either case it is speaking of the "sky."
Then you do not believe Moses was given this by G-d?
Then you also translate word for word? Which I understand leaves out 1) The way the words was used in the past or take inconsideration the way meanings change. 2) How the words are used differently in certain contexts.
Genesis 11 used heaven again in the KJV and niv uses heavenS, in the story of the tower. Now when I examine the two I am drawn to the singular. Can you give your opinion?
@myshoesgofast God tell Moses many things to write down, but God did not give Moses Gen 1 to Deut 34, and I don't think Moses wrote all of Gen 1 to Deut 34. I accept the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes, I translate word for word, but my translation is accompanied with a Dictionary that provides the alternate meanings from different times. Gen 11:4 - the tower reached to the sky/skies. Yes, I believe in God.
Gen 11:4 was it heaven or heavens? I am in a month or so going to be learning Hebrew, but I have been warned that the "new" edition of strong's concordance is not a good source. Do you have an opinion on this?
@myshoesgofast The hebrew word in Gen 11:4 is shamayim, which literally means 'sky' and you can translate it as sky, skies, heaven or heavens. just recognize that this hebrew word is a plural noun, but used in a singular sense, always. on my website FAQs is a an article 'is Strong's reliable,' check that out, it might help.
Not to be contrary to this video, but its weak. Using KJV and the context of heaven and heavens this is my understanding Genesis. The Good Lord first made earth and a place for it to exist, space or heaven. Sounds logical to me. Then he went to work on the details of earth, including the sky or atmosphere. Again logical. After completion, heavens is an inclusive term describing several types of heavens.. not several of one heaven. Contest is everything.
@tonysshadow The problem is not of order but of linguisitic consistency. There is a difference between plural and singular and the KJV is deliberately inconsistent with said translation of Heavens.
Thank you. Obviously Jane likes truth also. See those that attack the kjv from the outside are not going to see what they are doing. They do not believe in the preserved word of God and because of their lack of belief God sends them a strong delusion. These anti kjv have motives other than seeking the true and living God and that is why they fail. Sorry it's weird that they don't see it.
From my understanding, God begins by creating the heaven and the earth as shown in Genesis 1:1. But on Genesis1:7-8, "God made the firmament" and "called the firmament heaven." So, when it comes to Genesis 2:1, it says that the heavens and earth were finish. So "In the Beg, God created the heaven and the earth," then he created the firmament and called it heaven, so in the end, heaven became heavens.
I am Jewish so I am not familiar with the KJV debate, but it seemed like you were trying to disprove the KJV. Why did you not choose to bring a proof from Psalm 89:3 "שָׁמַיִם, תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם" that proves that שמים is plural altogether and that the KJV got it wrong straight off the bat?
A man who is grounded in the Testamonies of the Scriptures is the buwark of the Church.....St Jerome........................................Thanks for posting this video!
Now what hebrew text are you using. Are you using the byzantine text that kjv was from or the alaxandrian text wich the other versions have been translated from?
My guess is that the word translated as "heaven(s)" simply meant "sky," and that the KJV translators were making a styilistic choice in using both the singular and the plural.Translate it as "the sky and the earth" and it makes perfect sense. Plus, the Old English word "heofn" (> "heaven") just meant "sky" until it was particularized by Christians, requiring the adoption of "sky" from Norse.The shift did'nt take place over night; even today we sometimes say "the heavens" when we mean the sky.
But then what about Elohim? It has a plural ending in all cases, right? Yet it doesn't always mean 'gods', but could rightly be interpreted to mean 'God'. In other words, even though it still has the same ending, depending on the context in which it is used, it could either be plural or singular. Wouldn't we be able to apply the same rule for the word 'heavens'?
@BiblePost It means literally "Lords". It has been translated as such, or as angels, or gods, or God - but God is three-in-one so the plural is right in that He is greater than a one. There are some that would allow it to mean just larger than a one but still singular; but that is to stretch the language beyond the natural usage & flow. It is theoretical that there is an exception, but I have honestly not seen one.
@masterkeep I appreciate you responding, but this really doesn't answer my question. If the exact plural ending can be treated as singular in some places, depending on context, as in Elohim, then why couldn't it be the same for 'heavens'?
@BiblePost Here is the problem with translation. In English we may think of some things as being singular, but that is not the thought of the original writers. the "im" ending IS plural and means plural. It may apply to something that to us seems foreign as plural. Part of people wanting to use Elohim as singular is the Shema [...God is one], and the use of singular verbs with the plural noun. This shows some of the problem with understanding God. I don't think you see it outside of that.
@BiblePost I need to correct myself. Apparently there are other "rulers" that also have the "royal plural" used in Hebrew [i.e. plural noun with singular verb]. All are old enough that it is hard to see if they were trying to use what was used of God or if this is an import from other languages into Hebrew or if that idea is an exception in the Hebrew language. To be honest I would expect it is others trying to adopt what applied to God but I cannot prove such either way.
NOT to sure who this goes to but It's funny how people get up in your face when they are adamant about "anything" in this case KJV only-ism...I was looking for help with Calvinism and Arminianism YOU would be amazed at the in your face both sides have. I wonder if stuff like this MAKES GOD cry? Is it not true that God has written His Word on our hearts. I think we miss the mark when we get so hung up on "LEGALISM" I want more of Jesus and less of MANS ideals.
The same strongs #8064 is used for heaven and heavens thru the entire ot. also same strongs #3772 is used for both heaven and heavens thru entire nt .
@737flyhigh Strongs numbers don't delineate between plural and singular it only points to the base word. You have to look at the text to see that difference.
Are you ready for the answer? As we both know Hebrew and English can't be compared to be alike to to answer your question is, Fish, singular and Fish plural in english. KJV uses Fishes as plural don't it? God only uses the English for the english speaking people. To compare the two is confusion and God is not the author of that. You don't need Hebrew and Greek, Just English..Pray!!!! See ya soon friend :n) Gen 1:1 was the beginning, only 1 heaven not 3, Isa 14 lucifer cast down/ heavenS
@preachernt Your argument makes no sense. The Scripture came to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. EVERYTHING else is a translation of it. Best understanding is ALWAYS in the original document, if one can read it there. That is pure and simple linguistics.
If Adam had one son in Genesis 4:1, shouldn't he, by your logic, also have one son in Genesis 5:4 (obviously an "event" between Genesis 4:1 and 5:4 created a grammatical necessity for the plural form, ergo the difference in persons)?
Also, bbbfohio's videos are about what non-Greek but English speaking people see; and reading text is a far cry from tracing text. God gave us an English Bible to read, not to demonstrate our skills at backtracing to Greek which is not English!
@tuin103 You need to read English better; the video point out the Old Testament was in Hebrew not Greek. Also, the video points out that a plural word was being translated with a singular in one place and a plural in another. There is a lack of consistency in the translation. That is the type of mistranslation that many KJB onliers apply to the other translations and the KJV is guilty of it.
There are 3 "Heavens" in a KJB. Why would God want The Heaven to be plural in Gen.1:1? God was in the 3rd. He created the first IN the 2nd. Come on, you're gonna have to do better than that. You are dealing with BIBLE READERS. You're reading HEBREW, and can't even explain Vs. 1 in Gen.
@jalsante75 Your reading in English and can't understand that to translate the SAME word, which is properly plural, as singular in one place and plural in another place is mistranslation. The Scriptures came to us originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. Any English bible is just a translation and inferior as far as proper meaning being within it.
@masterkeep...Wrong. You assume that because someone comes on youtube here, and spouts something that sounds good, it must be right. I know that there are 3 Heavens, because the Apostle Paul said so...IN ENGLISH! (2 Cor.12:2) I don't read Hebrew, I read english. Thank God that He Preserved The Words He wanted me to have in a language I can read! People always try to get around a King James Bible. This is a Reprobates argument! If you are unable to comply w/ the English, how then Hebrew?
@jalsante75 I am not wrong! I read Hebrew and ancienthebreworg is correct here. Even if you don't read Hebrew you can verify what he said. @ e-sword .net you can download free software. Included is the KJV with Strong's numbers attached. If you download the HOT+ [Hebrew w/strongs] you can split screen and compare, proving what was said. There are things that you have to pay for on the site but a lot is still free. A superb resource.
