The Septuagint's απλαστος (without deceit) can legitimately express a Hebrew Vorlage reading תם (complete, perfect), and the KJV's 'plain' is an acceptable rendition. 'Plain' - without excess, being bare, without blemish.
Samuel Johnson's 1768 dictionary gives the meaning 'not obscure' as a meaning for 'plain', and so I don't think 'plain' as a translation for תם is bad, given its meaning in the 18th century.
So you're saying that the KJV is wrong because instead of using the word "it" the KJV uses "his". But every other translation uses "it" and not "her". So you suggest that every translation of the Bible is incorrect ? You cannot apply a gender role to an inanimate object; although it has a feminine characteristic in the word it's self. By making this statement you are not only attacking Jesus, but you are attacking the Father by calling Him a liar. You are the one that has been deceived by the e
To BURNINGRIOT ; You don't see what the problem is? The LXX is NOT OLDER than the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic differences are the addition of vowels, but there is absolutely NO CHANGE to the original Text.
@Robbi165 The LXX in some places preserves an older tradition than the Masoretic text. A case in point is Deuteronomy 32:8 in which the MT reads "sons of Israel" (בני ישראל), but the LXX has ἀγγέλων θεοῦ ("angels of God"; others mss have υιων θεου ("sons of God")). The Septuagint readings point to a Hebrew Vorlage of בני אלהים -- a reading which is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDt_j, 4QDt_q), which are older manuscripts.
I don't see what the problem is. The septuagint is older than the masoretic text, so the KJV translation would make sense to me. The Jews who came up with the Masoretic cannon rejected Jesus, and the Septuagint was around before the birth of Jesus.
@BURNINGRIOT The Septuagint is still a translation and therefore unable to convey the nuances of the original language. As for the Jews, you wouldn't even have a Bible if it wasn't for them as they are the ones who meticulously copied over the centuries to preserve it for you.
@MasoreticVsKJV Are you sure about that, regarding your statement of the Septuagint? It was 70 Jews who translated it; and thank God they are a meticulous people for the reason you mentioned and beyond. Since the Septuagint was made to service Greek speaking Jews, what makes you think they weren't meticulous enough to translate the precise meaning from Hebrew into Greek? In serving their brethren, I'm sure they did preserve the precise meanings.
Imagine a scenery. Quite, serene, undisturbed, clean, pure, calm, peaceful, uncorrupt, perfect as it is, whole as it is.
I would than apply that nature to a person.
As for Jacob, it is the opposite character of Esau. Esau is outgoing, man of the field and of the wild, loud, rough and tough etc while Jacob is placid, quite, calm, peaceful staying in tents.
As for Job, it is about his nature towards God. Pure,whole or complete.
@tudungsenduk I can see your thinking here, but this is the very problem that I have with most of today's modern translations. When you focus more on the context than the vocabulary and grammar of a passage, you open the door to adding your own influence, bias and perspectives onto the text. Personally, I think this type of translating is all to common and we completely missed the message.
I agree with you. Every translation must follow the vocab and grammar. However the choice of words must also be in context or the context itself may be lost. Thus, lost in translation.
@MasoreticVsKJV You may "interpret" the word one way, while another person may "interpret" it a different way. That is why I am convinced a Mechanical Translation is essential where each word is "always" translated the same way, this way, the reader knows that the same word is found in both passages and he can interpret it for himself, rather than having a translator do it for him.
@dunklaw I believe this is an interpretation on the part of the LXX, but this video is focuses on the kjv onlyist view, which is that the kjv is a perfect translation of the Masoretic text, which we can see here it is not, it is partially a translation of the LXX.
@dunklaw Very simple. They believe that God preserved his word perfectly, first in the MT and then in the kjv. If they admit that the kjv translators used the MT, LXX and Vulgate, then they admit that the kjv translators used Textual Criticism, a method condemned by the kjv onlyists because it does not support the perfect preservation of the word.
You might also be interested in knowing that at the time of the KJV, Jews were not allowed to live in England. They had been expelled in the thirteenth century and would not be allowed back until Cromwell's protectorate about a half century after the KJV. Thus a non-Christian translation of the MT into English was nonexistent and the chance for interaction with Jewish scholars very limited. Not the KJV translators fault, of course, but still a limitation on possible renderings.
I did a little checking and found out something interesting. The group that made up the First Westminster Company of translators for the KJV (they translated the Torah as well as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, were not primarily Hebrew scholars. Not ignorant of Hebrew but not the greatest either. Lancelot Andrewes, the director, was as interested in their theology as their expertise. A few were, however, Greek scholars and this may explain the LXX influence.