@xxxsandsnowxxx You are implying that God has preserved his word in the KJV and the KJV only. Also, you are implying from Mark 13:10 that the KJV is the fulfillment of this passage. Therefore, you are claiming that the only way for mark 13:10 to be fulfilled is if everyone learn English to read the KJV in order to hear the true Gospel. Is that any different than me saying one should learn Hebrew?
@ancienthebreworg...Yep, your comments here about cover it. God gave English speaking people an English Bible, known as the King James Bible. If you look very far, you will find that God did the same for other people whom speek different languages, by preserving His Words in their language, as well. Not only did HE, God, do it for them, but He even used the same Manuscripts to do it. He didn't use the garbage out of Alexandria, or Rome...Now thats interesting! Eccl. 8:4 is WHY the KJB is KING!
@jalsante75 You KJV onlyists should get on the same page. You are claiming that god preserved his word for English speakers in the KJV and in different languages fro different cultures. However, most KJV onlyists have told me that "ONLY" the KJV is perfect and everyone needs to learn English if the want to read the perfect word of God.
"Most" of the KJV onlyists you will EVER read and most that I have ever seen reply to you have said the same thing that jalsante75 said and I have said.
You give evidence of being reprobate and unable to discuss these issues honestly.
@bbbfohio Ancienthebreworg presents a true argument. Aside from an accidental reference to Genesis 1:2 when he meant Genesis 2:1 what he presents is accurate. I have run across others of the KJV onlyists crowd and pointed out that those within propose what the translators of the KJV would deny, that the KJV is the only perfect English translation. The idea is preposterous in the extreme. First, which KJV? There were 5 major versions [1611 & 4 revisions]. Look @ my other post here.
@masterkeep LOL, the myth of (4)?5 major (versions?/revisions) are plainly explained--spelling, since there was not standardize English dictionary in1611, type-setting was painstakingly ardent task using the German gothic print made it difficult to read, so it was re-printed and mispellings amended. The first work was done by 2 KJV 1611 Bois and Dr. Ward, both original 1611 translators. Translators did not do the printing. Future editing consisted of much of the same; spelling, printer mis-types
@locustweed You can read the wording changes and they are not "just proofreading corrections." There are drastic changes to the language as well as other changes to the text. These are easily findable by google.
Why didn't you list a few of the DRASTIC CHANGES?? I have a copy of those 'changes' which the vast majority are printer's typesetting mistakes or mis-spelling updates, and NOT the translators manipulating any text. Even with our computer typeset programs today I constantly find 'errors' in magazines, newspapers, novels ect. When those are found they are usually fixed. KJV is as 'silver tried in a furnace of earth". Psm 12:6-7 google your own doubts--I have the WORDS OF GOD!
@carloswater7 Jalsante75 wouldn't know what to tell you. He will claim it is the perfectly preserved word of God without any errors. He would never admit that all translations have error. He tries to put the KJV above the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. The error shown here is but one of many in the KJV. Even still it is a good translation for study if you can deal with the archaic language and the literal reversals in the language usage.
@masterkeep u are Right i saw some of the videos showing the errors of the king James. and some jewish website say is not a translation According to the Hebrew and Other Website show in NT it has verses added .and is not written according to the Early Greek Manuscripts it is all mess up
@carloswater7 To be fair the translators did a decent job with the text they were given. There are words that should have been translated instead of transliterated, but I believe some of that was out of fear of the king & others in power in the "church". There is another Hebrew tradition than the masoretic and that is witnessed to by the septuagint. This is used sometimes in the OT where it was hard to understand. Definitely not a perfect translation, but one useful for study nonetheless.
@jalsante75 At this point in time there have been a great many more translations from the "Alexandrian" texts than from the TR for the various languages of the world. There are still more languages awaiting translation than all that have come from the TR combined. Ecclesiastes 8:4 has nothing to do with the KJV and everything to do with discretion. You need to correctly exegete scripture.
@MrSuperchicken1 I believe he did, but he was simply using his own logic to justify the different translations of שמים (shamayim) in the KJV because in his mind it cannot be wrong.
@baqashchokmahelel Personally, I have a problem with all modern English translations. The reason being is that the original text is written from an Eastern perspective and all modern translations translate it into a Western perspective.
ancienthebreworg, I can understand what you're saying, but what is the solution then? And even moreso than eastern vrs western perspectives, the fact that Genesis was orginally written in pre-babylonian hebrew. Ancient perspective compared to modern perspective and writing system. What the dead sea scroll scribes copied was a later system than the original.
@baqashchokmahelel The solution is simple, learn to read the Bible from an Hebraic rather than Greek/Roman perspective. Yea, it takes a little time and effort, but isn't it worth it? The script used to write the Bible is irrelevent, it is the meaning behind the words, not how they are written that is important.
Good work. An even more crystallized example of how capricious AV1611 is is how reem (sing.) is translated as unicorns (pl.) @ Deut. 33.17, and in Isaiah 34.7 the plural form of reem is unicorns (pl). The real significance of this is that Deut. 33.17 clearly shows the Reem (sing) has horns (pl) and cannot be a single-horned creature, but is a kind of bollock, further witnessed by their contexts/parallelisms.
But perhaps the best example of arbitrary translations is how "hell" is used in KJV.
@AllOtherNamesUse...You don't like Hell? WHO WOULD"VE THOUGHT. Most people don't. Thats why the NKJV revisors removed the word Hell Every chance they got! And one more thing, When you try to go "AROUND" God 's Book, by going to another language to try to find some way around your own language, which may contain some things you don't like, YOU ARE BEING DISOBEDIENT TO GOD!!!!!!!!!! Get it in English! Then you won't need hebrew.
@jalsante75 This has nothing to do with "like"-- understand that first, then understand that "hell" was mistranslated from 4 different terms (sheol, hades, Gehenna, tartarus). Deal with it, it's a fact, and your idolatry of a mistranslated book blasphemes the pure doctrine from Yeshua - that amounts to changing the word of God and you ought to repent if you had any sense. You people are more dangerous to the body of Christ than Atheists quite frankly.
this hebrew/greek is such hogwash. the heb/greek dictionaries don't agree w/ one another. how do you know your is right? the kittel's hebrew dictionary was compiled by convicted nazi war criminals. you gonna believe what they tell you about the jews? but many of the modern perversions use it. just admit you don't believe God can give His word to the english speakers
The self-evident logic in this video is something the KJV only cult people will simply gloss over. Facts don't matter to those with a fetish or blind faith. They start with their "axiom" and everything must be forced into it. A video like the one above won't convert them but will possibly keep others from following under the KJV only bewitchment.
The Green interlinear is pretty good, especially if you are learning Hebrew. However, the translation is still coming from a western perspective and like all other English translations it ignores the original Hebraic thought. The only other drawback to this Bible is that the print is very small and hard to read.
I think all so that Jay Green is some kind of a KJVO. thats if I am thinking about the same Jay Green. I think he has allso the KJV3 or something like that. thanksfor getting back to me on interlinear :)
bte do you know of the NET bible and whats your take on it and its foot notes
I used to hold to the KJV Only argument. What broke me from that mindset was looking at the other side of the argument, and found that the KJV-Only argument had a FATAL flaw...the position holds the KJV as the standard, not the manuscripts from which the KJV came about. The most important thing is not Bible translations (to a point...I don't regard the Joseph Smith KJV or the New Word Translation as legit), but preaching Christ and Him crucified.
true in a way but the Alexandrian and Egyptian(Ethiopian) manuscripts are CORRUPTED. The Antiochan (textus receptus) is not and that is where we get our King James today (1611).
But, on the flip side, it does not necessitate a better translation. Either text used still has to be translated. A more inerrant text used does not necessarily indicate a more inerrant translation. But, in any sense, I am not one to divide over this topic while there are still people needing to know Christ. To me, lost souls are far more important than Bible translations.
Very true, the KJV uses the word Lucifer, a Latin word from the Latin Vulgate. What in the world is a Latin word doing in a Hebrew text? A very clear piece of evidence showing that the KJV translators used the Vulgate for its translation.
I am not sure which post this in response to, but most of us use the Masoretic Hebrew text (1000 years old) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000 years old). What many do not realize is that KJV only had the Masoretic Hebrew text to use for its translation, but now we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are much older and found only 60 years ago. Because of this, the KJV is at a big disadvantage.