@labarum312 I have often suspected that the reason the kjv frequently follows the septuagint is that they were much more familiar with the Greek than the Hebrew. Even native Israelis who are fluent in Hebrew have difficulty with some of the passages in the Bible and Hebrew is their first language. Could you share with me your source for this?
@MasoreticVsKJV Adam Nicholson's "God's Secretaries." It is a history of how the KJV came to be. It is very much appreciative of the KJV but makes clear the influences and poltical battles influencing the translation. Those who think an English translation of the Bible a generation removed from the Spanish Armada and only a few years after the Gunpowder Plot could be free of political intrigue are dreaming.
@MasoreticVsKJV Individuals who engage in cult-like thinking will rarely admit error as it regards the object they adore. Having lived with two of them for a couple of decades I can attest to this.
But "perfect" doesn't describe Jacob! Jacob was the liar, deceiver and supplanter! Who God gave a new name! So some times translations that fit an understanding of the context are better. Tamam(perfect) would be just the opposite of what Jacob was.(at that time) The Hebrews would be more motivated to make an inaccurate translation. To make their Patriarch, naturally perfect! And Tamam has many other meanings then "perfect". Like "fail", "have an end", "be wasted", to name a few.
@Howie47 The idea that Jacob was liar, deceiver and supplanter is Christian myth and not supported by the text. Amazing how Christians can view Jacob in this way and almost see Esau as the victim, totally incredible. As the Bible says, they will say Good is bad and bad is good.
@MasoreticVsKJV So Jacob didn't first pull on Esau's heal, trying to get out first? So he could be the first born! The name Jacob didn't mean supplanter? He didn't deceive his own father, (honor your father and mother), lie to his brother. To steal Esau's birth right? Later Jacob has to wrestle an angel to get a blessing, and ended up a cripple for the rest of his life. But God changed his name from deceiver, to "one who fights with God". Israel has been doing that every since!
@Howie47 What is wrong with grabbing onto a heel? I really don't think that Jacob was conscious of this act and was trying to thwart his brother, but if you do, more power to you. The name Jacob does not mean supplanter in any way shape or form, it means 'he grabs the heel. He didn't deceive his father, if you read the text carefully, his mother did. He did not lie to his brother and he didn't steal it, Esau gave it away. Does the text say the wrestling was a bad thing? Continued...
@Howie47 Continued... Also keep in mind, if it wasn't for the Jews you would never have had your Bible. Christianity owes its existence to Jacob and his 12 sons. As John wrote, salvation is of the Jews.
@MasoreticVsKJV "What we have here, is a failure to communicate"! Oh, and that is what the Bible is all about. God's communication with man! Yes, God used the Jews (regardless of their failures, and sins) to communicate to man. Some of which is written in the Old Testament. Now He uses His Saints and Prophets of of all nations. Who come to Him through His sacrifice on the cross! And have been enlightened about not glorying in sinful flesh.
@MasoreticVsKJV If the descendants of Israel want God to honor the covenant He had with them. Now they must first acknowledge Jesus Christ as the messiah. Then they must be washed clean from all the influences of the secular (unbelieving world). Lastly they must accept what ever new land or borders Christ agrees too. Much has changed since the first agreement. Other nations can also make covenants with the Lord. Which He will also honor. He is the final arbitrator & has the last word!
Christianity also owed its existence to the Jewish scribes have faithfully copies the Tenach down the centuries. In fact on the KJV-only view the Christians haven''t had a "perfect" translation until 1611 whereas the Jews have had the Hebrew text from the beginning and still possess it to this day.
What's amazing, is how Jews for thousands of years have misinterpreted the scriptures. In a light that glorifies them! As the Bible says. "There are none so blind. as those who will not see"!
The funny thing here is that Edward believes the LXX is a satanic old testament created by Origen in the third century A.D. Of course, that is complete lunacy but that is what he apparently believes. it is a common claim among the Ruckmanite wing of KJV Onlyism.
@MasoreticVsKJV I know what the point of the video is. What I'm saying is that the word plain could be used for 'tam/tham' the definitions I gave for plain could be used for synonoms for 'tam-tham'. read my comment again and look at 0:35 on the video. Plain could mean whole, mature or complete.
@bighen88 - The KJV translation of Genesis 25:27 reflects the Greek Septuagint (LXX), not the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). That's the message in this video.
@HeroOfChristArchives I know what the point of the video is. What I'm saying is that the word plain could be used for 'tam/tham' the definitions I gave for plain could be used for synonoms for 'tam-tham'. read my comment again and look at 0:35 on the video. Plain could mean whole, mature or complete.
@MasoreticVsKJV Are you talking about chalal/chol? If you are that means outside of the temple, ordinary, or not separated. The KJV used plain not common. The point of this verse is to compare Jacob to Esau. It is not natural for a man to be outside all of the time(a man of the field) even though men did hunt back in those days. Esau was a cunning hunter. He knew hunting like a wild animal. If I wanted to translate 'yadi tazayad/yada tsayid' I could put knows food depending on context.
@MasoreticVsKJV But that is from your book and you're focusing on one definition(one of the definitions I gave) If you are that means outside of the temple, ORDINARY, or not separated.
Could the word hhol/chalal/chol be used for something else?
@Mechanized0 In most cases the Masoretic has proven to be more reliable than the LXX, however, there are times where the reading of the LXX is more accurate. The best way is to compare all the ancient manuscripts, LXX, Masoretic, DSS, Targums, Samaritan Pentetuch, Syrian Peshitta, etc.
@Mechanized0 Yes, I do, but not so much in these videos because the purpose of these videos is different. The KJV onlyists state that the kjv is a perfect translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text and all I am doing here is pointing out that in this verse, they do not. The kjv onlyists reject the idea of Textual Criticism, the process I am describing above, therefore it would be pointless to do this here.
@MasoreticVsKJV I find it so blatantly ignorant that the very translators the KJVO hold up as inerrant and inspired, conducted textual criticism themselves, yet the KJVO folks think textual criticism is of the Devil. By the way, is Edward still going back and forth with you? He blocked me a long time ago, suprised he hasnt blocked you yet. Keep on as long as you can.
@MrSuperchicken1 Yes, I agree, very ignorant. No, he hasn't blocked me yet, so far he is continuing to dialogue. We'll see what happens. But, if I ever do get blocked, I will mention it in a video to show that they are not interested in evidences, just their doctrine. I did this once before and it worked, I was unblocked.
@MasoreticVsKJV - Jeff, the real mystery here is, WHAT Hebrew word were the LXX translators reading in their exemplar? The Greek word απλαστος occurs only here in the Septuagint. It would be interesting to learn if the LXX translator(s) misread their Hebrew exemplar.
I have the original manuscripts.
They read 'perfect'
' Answer a fool according to his folly', etc, etc...
bloodyswordisa63 2 weeks ago
Keep them coming Jeff. This KJV needs to be exposed for what it is; words of biased men.
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
The Septuagint's απλαστος (without deceit) can legitimately express a Hebrew Vorlage reading תם (complete, perfect), and the KJV's 'plain' is an acceptable rendition. 'Plain' - without excess, being bare, without blemish.
Samuel Johnson's 1768 dictionary gives the meaning 'not obscure' as a meaning for 'plain', and so I don't think 'plain' as a translation for תם is bad, given its meaning in the 18th century.
awhooker 4 months ago
So you're saying that the KJV is wrong because instead of using the word "it" the KJV uses "his". But every other translation uses "it" and not "her". So you suggest that every translation of the Bible is incorrect ? You cannot apply a gender role to an inanimate object; although it has a feminine characteristic in the word it's self. By making this statement you are not only attacking Jesus, but you are attacking the Father by calling Him a liar. You are the one that has been deceived by the e
sikmiz777 4 months ago
To BURNINGRIOT ; You don't see what the problem is? The LXX is NOT OLDER than the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic differences are the addition of vowels, but there is absolutely NO CHANGE to the original Text.
Robbi165 5 months ago
Comment removed
awhooker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Robbi165 The LXX in some places preserves an older tradition than the Masoretic text. A case in point is Deuteronomy 32:8 in which the MT reads "sons of Israel" (בני ישראל), but the LXX has ἀγγέλων θεοῦ ("angels of God"; others mss have υιων θεου ("sons of God")). The Septuagint readings point to a Hebrew Vorlage of בני אלהים -- a reading which is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDt_j, 4QDt_q), which are older manuscripts.
awhooker 4 months ago
I don't see what the problem is. The septuagint is older than the masoretic text, so the KJV translation would make sense to me. The Jews who came up with the Masoretic cannon rejected Jesus, and the Septuagint was around before the birth of Jesus.