Thank you for being kind, considerate, factual, and non-emotional in this video.
It is refreshing to see/hear someone share the truth about this issue in love, with a factual logical presentation.
This video is one more testimony against the KJVonly people and their divisions they cause.
Romans 16-17--Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them
this is typical King James onlyist rhetoric. All capitals to signify yelling and following it up with an insult. I see this time and time again from this seemingly angry group.who
Way to ask a question in love. It always grieves me when I see see saints react harshly against their brothers and sisters, just because they disagree with their position.
My post does come off more harshly than I intended. I would have done better to leave the first two sentences off. I accept your correction and apologize to brianbmf.
Why must you insist on calling people idiots? If I could call you up, meet you for some tea and bagels, and talk with you, I am pretty sure I could convince you that I am a lot of things, but an idiot is not one of them. I may disagree with your belief on the KJV, I may be a Catholic, there are probably many things about me you would disdain. However, I promise you three things 1.) I am a Christian, 2.) I am a bit more polite than you, it seems, and 3.) I am definitely not an idiot.
AGuyFromMississippi Hello Brother. You are right. We never can wait kind words from KJV only Cultist. They brake God Laws by them self all the time, and same time they are super holy. Mathew 5.21-22 says that very cleary, that we do not call each another tha tkind of names. You are right Brother about them. God Bless
this is un-Christlike hate speech. Do you get this from reading the King James translation. Where does it say the King James version, "anyone who reads anything but the King James is an idiot and should be called idiots???"
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Singular is correct. No seperation...Yet)
Genesis 1:7-8
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(This would make the seperation from 1 to >1. From here on it would be incorrect to use heaven, unless specific.)
For starters open your NIV check out what was removed in Matthew 17:2118:1123:14 check out what was removed in Mark 9:449:4615:28 check out what? was removed in Luke 17:3623:1724:40 If you want a more in depth list, with an explanation, check out my video Why the King James Version? (more info)
....I do however disagree on what the first Heaven refers too. BBB said i refers to Space and that Heaven (where God sits enthroned) was not created.
I believe that the first Heaven is the Heaven where God resides, and that later we see the creation of the lesser heavens, that is space and the sky. I also believe that during the creation of Heaven this was likely when the angels were created.
So the same word can be 2 words because the plural can be used for emphasis.
This comment is derived from what I have heard about the Suffix "IM" used in the name Elohim.
Elohim means Gods, however our Bible renders it God in English. This is because the plural IM is added to represent Importance like the Royal use of WE when the queen refers to herself. However, elohim when refering to false gods is rendered gods.
Here the same word Elohim is rendered both God and gods in almost all Bibles.
This to me suggests that the use of Heaven vs heavens is emphasis......
Actually, it is not as simple as that, but you have to know some Hebrew grammar to understand the concept. Let my try and explain this with a common phrase in the Hebrew Bible - yomer elohim. The word yomer is the verb amar meaning "to say" but has the "yo" prefix meaning "he" and is the subject of the verb.
So, yomer means "he said." Also, the subject of the verb follows the verb and that is the word elohim. Notice that the verb identifies the subject as a singular (he) and therefore elohim must be understood grammatically as a singular. This is why Elohim is translated as "god" and not "gods."
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. A translation should be consistent with the Hebrew language, not someone's "interpretation." The Hebrew word is always written as shamayim (plural), ALWAYS! When this word is translated as "heavens" in one place and "heaven" in another, it is not being true to the original Hebrew text and is giving an intentional false interpretation that is not in the original text.
Personally, I don't like to use the word "heaven/s" as this sometimes has a religious connotation to it referring to "heaven" (as opposed to hell). The literalness behind the Hebrew is "sky." The point of this video is that the word is always written in Hebrew as a plural, therefore you can translate it as sky or skies, but I believe that one should be consistent, either translate it as sky/heaven or skies/heavens, but always one or the other.
Um... did you watch this video. Clearly the KJV is not a direct translation. For that matter, a degree of interpretation is necessary when translating ANY text-- even if the translation philosophy aims for formal eqivalence (aka. word for word). For instance, does the KJV say that Jacob's nose burned in Rachel in Gen. 30.2? That's what the Hebrew says. It's an idiom for becoming angry that does not carry over to English. So, KJV is not "direct" or "cut and dry."
The reason the correct translation is HEAVEN for Gen.1:1 is because the firament had not yet been created. (Gen.1:7) and that is now considered a 'heaven'
So, the KJB translators had it correct. In Gen.1:1 there is only one heaven, but in Gen.2:1 there are now HEAVENS.
That is why we are told there are 3 heavens (2Cor.12:2)
edwardpf123, that is a great analysis from your perspective, however, the Hebrew text is in conflict with your interpretation. To put it simply, in Hebrew there is no singular form, it is always shamayim (plural).
Edward, I think you are looking at Hebrew as though it were equivelent to English. You can't do this, they are two completely different languages and Hebrew works very differently than English. The word Elohiym is plural, period. It is "NOT" a singular word. However, this "PLURL" word is used as a name such as we see in Genesis 1:1. Also, Adonai is a plural, it means "my lords" and Shaddai is plural, it means "my breasts." But all three of these plural words are used as names for YHWH.
Edward: When I see the Hebrew word אלהים I read it as elohiym, not God or Gods. I recognize this Hebrew word for what it is, a plural word being used as a name. To translate אלהים as God or Gods is in itself inferior as these English words do not even come close to conveying the meaning of the Hebrew.
What you recognize the word as is not important, it is how you translate it in your own mind. So, stop blowing smoke. You translate the plural into the singular and don't think Hebrew, you think in English,
And you are thinking of a singular entity, that is known as God.
Save me the nonsense about not getting the REAL meaning of the Hebrew.
edward, do you realize what you are saying? You are assuming that anyone who reads in Hebrew is thinking in English? That is ridiculous, when I read in Hebrew I think in Hebrew, when I read in English I think in English.
Exactly. Anybody who speaks more than one language knows the difficulty in translation. Every language you speak requires a different thought pattern. Unless you speak more than one language one will never know these difficulties.
No one is denying the difficulty in translating from language to another, the fact is it takes great skill in both languages. Skill that men such as Tyndale, the Geneva and KJB translators had.
There is a big difference between saying translation is difficult to saying it is impossible.
I hope you're not making a point in saying that I said it was impossible. Translation is never impossible as long as we earthlings are speaking a language originating from Earth. On the other hand, those men that you spoke of had Trinitarian biases thus altering parts of the English translation of the NT. With regards to a bible translated in Chinese or Russian I wouldn't know. Men needing to translate into those languages would also have great skill.
Edward, Here is one example. English verbs have three tenses, past, present and future and these tenses are related to time. Biblical Hebrew only has two tenses, perfect and imperfect and they are related to action, not time. These two sytles of tenses (time vs. action) are very different from each other and unless you know Biblical Hebrew you cannot understand these verb tenses and they cannot be translated into English properly as English does not have tenses related to action.
Yes, they can be translated into English, so stop talking nonsense. No less then the Greek can which also deals with tense differently then the English.
Just because it is difficult doesn't mean it cannot be done.
No, the word את (et) identifies the definite object of a verb, but, it is also the feminine second person pronoun (you), and also a noun meaning plowshare and it can also be a preposition meaning "with."
Yes and the context will tell a translator that and they will translate it as such. It is when it is just being used as direct object marker that it is not being translated, since the direct object is noted in other ways.
Btw, becasue of the word את in Genesis 1:1, this can also be translated as "in the beginning Elohim created "with" the sky and "with" the land. That is a very accurate translation and does help to convey the Hebrew meaning of Genesis chapter one.
Actually, the word "create" comes from the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew has ברא which literally means "fattened" or "filled" (see my video series on Genesis 1 verse 1). According to the Hebrew God did not "create" the heavens and the earth, he filled them up.
No, I am not assuming any such thing. But the fact is that when you read Hebrew you still have to think in concepts and those same concepts were translated exactly into English. Moreover, the Biblical Hebrew isn't the same even as the today's spoken Hebrew, just like todays Greek isn' the same as Biblical Greek.
So, don't tell me that reading the Hebrew gives you some special insight , it doesn't.