BURNINGRIOT 7 months ago
@BURNINGRIOT The Septuagint is still a translation and therefore unable to convey the nuances of the original language. As for the Jews, you wouldn't even have a Bible if it wasn't for them as they are the ones who meticulously copied over the centuries to preserve it for you.
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV Are you sure about that, regarding your statement of the Septuagint? It was 70 Jews who translated it; and thank God they are a meticulous people for the reason you mentioned and beyond. Since the Septuagint was made to service Greek speaking Jews, what makes you think they weren't meticulous enough to translate the precise meaning from Hebrew into Greek? In serving their brethren, I'm sure they did preserve the precise meanings.
BURNINGRIOT 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV Would the word Tam=perfect mean they were perfect in their genealogy as Noah was?Did this mean without Nephilim blood in them?
CBALLEN 1 month ago
Context shows it is about the comparison on the character of the two brothers.
I would translate it as "and Jacob was a placid man living in tents".
Plain or Perfect is not a good translation to me in this case.
tudungsenduk 7 months ago
@tudungsenduk Would you also use "placid" for Job's character in the book of Job?
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV
No, I would use pure or complete.
tudungsenduk 7 months ago
@tudungsenduk Why the difference? What in the context of these two stories would cause you to interpret one Hebrew word two different ways?
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV
Imagine a scenery. Quite, serene, undisturbed, clean, pure, calm, peaceful, uncorrupt, perfect as it is, whole as it is.
I would than apply that nature to a person.
As for Jacob, it is the opposite character of Esau. Esau is outgoing, man of the field and of the wild, loud, rough and tough etc while Jacob is placid, quite, calm, peaceful staying in tents.
As for Job, it is about his nature towards God. Pure,whole or complete.
That is my 2 cents. Thanks.
tudungsenduk 7 months ago
@tudungsenduk I can see your thinking here, but this is the very problem that I have with most of today's modern translations. When you focus more on the context than the vocabulary and grammar of a passage, you open the door to adding your own influence, bias and perspectives onto the text. Personally, I think this type of translating is all to common and we completely missed the message.
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV
I agree with you. Every translation must follow the vocab and grammar. However the choice of words must also be in context or the context itself may be lost. Thus, lost in translation.
tudungsenduk 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV You may "interpret" the word one way, while another person may "interpret" it a different way. That is why I am convinced a Mechanical Translation is essential where each word is "always" translated the same way, this way, the reader knows that the same word is found in both passages and he can interpret it for himself, rather than having a translator do it for him.
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
tâmı̂ym
BDB Definition:
1d) sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity
Plain - meaning "simple, sincere, ordinary" is recorded from late 14c.
English "Innocent" definition:-
2. A simple, guileless, inexperienced, or unsophisticated person.
Is it an LXX interpretation or an LXX error?
dunklaw 7 months ago
@dunklaw I believe this is an interpretation on the part of the LXX, but this video is focuses on the kjv onlyist view, which is that the kjv is a perfect translation of the Masoretic text, which we can see here it is not, it is partially a translation of the LXX.
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV OK thanks - I get your line of reasoning now :)
I wonder why they claim it is based on the MT rather than the LXX and Vulgate?
dunklaw 7 months ago
@dunklaw Very simple. They believe that God preserved his word perfectly, first in the MT and then in the kjv. If they admit that the kjv translators used the MT, LXX and Vulgate, then they admit that the kjv translators used Textual Criticism, a method condemned by the kjv onlyists because it does not support the perfect preservation of the word.
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV
Or alternatively, they would be forced to admit that it occasionally follows tradition in translating the MT in which case it is imperfect.
AmateurHebrew 7 months ago
That kinda gives light to why Jacob inherited the birthright rather than Esau....maybe.
joescmu 8 months ago
You might also be interested in knowing that at the time of the KJV, Jews were not allowed to live in England. They had been expelled in the thirteenth century and would not be allowed back until Cromwell's protectorate about a half century after the KJV. Thus a non-Christian translation of the MT into English was nonexistent and the chance for interaction with Jewish scholars very limited. Not the KJV translators fault, of course, but still a limitation on possible renderings.
labarum312 8 months ago
I did a little checking and found out something interesting. The group that made up the First Westminster Company of translators for the KJV (they translated the Torah as well as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, were not primarily Hebrew scholars. Not ignorant of Hebrew but not the greatest either. Lancelot Andrewes, the director, was as interested in their theology as their expertise. A few were, however, Greek scholars and this may explain the LXX influence.
labarum312 8 months ago
@labarum312 I have often suspected that the reason the kjv frequently follows the septuagint is that they were much more familiar with the Greek than the Hebrew. Even native Israelis who are fluent in Hebrew have difficulty with some of the passages in the Bible and Hebrew is their first language. Could you share with me your source for this?
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV Adam Nicholson's "God's Secretaries." It is a history of how the KJV came to be. It is very much appreciative of the KJV but makes clear the influences and poltical battles influencing the translation. Those who think an English translation of the Bible a generation removed from the Spanish Armada and only a few years after the Gunpowder Plot could be free of political intrigue are dreaming.
labarum312 8 months ago
@labarum312 Thanks for the resource and I agree with your conclusions, but somehow I don't think it will change the minds of the kjv onlyists LOL
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV Individuals who engage in cult-like thinking will rarely admit error as it regards the object they adore. Having lived with two of them for a couple of decades I can attest to this.
Mechanized0 7 months ago
@Mechanized0 A sure sign of a cult is preservation over doctrine instead of evidence and fact.
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
But "perfect" doesn't describe Jacob! Jacob was the liar, deceiver and supplanter! Who God gave a new name! So some times translations that fit an understanding of the context are better. Tamam(perfect) would be just the opposite of what Jacob was.(at that time) The Hebrews would be more motivated to make an inaccurate translation. To make their Patriarch, naturally perfect! And Tamam has many other meanings then "perfect". Like "fail", "have an end", "be wasted", to name a few.
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 The idea that Jacob was liar, deceiver and supplanter is Christian myth and not supported by the text. Amazing how Christians can view Jacob in this way and almost see Esau as the victim, totally incredible. As the Bible says, they will say Good is bad and bad is good.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago 2
@MasoreticVsKJV So Jacob didn't first pull on Esau's heal, trying to get out first? So he could be the first born! The name Jacob didn't mean supplanter? He didn't deceive his own father, (honor your father and mother), lie to his brother. To steal Esau's birth right? Later Jacob has to wrestle an angel to get a blessing, and ended up a cripple for the rest of his life. But God changed his name from deceiver, to "one who fights with God". Israel has been doing that every since!
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 What is wrong with grabbing onto a heel? I really don't think that Jacob was conscious of this act and was trying to thwart his brother, but if you do, more power to you. The name Jacob does not mean supplanter in any way shape or form, it means 'he grabs the heel. He didn't deceive his father, if you read the text carefully, his mother did. He did not lie to his brother and he didn't steal it, Esau gave it away. Does the text say the wrestling was a bad thing? Continued...
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@Howie47 Continued... Also keep in mind, if it wasn't for the Jews you would never have had your Bible. Christianity owes its existence to Jacob and his 12 sons. As John wrote, salvation is of the Jews.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV "What we have here, is a failure to communicate"! Oh, and that is what the Bible is all about. God's communication with man! Yes, God used the Jews (regardless of their failures, and sins) to communicate to man. Some of which is written in the Old Testament. Now He uses His Saints and Prophets of of all nations. Who come to Him through His sacrifice on the cross! And have been enlightened about not glorying in sinful flesh.
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 And I suppose you beleive that the Church is now God's chosen people and his new covenant is with the Gentiles?
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV If the descendants of Israel want God to honor the covenant He had with them. Now they must first acknowledge Jesus Christ as the messiah. Then they must be washed clean from all the influences of the secular (unbelieving world). Lastly they must accept what ever new land or borders Christ agrees too. Much has changed since the first agreement. Other nations can also make covenants with the Lord. Which He will also honor. He is the final arbitrator & has the last word!
Howie47 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV
Christianity also owed its existence to the Jewish scribes have faithfully copies the Tenach down the centuries. In fact on the KJV-only view the Christians haven''t had a "perfect" translation until 1611 whereas the Jews have had the Hebrew text from the beginning and still possess it to this day.
AmateurHebrew 7 months ago
@AmateurHebrew Excellent points
MasoreticVsKJV 7 months ago
What's amazing, is how Jews for thousands of years have misinterpreted the scriptures. In a light that glorifies them! As the Bible says. "There are none so blind. as those who will not see"!