Edward, see my comments below about verb tenses, this is one example where Hebrew cannot be translated into English. Another example is the word "et" (which is found in Genesis 1:1 and about 7,000 other places in the Hebrew Bible) but is "NEVER" translated into English because it can't be.
So what! That is no different then articles not being translated in the Greek. The 'et' just points out the object of the sentence.
There is no special need for them except in knowing where the objects are and that is fufilled in the English by word order.
Save the nonsense about the need for reading the 'originals' you are not any closer to understanding the text then someone who reads the perfect English of the KJB.
Edward, what about times when the word "et" is used but grammatically it shouldn't be? Why is that "et" there? I believe it is there for a special purpose, but then in the English you would never even know that it was in the text in the first place. Or what about times when grammatically it should be there but it isn't.
The "perfect" English? Really? Do you think the KJV is better than the Hebrew Masoretic text the KJV is based on?
You are very close with your translation, but the problem is the tense you are using. You used the English preent tense, but in Hebrew it is the perfect tense - completed action. My point is that you cannot translate the perfect tense into English accurately. Translators usually use the English past tense for the perfect tense, but then it would be translated as "I loved my wife" which in English would imply she is dead or your divorced. Btw, אשתי is literally "my woman" not "my wife."
Exactly edward and this is dunklaws and my point. Only one familiar with Hebrew can understand the uniqueness of Hebrew and its difficulty in translating it into English.
And one who is an expert in both languages can make an exact translation into the English as the KJ translators did. I didn't say it was easy, just doable and done.
No, even if one is fluent in Hebrew and English he cannot do a "perfect" translation from Hebrew to English. Instead, he reads the Hebrew and understands it from an Hebraic perspective and ignored English.
And when Elohim is used in Gen.31:30 how do you view it then, as the name of God? Context tells you how to view the word. And English has no problem at all conveying the true meaning of those Hebrew words.
Edward, the word elohim can be used as a noun meaning powers (such as in Gen 30:8 or Gen 31:30). Or it can be used as a name such as in Gen 1:1. The same can be true with any word/name. For instance, the word אשר (asher) can be the relative pronoun meaning which or who, a verb meaning to go straight, a noun meaning happy or it can be the name Asher.
That is correct the CONTEXT will tell you how it will be read, and that is the crucial aspect in any translation, not the particular word. So, having knowledge of Hebrew doesn't give you any insight into anything. The English translated it exactly how it needed to be understood based on the context.
@contiricci The whole KJV only debate is in my opinion a very serious issue as it requires its followers to ignore historical and archeological evidence and instead take the KJV translation at face value. The problem is that the KJV translation is inaccurate and causes serious error in Biblical interpretation.
ancienthebreworg 1 month ago
@contiricci You still didn't provide me any evidence in your defense. Please provide me examples to defend your position and show how I am wrong. Thank you.
ancienthebreworg 2 months ago
@contiricci You claim this is misleading, but you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary. You are correct that a plural noun can grammatically be used as a singular and this is common with the name Elohiym, but I have never seen Shamayim used in this way. Do you have an example you can share to prove your point?
ancienthebreworg 2 months ago
I guess it's of Theological significance. The Jews in Alexandria transtated Shamayim into the Greek Ouranos, which is singular in Greek in both cases. However, Jerome, when translating it into Latin used Caelus (singular) for the former, and Caeli (plural) for the latter. I'm guessing the singular form of heaven in Hebrew was the name of a Canaanite God, so the author of the Hebrew wanted to exclude it. In Greek thought, however, the concept of heavens would be confusing.
LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS 4 months ago
@LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS Because the Greek-speaking Jews certainly would have known about the Greek Pantheon, due to Hellenization, and Ouranos is the Sky-God, but later became synonymous with Sky/heaven. Because in Greek, it was associated with one divinity, it would not culturally make sense to have multiple heavens. This would not, however, apply to Roman thought, since there was never a god named Caelus, so Jerome could get more abstract with the number of heavens.
LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS 4 months ago
John Wycliffe (1382) translated the Latin Vulgate into 14th Century English and made the same mistake. Heaven in Chapter 1 and Heavens in Chapter 2.
Or did the translators of the Vulgate make the mistake?
The Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851 English Translation of the Greek Septuagint, again the same mistake.
So is the Septuagint also wrong? I don't read Greek but maybe someone can tell me.
Did the KJV translators use the Septuagint or the Hebrew text?
MrAlanNZ 5 months ago
@MrAlanNZ The sad truth is that most modern English translations of the Bible, including the kjv, rely more heavily on the Greek Septuagint than the Hebrew text. The reason is that Hebrew is not only a different language, but a completely different philosophy. Since English is a Greco-Roman language and philosophy, the translators are more comfortable and familiar with the Greek. The Hebrew is just to foreign for them.
ancienthebreworg 5 months ago
Now I am confused! Heavens plural? Because of the ending of "im". Genesis 1:1 Elohim, isn't it plural? KJV translation "G-d"? Hebrew translation "gods"? But the Hebrew translate it as "G-d's" creation. Why couldn't "heaven" be a majestic plural as well?
myshoesgofast 8 months ago
@myshoesgofast Several Hebrew words are always written in the plural, but used in a singular sense. Another example is paniym. This word literally means "faces" but it doesn't mean more than one face. Eyts is a singular word, but it can mean "tree" or "trees." When eyts is in the plural form, etsiym, it always means "wood." The word shamayim is a plural word, but it is used in the singular sense. The Elohiym is different, it is the plural form of elo'ah. Continued...
ancienthebreworg 8 months ago
@myshoesgofast Continued... But some Hebrew plural nouns can be used in a plural or singular sense. The grammar of the sentence determines if it is being used in plural or singular sense. In Gen 1:1 the verb bara identifies elohiym as a singular, but in Exodus 20:3 the grammar identifies elohiym as a plural.
ancienthebreworg 8 months ago
@ancienthebreworg
I believe what you are saying is that the verbs and nouns in the sentence makes it plural or singular? So which words in that sentence makes heaven plural? Because the Earth 'was with out form', wouldn't this indicate the Earth at this point had no atmosphere? And it refers to the universe?
myshoesgofast 8 months ago
@myshoesgofast In my opinion, Genesis is written from the perspective of the ancient Hebrews, who had no concept of "atmosphere" or "universe." Simply put, the word shamayim is constructed as a plural, indicated by the "yim" suffix. This word means "sky" and can be written as sky or skies, in either case it is speaking of the "sky."
ancienthebreworg 8 months ago
@ancienthebreworg
Then you do not believe Moses was given this by G-d?
Then you also translate word for word? Which I understand leaves out 1) The way the words was used in the past or take inconsideration the way meanings change. 2) How the words are used differently in certain contexts.
Genesis 11 used heaven again in the KJV and niv uses heavenS, in the story of the tower. Now when I examine the two I am drawn to the singular. Can you give your opinion?
And are you a believer in G-d?
myshoesgofast 8 months ago
@myshoesgofast God tell Moses many things to write down, but God did not give Moses Gen 1 to Deut 34, and I don't think Moses wrote all of Gen 1 to Deut 34. I accept the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes, I translate word for word, but my translation is accompanied with a Dictionary that provides the alternate meanings from different times. Gen 11:4 - the tower reached to the sky/skies. Yes, I believe in God.
ancienthebreworg 8 months ago
@ancienthebreworg
Gen 11:4 was it heaven or heavens? I am in a month or so going to be learning Hebrew, but I have been warned that the "new" edition of strong's concordance is not a good source. Do you have an opinion on this?
myshoesgofast 8 months ago
@myshoesgofast The hebrew word in Gen 11:4 is shamayim, which literally means 'sky' and you can translate it as sky, skies, heaven or heavens. just recognize that this hebrew word is a plural noun, but used in a singular sense, always. on my website FAQs is a an article 'is Strong's reliable,' check that out, it might help.
ancienthebreworg 8 months ago
Not to be contrary to this video, but its weak. Using KJV and the context of heaven and heavens this is my understanding Genesis. The Good Lord first made earth and a place for it to exist, space or heaven. Sounds logical to me. Then he went to work on the details of earth, including the sky or atmosphere. Again logical. After completion, heavens is an inclusive term describing several types of heavens.. not several of one heaven. Contest is everything.
tonysshadow 9 months ago
@tonysshadow The problem is not of order but of linguisitic consistency. There is a difference between plural and singular and the KJV is deliberately inconsistent with said translation of Heavens.
masterkeep 9 months ago
@janelikesphysics
Thank you. Obviously Jane likes truth also. See those that attack the kjv from the outside are not going to see what they are doing. They do not believe in the preserved word of God and because of their lack of belief God sends them a strong delusion. These anti kjv have motives other than seeking the true and living God and that is why they fail. Sorry it's weird that they don't see it.
wallaceju 10 months ago
From my understanding, God begins by creating the heaven and the earth as shown in Genesis 1:1. But on Genesis1:7-8, "God made the firmament" and "called the firmament heaven." So, when it comes to Genesis 2:1, it says that the heavens and earth were finish. So "In the Beg, God created the heaven and the earth," then he created the firmament and called it heaven, so in the end, heaven became heavens.
Janelikesphysics 1 year ago
I am Jewish so I am not familiar with the KJV debate, but it seemed like you were trying to disprove the KJV. Why did you not choose to bring a proof from Psalm 89:3 "שָׁמַיִם, תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם" that proves that שמים is plural altogether and that the KJV got it wrong straight off the bat?
WaysOfMan 1 year ago
A man who is grounded in the Testamonies of the Scriptures is the buwark of the Church.....St Jerome........................................Thanks for posting this video!
prairiemark 1 year ago
Greg seems to be caught in a cult like mentality. He gets so hostile and belittling that a person cannot reason with him.
prairiemark 1 year ago
Now what hebrew text are you using. Are you using the byzantine text that kjv was from or the alaxandrian text wich the other versions have been translated from?
Eldoor 1 year ago
@Eldoor The bysantine and alexandrian texts are Greek, not Hebrew. There is only one Hebrew text used by all translations, the Masoretic Hebrew text.
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
Good work!
TheLastReformation 1 year ago
@TheLastReformation Thank you :)
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
My guess is that the word translated as "heaven(s)" simply meant "sky," and that the KJV translators were making a styilistic choice in using both the singular and the plural.Translate it as "the sky and the earth" and it makes perfect sense. Plus, the Old English word "heofn" (> "heaven") just meant "sky" until it was particularized by Christians, requiring the adoption of "sky" from Norse.The shift did'nt take place over night; even today we sometimes say "the heavens" when we mean the sky.
Naiant 1 year ago
Blessed be Yahweh, and His own people , for they saw Him and heard His voice .
Here is one of His , who have the Experience and not a doctrines...
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
(Jn.10:27-28)
JoshuaBlessed1962 1 year ago
But then what about Elohim? It has a plural ending in all cases, right? Yet it doesn't always mean 'gods', but could rightly be interpreted to mean 'God'. In other words, even though it still has the same ending, depending on the context in which it is used, it could either be plural or singular. Wouldn't we be able to apply the same rule for the word 'heavens'?
BiblePost 1 year ago
@BiblePost It means literally "Lords". It has been translated as such, or as angels, or gods, or God - but God is three-in-one so the plural is right in that He is greater than a one. There are some that would allow it to mean just larger than a one but still singular; but that is to stretch the language beyond the natural usage & flow. It is theoretical that there is an exception, but I have honestly not seen one.
masterkeep 1 year ago
Comment removed
BiblePost 1 year ago
@masterkeep I appreciate you responding, but this really doesn't answer my question. If the exact plural ending can be treated as singular in some places, depending on context, as in Elohim, then why couldn't it be the same for 'heavens'?
BiblePost 1 year ago
@BiblePost Here is the problem with translation. In English we may think of some things as being singular, but that is not the thought of the original writers. the "im" ending IS plural and means plural. It may apply to something that to us seems foreign as plural. Part of people wanting to use Elohim as singular is the Shema [...God is one], and the use of singular verbs with the plural noun. This shows some of the problem with understanding God. I don't think you see it outside of that.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@BiblePost I need to correct myself. Apparently there are other "rulers" that also have the "royal plural" used in Hebrew [i.e. plural noun with singular verb]. All are old enough that it is hard to see if they were trying to use what was used of God or if this is an import from other languages into Hebrew or if that idea is an exception in the Hebrew language. To be honest I would expect it is others trying to adopt what applied to God but I cannot prove such either way.
masterkeep 1 year ago
NOT to sure who this goes to but It's funny how people get up in your face when they are adamant about "anything" in this case KJV only-ism...I was looking for help with Calvinism and Arminianism YOU would be amazed at the in your face both sides have. I wonder if stuff like this MAKES GOD cry? Is it not true that God has written His Word on our hearts. I think we miss the mark when we get so hung up on "LEGALISM" I want more of Jesus and less of MANS ideals.
Ogram1000 1 year ago
The same strongs #8064 is used for heaven and heavens thru the entire ot. also same strongs #3772 is used for both heaven and heavens thru entire nt .
737flyhigh 1 year ago
@737flyhigh Strongs numbers don't delineate between plural and singular it only points to the base word. You have to look at the text to see that difference.
masterkeep 1 year ago
Where is your congregation??
simdes13 1 year ago
@simdes13 We do not belong to a congregation.
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
Are you ready for the answer? As we both know Hebrew and English can't be compared to be alike to to answer your question is, Fish, singular and Fish plural in english. KJV uses Fishes as plural don't it? God only uses the English for the english speaking people. To compare the two is confusion and God is not the author of that. You don't need Hebrew and Greek, Just English..Pray!!!! See ya soon friend :n) Gen 1:1 was the beginning, only 1 heaven not 3, Isa 14 lucifer cast down/ heavenS
preachernt 1 year ago
@preachernt Your argument makes no sense. The Scripture came to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. EVERYTHING else is a translation of it. Best understanding is ALWAYS in the original document, if one can read it there. That is pure and simple linguistics.
masterkeep 1 year ago
Comment removed
preachernt 1 year ago
If Adam had one son in Genesis 4:1, shouldn't he, by your logic, also have one son in Genesis 5:4 (obviously an "event" between Genesis 4:1 and 5:4 created a grammatical necessity for the plural form, ergo the difference in persons)?
Also, bbbfohio's videos are about what non-Greek but English speaking people see; and reading text is a far cry from tracing text. God gave us an English Bible to read, not to demonstrate our skills at backtracing to Greek which is not English!
tuin103 1 year ago
@tuin103 You need to read English better; the video point out the Old Testament was in Hebrew not Greek. Also, the video points out that a plural word was being translated with a singular in one place and a plural in another. There is a lack of consistency in the translation. That is the type of mistranslation that many KJB onliers apply to the other translations and the KJV is guilty of it.
masterkeep 1 year ago
There are 3 "Heavens" in a KJB. Why would God want The Heaven to be plural in Gen.1:1? God was in the 3rd. He created the first IN the 2nd. Come on, you're gonna have to do better than that. You are dealing with BIBLE READERS. You're reading HEBREW, and can't even explain Vs. 1 in Gen.
jalsante75 1 year ago
@jalsante75 Your reading in English and can't understand that to translate the SAME word, which is properly plural, as singular in one place and plural in another place is mistranslation. The Scriptures came to us originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. Any English bible is just a translation and inferior as far as proper meaning being within it.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep...Wrong. You assume that because someone comes on youtube here, and spouts something that sounds good, it must be right. I know that there are 3 Heavens, because the Apostle Paul said so...IN ENGLISH! (2 Cor.12:2) I don't read Hebrew, I read english. Thank God that He Preserved The Words He wanted me to have in a language I can read! People always try to get around a King James Bible. This is a Reprobates argument! If you are unable to comply w/ the English, how then Hebrew?
jalsante75 1 year ago
@jalsante75 I am not wrong! I read Hebrew and ancienthebreworg is correct here. Even if you don't read Hebrew you can verify what he said. @ e-sword .net you can download free software. Included is the KJV with Strong's numbers attached. If you download the HOT+ [Hebrew w/strongs] you can split screen and compare, proving what was said. There are things that you have to pay for on the site but a lot is still free. A superb resource.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@xxxsandsnowxxx You are implying that God has preserved his word in the KJV and the KJV only. Also, you are implying from Mark 13:10 that the KJV is the fulfillment of this passage. Therefore, you are claiming that the only way for mark 13:10 to be fulfilled is if everyone learn English to read the KJV in order to hear the true Gospel. Is that any different than me saying one should learn Hebrew?