Howie47 8 months ago
The funny thing here is that Edward believes the LXX is a satanic old testament created by Origen in the third century A.D. Of course, that is complete lunacy but that is what he apparently believes. it is a common claim among the Ruckmanite wing of KJV Onlyism.
labarum312 8 months ago
@labarum312 Well, if the LXX is a satanic creation, then the kjv is based on a satanic creation.... ooooops
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
You forget that many words in english have more than one meaning like hebrew.
plain (pln)
adj. plain·er, plain·est
1. Free from OBSTRUCTIONS; open; clear: in plain view. (mature)
3. Not elaborate or complicated; simple: plain food.
4. Straightforward; frank or candid: plain talk.
5. Not mixed with other substances; pure: plain water. (whole)
6. Common in rank or station; average; ordinary: a plain man.
7. Not pretentious; unaffected.
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 No, I didn't forget that. The English word plain has nothing to do with the Hebrew word tam.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV I know what the point of the video is. What I'm saying is that the word plain could be used for 'tam/tham' the definitions I gave for plain could be used for synonoms for 'tam-tham'. read my comment again and look at 0:35 on the video. Plain could mean whole, mature or complete.
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 - The KJV translation of Genesis 25:27 reflects the Greek Septuagint (LXX), not the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). That's the message in this video.
HeroOfChristArchives 8 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives I know what the point of the video is. What I'm saying is that the word plain could be used for 'tam/tham' the definitions I gave for plain could be used for synonoms for 'tam-tham'. read my comment again and look at 0:35 on the video. Plain could mean whole, mature or complete.
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 I saw your comment and understood what you were trying to say, but in Hebrew, this concept of plain as in common is hhol, not tam.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV was is hhol?
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 A Hebrew word meaning common
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV I'm not familar with that word. Is that word is the bible?
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 Yes it is, it is identified in Strong's dictionary as number 2455.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV Are you talking about chalal/chol? If you are that means outside of the temple, ordinary, or not separated. The KJV used plain not common. The point of this verse is to compare Jacob to Esau. It is not natural for a man to be outside all of the time(a man of the field) even though men did hunt back in those days. Esau was a cunning hunter. He knew hunting like a wild animal. If I wanted to translate 'yadi tazayad/yada tsayid' I could put knows food depending on context.
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 From the 'Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible' hhol - ordinary - A place, person or thing that is not set apart for a specific function.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV But that is from your book and you're focusing on one definition(one of the definitions I gave) If you are that means outside of the temple, ORDINARY, or not separated.
Could the word hhol/chalal/chol be used for something else?
bighen88 8 months ago
@bighen88 - As we've already demonstrated, the 1611 translators ignored the Hebrew of Genesis 25:27 in favor of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendering.
HeroOfChristArchives 8 months ago
The King James Version is rife with translational inconsistencies.
Once again, nice exposé.
HeroOfChristArchives 8 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Thank you Hero.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
Question:
Why would the Masoretic text be considered superior to the Greek Septuagint? How does one decide which is the more accurate translation?
Mechanized0 8 months ago
@Mechanized0 In most cases the Masoretic has proven to be more reliable than the LXX, however, there are times where the reading of the LXX is more accurate. The best way is to compare all the ancient manuscripts, LXX, Masoretic, DSS, Targums, Samaritan Pentetuch, Syrian Peshitta, etc.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV "The best way is to compare all the ancient manuscripts, LXX, Masoretic, DSS, Targums, Samaritan Pentetuch, Syrian Peshitta, etc."
It is reasonable to assume you do as the above states before attempting to draw a conclusion?
Mechanized0 8 months ago
@Mechanized0 Yes, I do, but not so much in these videos because the purpose of these videos is different. The KJV onlyists state that the kjv is a perfect translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text and all I am doing here is pointing out that in this verse, they do not. The kjv onlyists reject the idea of Textual Criticism, the process I am describing above, therefore it would be pointless to do this here.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV I find it so blatantly ignorant that the very translators the KJVO hold up as inerrant and inspired, conducted textual criticism themselves, yet the KJVO folks think textual criticism is of the Devil. By the way, is Edward still going back and forth with you? He blocked me a long time ago, suprised he hasnt blocked you yet. Keep on as long as you can.
MrSuperchicken1 8 months ago
@MrSuperchicken1 Yes, I agree, very ignorant. No, he hasn't blocked me yet, so far he is continuing to dialogue. We'll see what happens. But, if I ever do get blocked, I will mention it in a video to show that they are not interested in evidences, just their doctrine. I did this once before and it worked, I was unblocked.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV - Jeff, the real mystery here is, WHAT Hebrew word were the LXX translators reading in their exemplar? The Greek word απλαστος occurs only here in the Septuagint. It would be interesting to learn if the LXX translator(s) misread their Hebrew exemplar.
HeroOfChristArchives 8 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives That is a possibility.
MasoreticVsKJV 8 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV Your input is much appreciated.
Mechanized0 8 months ago