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
@ancienthebreworg...Yep, your comments here about cover it. God gave English speaking people an English Bible, known as the King James Bible. If you look very far, you will find that God did the same for other people whom speek different languages, by preserving His Words in their language, as well. Not only did HE, God, do it for them, but He even used the same Manuscripts to do it. He didn't use the garbage out of Alexandria, or Rome...Now thats interesting! Eccl. 8:4 is WHY the KJB is KING!
jalsante75 1 year ago
@jalsante75 You KJV onlyists should get on the same page. You are claiming that god preserved his word for English speakers in the KJV and in different languages fro different cultures. However, most KJV onlyists have told me that "ONLY" the KJV is perfect and everyone needs to learn English if the want to read the perfect word of God.
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
@ancienthebreworg You're such a liar. Do you ever tell the truth?
"Most" of the KJV onlyists you will EVER read and most that I have ever seen reply to you have said the same thing that jalsante75 said and I have said.
You give evidence of being reprobate and unable to discuss these issues honestly.
bbbfohio 1 year ago
@bbbfohio Ancienthebreworg presents a true argument. Aside from an accidental reference to Genesis 1:2 when he meant Genesis 2:1 what he presents is accurate. I have run across others of the KJV onlyists crowd and pointed out that those within propose what the translators of the KJV would deny, that the KJV is the only perfect English translation. The idea is preposterous in the extreme. First, which KJV? There were 5 major versions [1611 & 4 revisions]. Look @ my other post here.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep LOL, the myth of (4)?5 major (versions?/revisions) are plainly explained--spelling, since there was not standardize English dictionary in1611, type-setting was painstakingly ardent task using the German gothic print made it difficult to read, so it was re-printed and mispellings amended. The first work was done by 2 KJV 1611 Bois and Dr. Ward, both original 1611 translators. Translators did not do the printing. Future editing consisted of much of the same; spelling, printer mis-types
locustweed 10 months ago
@locustweed You can read the wording changes and they are not "just proofreading corrections." There are drastic changes to the language as well as other changes to the text. These are easily findable by google.
masterkeep 9 months ago
Why didn't you list a few of the DRASTIC CHANGES?? I have a copy of those 'changes' which the vast majority are printer's typesetting mistakes or mis-spelling updates, and NOT the translators manipulating any text. Even with our computer typeset programs today I constantly find 'errors' in magazines, newspapers, novels ect. When those are found they are usually fixed. KJV is as 'silver tried in a furnace of earth". Psm 12:6-7 google your own doubts--I have the WORDS OF GOD!
locustweed 9 months ago
@jalsante75 whats so good of the King James version
carloswater7 1 year ago
@carloswater7 Jalsante75 wouldn't know what to tell you. He will claim it is the perfectly preserved word of God without any errors. He would never admit that all translations have error. He tries to put the KJV above the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. The error shown here is but one of many in the KJV. Even still it is a good translation for study if you can deal with the archaic language and the literal reversals in the language usage.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep u are Right i saw some of the videos showing the errors of the king James. and some jewish website say is not a translation According to the Hebrew and Other Website show in NT it has verses added .and is not written according to the Early Greek Manuscripts it is all mess up
carloswater7 1 year ago
@carloswater7 To be fair the translators did a decent job with the text they were given. There are words that should have been translated instead of transliterated, but I believe some of that was out of fear of the king & others in power in the "church". There is another Hebrew tradition than the masoretic and that is witnessed to by the septuagint. This is used sometimes in the OT where it was hard to understand. Definitely not a perfect translation, but one useful for study nonetheless.
masterkeep 1 year ago
@masterkeep in a way i think you are Right
carloswater7 1 year ago
@jalsante75 At this point in time there have been a great many more translations from the "Alexandrian" texts than from the TR for the various languages of the world. There are still more languages awaiting translation than all that have come from the TR combined. Ecclesiastes 8:4 has nothing to do with the KJV and everything to do with discretion. You need to correctly exegete scripture.
masterkeep 1 year ago
Hey Jeff, did bbbfohio ever give an answer?
MrSuperchicken1 1 year ago
@MrSuperchicken1 I believe he did, but he was simply using his own logic to justify the different translations of שמים (shamayim) in the KJV because in his mind it cannot be wrong.
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
which hebrew? all the dictionaries differ from ea other
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII What do you mean "all the dictionaries differ from each other?" Can you give me an example?
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
ancienthebreworg, I'm curious as to whether you prefer any other modern English translation over the King James Version?
baqashchokmahelel 1 year ago
@baqashchokmahelel Personally, I have a problem with all modern English translations. The reason being is that the original text is written from an Eastern perspective and all modern translations translate it into a Western perspective.
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
ancienthebreworg, I can understand what you're saying, but what is the solution then? And even moreso than eastern vrs western perspectives, the fact that Genesis was orginally written in pre-babylonian hebrew. Ancient perspective compared to modern perspective and writing system. What the dead sea scroll scribes copied was a later system than the original.
baqashchokmahelel 1 year ago
@baqashchokmahelel The solution is simple, learn to read the Bible from an Hebraic rather than Greek/Roman perspective. Yea, it takes a little time and effort, but isn't it worth it? The script used to write the Bible is irrelevent, it is the meaning behind the words, not how they are written that is important.
ancienthebreworg 1 year ago
Good work. An even more crystallized example of how capricious AV1611 is is how reem (sing.) is translated as unicorns (pl.) @ Deut. 33.17, and in Isaiah 34.7 the plural form of reem is unicorns (pl). The real significance of this is that Deut. 33.17 clearly shows the Reem (sing) has horns (pl) and cannot be a single-horned creature, but is a kind of bollock, further witnessed by their contexts/parallelisms.
But perhaps the best example of arbitrary translations is how "hell" is used in KJV.
AllOtherNamesUsed 1 year ago
@AllOtherNamesUse...You don't like Hell? WHO WOULD"VE THOUGHT. Most people don't. Thats why the NKJV revisors removed the word Hell Every chance they got! And one more thing, When you try to go "AROUND" God 's Book, by going to another language to try to find some way around your own language, which may contain some things you don't like, YOU ARE BEING DISOBEDIENT TO GOD!!!!!!!!!! Get it in English! Then you won't need hebrew.
jalsante75 1 year ago
@jalsante75 This has nothing to do with "like"-- understand that first, then understand that "hell" was mistranslated from 4 different terms (sheol, hades, Gehenna, tartarus). Deal with it, it's a fact, and your idolatry of a mistranslated book blasphemes the pure doctrine from Yeshua - that amounts to changing the word of God and you ought to repent if you had any sense. You people are more dangerous to the body of Christ than Atheists quite frankly.
AllOtherNamesUsed 1 year ago
this hebrew/greek is such hogwash. the heb/greek dictionaries don't agree w/ one another. how do you know your is right? the kittel's hebrew dictionary was compiled by convicted nazi war criminals. you gonna believe what they tell you about the jews? but many of the modern perversions use it. just admit you don't believe God can give His word to the english speakers
filoIII 1 year ago
The self-evident logic in this video is something the KJV only cult people will simply gloss over. Facts don't matter to those with a fetish or blind faith. They start with their "axiom" and everything must be forced into it. A video like the one above won't convert them but will possibly keep others from following under the KJV only bewitchment.
DrStevenz 1 year ago
great vid.
btw do you know of have the Jay green Greek Hebrew-english bible?? if so do you think its well done or poor ??
just like to know as you seem to know Greek Hebrew well at less Hebew
CIRELUX 2 years ago
Thanks
The Green interlinear is pretty good, especially if you are learning Hebrew. However, the translation is still coming from a western perspective and like all other English translations it ignores the original Hebraic thought. The only other drawback to this Bible is that the print is very small and hard to read.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
I think all so that Jay Green is some kind of a KJVO. thats if I am thinking about the same Jay Green. I think he has allso the KJV3 or something like that. thanksfor getting back to me on interlinear :)
bte do you know of the NET bible and whats your take on it and its foot notes
CIRELUX 2 years ago
Yes, I have seen the NET and it looks pretty good as well as their copius amounts of footnotes.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
What program(s) do you use to display the text?
RaahMJ 2 years ago
I use:
Powerpoint
Wondershare-PP to Video
Windows Movie Maker
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
I used to hold to the KJV Only argument. What broke me from that mindset was looking at the other side of the argument, and found that the KJV-Only argument had a FATAL flaw...the position holds the KJV as the standard, not the manuscripts from which the KJV came about. The most important thing is not Bible translations (to a point...I don't regard the Joseph Smith KJV or the New Word Translation as legit), but preaching Christ and Him crucified.
rodwyr 2 years ago
true in a way but the Alexandrian and Egyptian(Ethiopian) manuscripts are CORRUPTED. The Antiochan (textus receptus) is not and that is where we get our King James today (1611).
trancemajestic 2 years ago
But, on the flip side, it does not necessitate a better translation. Either text used still has to be translated. A more inerrant text used does not necessarily indicate a more inerrant translation. But, in any sense, I am not one to divide over this topic while there are still people needing to know Christ. To me, lost souls are far more important than Bible translations.
rodwyr 2 years ago
Isaiah
jarcar101 2 years ago
yeah but what about Iraiah 14:12?? thats pretty alarming
jarcar101 2 years ago
Very true, the KJV uses the word Lucifer, a Latin word from the Latin Vulgate. What in the world is a Latin word doing in a Hebrew text? A very clear piece of evidence showing that the KJV translators used the Vulgate for its translation.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Lol... "In the Hebrew Text".... and which Hebrew text would that be? Yeah. Keep on trying to fool people.
RyuXHalo 2 years ago
I am not sure which post this in response to, but most of us use the Masoretic Hebrew text (1000 years old) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000 years old). What many do not realize is that KJV only had the Masoretic Hebrew text to use for its translation, but now we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are much older and found only 60 years ago. Because of this, the KJV is at a big disadvantage.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
what KJV do you use?
what was the 1st bible authorized by King?
CRJarvis 2 years ago
I personally do not use the KJV very much, except on occasion to see how they interpreted the text.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
i ment to send that reply to RyuXHalo.
CRJarvis 2 years ago
Ah, okay :-)
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Five stars!
mandemonic63 2 years ago
Thank you for being kind, considerate, factual, and non-emotional in this video.
It is refreshing to see/hear someone share the truth about this issue in love, with a factual logical presentation.
This video is one more testimony against the KJVonly people and their divisions they cause.
Romans 16-17--Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them
mandemonic63 2 years ago
READ THE KING JAMES VERSION. It's THE ONLY ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE. YOU DON'T KNOW JACK!!!
ShakespeareHamlet 2 years ago
this is typical King James onlyist rhetoric. All capitals to signify yelling and following it up with an insult. I see this time and time again from this seemingly angry group.who
Death4Note 2 years ago
Way to ask a question in love. It always grieves me when I see see saints react harshly against their brothers and sisters, just because they disagree with their position.
preachinshawn 2 years ago
My post does come off more harshly than I intended. I would have done better to leave the first two sentences off. I accept your correction and apologize to brianbmf.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
Very well and politely put. Thank you for your vid.
-D-
DarkShadowM99 2 years ago
Haha, I just posted this exact same argument on bbbfohio's comments, and then I saw this which was done much better than I could have done. Good job
AGuyFromMississippi 2 years ago
no bbbfohio is right, you idiot.
trancemajestic 2 years ago
Why must you insist on calling people idiots? If I could call you up, meet you for some tea and bagels, and talk with you, I am pretty sure I could convince you that I am a lot of things, but an idiot is not one of them. I may disagree with your belief on the KJV, I may be a Catholic, there are probably many things about me you would disdain. However, I promise you three things 1.) I am a Christian, 2.) I am a bit more polite than you, it seems, and 3.) I am definitely not an idiot.
AGuyFromMississippi 2 years ago 2
AGuyFromMississippi Hello Brother. You are right. We never can wait kind words from KJV only Cultist. They brake God Laws by them self all the time, and same time they are super holy. Mathew 5.21-22 says that very cleary, that we do not call each another tha tkind of names. You are right Brother about them. God Bless
huuhka5678 2 years ago
And by the way, do you praise Jesus with that mouth?
AGuyFromMississippi 2 years ago 2
Well put. Good job for showing patience.
preachinshawn 2 years ago
@ trancemajestic
this is un-Christlike hate speech. Do you get this from reading the King James translation. Where does it say the King James version, "anyone who reads anything but the King James is an idiot and should be called idiots???"
Death4Note 2 years ago
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Singular is correct. No seperation...Yet)
Genesis 1:7-8
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(This would make the seperation from 1 to >1. From here on it would be incorrect to use heaven, unless specific.)
jls201 2 years ago
I think you are missing the point. In the Hebrew it is "ALWAYS" in the plural, therefore, to be consistent, the English should also be in the plural.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
jls201 2 years ago
....I do however disagree on what the first Heaven refers too. BBB said i refers to Space and that Heaven (where God sits enthroned) was not created.
I believe that the first Heaven is the Heaven where God resides, and that later we see the creation of the lesser heavens, that is space and the sky. I also believe that during the creation of Heaven this was likely when the angels were created.
So the same word can be 2 words because the plural can be used for emphasis.
Thanks for the vid
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
This comment is derived from what I have heard about the Suffix "IM" used in the name Elohim.
Elohim means Gods, however our Bible renders it God in English. This is because the plural IM is added to represent Importance like the Royal use of WE when the queen refers to herself. However, elohim when refering to false gods is rendered gods.
Here the same word Elohim is rendered both God and gods in almost all Bibles.
This to me suggests that the use of Heaven vs heavens is emphasis......
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
Actually, it is not as simple as that, but you have to know some Hebrew grammar to understand the concept. Let my try and explain this with a common phrase in the Hebrew Bible - yomer elohim. The word yomer is the verb amar meaning "to say" but has the "yo" prefix meaning "he" and is the subject of the verb.
Cont...
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
So, yomer means "he said." Also, the subject of the verb follows the verb and that is the word elohim. Notice that the verb identifies the subject as a singular (he) and therefore elohim must be understood grammatically as a singular. This is why Elohim is translated as "god" and not "gods."
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Great video, Jeff. As usual... Keep em' coming bro!
Uzzielaa 2 years ago
Thanks Uzzi and I will :-)
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
No, I'm not, but I sure wish I was. It would make for studying the NT and the LXX so much easier :-)
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. A translation should be consistent with the Hebrew language, not someone's "interpretation." The Hebrew word is always written as shamayim (plural), ALWAYS! When this word is translated as "heavens" in one place and "heaven" in another, it is not being true to the original Hebrew text and is giving an intentional false interpretation that is not in the original text.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Beacause we are one both heaven and heavens are right.
neoseyes 2 years ago
this video is brilliant - all the sophistry of KJVonly destroyed in minutes.
4096x 2 years ago
so in genesis it is "in the beginning Elohim filled the heavens and the earth"? not heaven correct?
32933ad 2 years ago
Personally, I don't like to use the word "heaven/s" as this sometimes has a religious connotation to it referring to "heaven" (as opposed to hell). The literalness behind the Hebrew is "sky." The point of this video is that the word is always written in Hebrew as a plural, therefore you can translate it as sky or skies, but I believe that one should be consistent, either translate it as sky/heaven or skies/heavens, but always one or the other.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
The KJV bible is a direct translation cut and dry,the rest of the versions have words switched around and some verses are not even ther.
brianbmf 2 years ago
Um... did you watch this video. Clearly the KJV is not a direct translation. For that matter, a degree of interpretation is necessary when translating ANY text-- even if the translation philosophy aims for formal eqivalence (aka. word for word). For instance, does the KJV say that Jacob's nose burned in Rachel in Gen. 30.2? That's what the Hebrew says. It's an idiom for becoming angry that does not carry over to English. So, KJV is not "direct" or "cut and dry."
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
total pwnage.
quickpost12345 2 years ago
The reason the correct translation is HEAVEN for Gen.1:1 is because the firament had not yet been created. (Gen.1:7) and that is now considered a 'heaven'
So, the KJB translators had it correct. In Gen.1:1 there is only one heaven, but in Gen.2:1 there are now HEAVENS.
That is why we are told there are 3 heavens (2Cor.12:2)
edwardpf123 2 years ago
edwardpf123, that is a great analysis from your perspective, however, the Hebrew text is in conflict with your interpretation. To put it simply, in Hebrew there is no singular form, it is always shamayim (plural).
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Thank you, but the singular is used by the TANAKH as well for Gen.1:1. And the plural for 'God's' (Elohim) is translated in the singular as well.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
edward, the plural form is שמים (shamayim), can you please give me the singular form in Hebrew?
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
And why would that be necessary, Elohim is plural and is translated as a singular as well.
Did the TANAKH get it wrong also, they translated it 'heaven' as well. Also,
the Geneva, Bishops Coverdale, Wyclif, Douay-Rheims, KJ2000, KJ21 all have 'heaven' not 'heavens' for Gen.1:1
So, once again why are blowing smoke?
The word can be translated in the singular even though it has a plural ending, just like Elohim.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward, I think you are looking at Hebrew as though it were equivelent to English. You can't do this, they are two completely different languages and Hebrew works very differently than English. The word Elohiym is plural, period. It is "NOT" a singular word. However, this "PLURL" word is used as a name such as we see in Genesis 1:1. Also, Adonai is a plural, it means "my lords" and Shaddai is plural, it means "my breasts." But all three of these plural words are used as names for YHWH.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
1. the English is the equivelent to the Hebrew if it is translated correctly. You are asserting what you need to prove, that it isn't.
2.The word Elohim is plural and it is translated as a singular in Gen.1:1 and plural elsewhere.(Gen.3:5)
Now why does one have to be consistent if the context changes.
When you read Gen.1:1 in Hebrew do you read 'Gods' or 'God' ?
Conext determines how a word is going to be translated and understood.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward: When I see the Hebrew word אלהים I read it as elohiym, not God or Gods. I recognize this Hebrew word for what it is, a plural word being used as a name. To translate אלהים as God or Gods is in itself inferior as these English words do not even come close to conveying the meaning of the Hebrew.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
What you recognize the word as is not important, it is how you translate it in your own mind. So, stop blowing smoke. You translate the plural into the singular and don't think Hebrew, you think in English,
And you are thinking of a singular entity, that is known as God.
Save me the nonsense about not getting the REAL meaning of the Hebrew.
You are just deceiving yourself.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
edward, do you realize what you are saying? You are assuming that anyone who reads in Hebrew is thinking in English? That is ridiculous, when I read in Hebrew I think in Hebrew, when I read in English I think in English.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Exactly. Anybody who speaks more than one language knows the difficulty in translation. Every language you speak requires a different thought pattern. Unless you speak more than one language one will never know these difficulties.
nitroazn5point0 2 years ago
No one is denying the difficulty in translating from language to another, the fact is it takes great skill in both languages. Skill that men such as Tyndale, the Geneva and KJB translators had.
There is a big difference between saying translation is difficult to saying it is impossible.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I hope you're not making a point in saying that I said it was impossible. Translation is never impossible as long as we earthlings are speaking a language originating from Earth. On the other hand, those men that you spoke of had Trinitarian biases thus altering parts of the English translation of the NT. With regards to a bible translated in Chinese or Russian I wouldn't know. Men needing to translate into those languages would also have great skill.
nitroazn5point0 2 years ago
No, it is 'ancienthebrew' who is saying that an accurate translation is impossible.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward, Here is one example. English verbs have three tenses, past, present and future and these tenses are related to time. Biblical Hebrew only has two tenses, perfect and imperfect and they are related to action, not time. These two sytles of tenses (time vs. action) are very different from each other and unless you know Biblical Hebrew you cannot understand these verb tenses and they cannot be translated into English properly as English does not have tenses related to action.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Yes, they can be translated into English, so stop talking nonsense. No less then the Greek can which also deals with tense differently then the English.
Just because it is difficult doesn't mean it cannot be done.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Really Edward? Than would you please translate אהבתי אשתי accurately into English?
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Really what?am I not correct that 'et' is just a sign for the accusative case or not
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward, if you believe that Hebrew can be perfectly translated into English please translate אהבתי אשתי perfectly into English please.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
No, the word את (et) identifies the definite object of a verb, but, it is also the feminine second person pronoun (you), and also a noun meaning plowshare and it can also be a preposition meaning "with."
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Yes and the context will tell a translator that and they will translate it as such. It is when it is just being used as direct object marker that it is not being translated, since the direct object is noted in other ways.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Btw, becasue of the word את in Genesis 1:1, this can also be translated as "in the beginning Elohim created "with" the sky and "with" the land. That is a very accurate translation and does help to convey the Hebrew meaning of Genesis chapter one.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
How does that make the translation any more accurate? God didn't create 'with' the sky or 'with' the land, He created them both.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Actually, the word "create" comes from the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew has ברא which literally means "fattened" or "filled" (see my video series on Genesis 1 verse 1). According to the Hebrew God did not "create" the heavens and the earth, he filled them up.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Oh cut it out! The Hebrew word 'bara' means create in any Hebrew Lexicon!
God created something out of nothing.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
No, I am not assuming any such thing. But the fact is that when you read Hebrew you still have to think in concepts and those same concepts were translated exactly into English. Moreover, the Biblical Hebrew isn't the same even as the today's spoken Hebrew, just like todays Greek isn' the same as Biblical Greek.
So, don't tell me that reading the Hebrew gives you some special insight , it doesn't.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward, see my comments below about verb tenses, this is one example where Hebrew cannot be translated into English. Another example is the word "et" (which is found in Genesis 1:1 and about 7,000 other places in the Hebrew Bible) but is "NEVER" translated into English because it can't be.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
So what! That is no different then articles not being translated in the Greek. The 'et' just points out the object of the sentence.
There is no special need for them except in knowing where the objects are and that is fufilled in the English by word order.
Save the nonsense about the need for reading the 'originals' you are not any closer to understanding the text then someone who reads the perfect English of the KJB.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward, what about times when the word "et" is used but grammatically it shouldn't be? Why is that "et" there? I believe it is there for a special purpose, but then in the English you would never even know that it was in the text in the first place. Or what about times when grammatically it should be there but it isn't.
The "perfect" English? Really? Do you think the KJV is better than the Hebrew Masoretic text the KJV is based on?
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
The 'et' is there to show the direct object. There are other ways in other languages to do so.
If there is a need for it to be there grammatically, the translation will show it.
The KJB is the perfect translation of the MT.
So, there is nothing you read in Hebrew that can't be understood just as well in English. And you have yet to prove otherwise.
Also, I could barely read the Hebrew you put up. It looked like it was saying 'I love my wife. (ahab isha)
edwardpf123 2 years ago
You are very close with your translation, but the problem is the tense you are using. You used the English preent tense, but in Hebrew it is the perfect tense - completed action. My point is that you cannot translate the perfect tense into English accurately. Translators usually use the English past tense for the perfect tense, but then it would be translated as "I loved my wife" which in English would imply she is dead or your divorced. Btw, אשתי is literally "my woman" not "my wife."
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Now, I am not a translator, so I am sure someone who knows both languages very well, could have correctly translated the tense.
'isha' is translated as wife in Gen.2:28, even in the Tanakh.
Shalom.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Exactly edward and this is dunklaws and my point. Only one familiar with Hebrew can understand the uniqueness of Hebrew and its difficulty in translating it into English.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
And one who is an expert in both languages can make an exact translation into the English as the KJ translators did. I didn't say it was easy, just doable and done.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
No, even if one is fluent in Hebrew and English he cannot do a "perfect" translation from Hebrew to English. Instead, he reads the Hebrew and understands it from an Hebraic perspective and ignored English.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
Well that is your opinion, but it is so far only an assertion.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
And when Elohim is used in Gen.31:30 how do you view it then, as the name of God? Context tells you how to view the word. And English has no problem at all conveying the true meaning of those Hebrew words.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward, the word elohim can be used as a noun meaning powers (such as in Gen 30:8 or Gen 31:30). Or it can be used as a name such as in Gen 1:1. The same can be true with any word/name. For instance, the word אשר (asher) can be the relative pronoun meaning which or who, a verb meaning to go straight, a noun meaning happy or it can be the name Asher.
ancienthebreworg 2 years ago
That is correct the CONTEXT will tell you how it will be read, and that is the crucial aspect in any translation, not the particular word. So, having knowledge of Hebrew doesn't give you any insight into anything. The English translated it exactly how it needed to be understood based on the context.