Psalm 8:5 in KJV and NASB

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Tatermonkey		#21	[-]
Posts: 110 (12/11/2008 04:18:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The translators obviously didn't feel comfortable relaying the text properly by saying that men are " a little lower than God" so they translated as angels instead. But there is another verse where Elohiym is translated as "gods" referring to men. Psalms 82:6 NASB - I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. Hebrew: אניH589 אמרתיH559 אלהיםH430 אתםH859 ובניH1121 עליוןH5945 כלכםH3605 (Strong's # added, Elohiym in red) This verse is confirmed by Christ himself in John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? If that verse is fine with comparing men to deity then why wouldn't another?
StevenAvery		#22	[-]
Posts: 338 (12/11/2008 04:21:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, As I asked, anybody other than Tater ? (Sometimes you simply give up on somebody as hopelessly enmeshed..) Tatermonkey wrote: This verse is confirmed by Christ .... Hebrews 2:5-7 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands Shalom, Steven Avery
Tatermonkey		#23	[-]
Posts: 111 (12/11/2008 05:04:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	StevenAvery wrote: Hi Folks, As I asked, anybody other than Tater ? (Sometimes you simply give up on somebody as hopelessly enmeshed..) Tatermonkey wrote: This verse is confirmed by Christ .... Hebrews 2:5-7 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands Shalom, Steven Avery "(Sometimes you simply give up on somebody as hopelessly enmeshed..) " Ditto......... Here is what I have on Pslams 8:5 (NASB) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! (ASV) For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor. (Bishops) Thou hast made hym somthyng inferiour to angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and worship. (DRB) (8:6) Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: (Geneva) For thou hast made him a little lower then God, and crowned him with glory and worship. (Hebrew) ותחסרהוH2637 מעטH4592 מאלהיםH430 וכבודH3519 והדרH1926 תעטרהו׃H5849 (KJV+) For thou hast made him a little lowerH2637 H4592 than the angels,H4480 H430 and hast crownedH5849 him with gloryH3519 and honour.H1926 (KJV-1611) For thou hast made him a little lower then the Angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honour. (LITV) For You have made him lack a little from God; and have crowned him with glory and honor. (LXX) (8:6) ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν· (Vulgate) (8:6) minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis gloria et honore coronasti eum (YLT) And causest him to lack a little of Godhead, And with honour and majesty compassest him.
Tatermonkey		#24	[-]
Posts: 112 (12/11/2008 05:26:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Kinda leaves only one conclusion. Paul used the LXX. In Hebrew we have Elohiym primarily meaning God and Mal'ak meaning messenger of God / Angel. Even in Hebrew , you cant have it both ways with one word then the two seperate words exist. Last Edited By: Tatermonkey 12/11/2008 05:41:28. Edited 1 times.
StevenAvery		#25	[-]
Posts: 343 (12/11/2008 05:44:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, Tatermonkey wrote: Even in Hebrew , you cant have it both ways with one word then the two seperate words exist. Yes, Tater, it is fully understood that you ignored the whole thread with the Jewish Hebrew-based translations and the b-hebrew posters and the NT usage and the DSS and such. That is why I asked if any others on this forum still took your view that the King James Bible (directly or through the Bishop's Bible) translated Psalm 8:5 from the Greek OT. So far none has, all the other posters who initially took that type of position seem to have actually learned from the thread. Shalom, Steven Avery
Tatermonkey		#26	[-]
Posts: 114 (12/11/2008 05:46:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Or gave up on you.
mko		#27	[-]
Posts: 394 (12/11/2008 05:50:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I found a copy of Jerome's "Juxta Hebraica" translation into Latin that didn't fly because people preferred the LXX-based Gallican... "Quid est homo quoniam recordaris eius vel filius hominis quoniam visitas eum? minues eum paulo minus a Deo, gloria et decore coronabis eum" "What is a man, that thou rememberest him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou makest him a bit less than God and with glory and decor crownest him" "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
Armchair Scholar		#28	[-]
Posts: 759 (12/12/2008 18:21:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thanks, MKO!
StevenAvery	the ancient translations	#29	[-]
Posts: 357 (12/14/2008 10:09:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, John Gill "the word is rendered "angels" by the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint interpreters, the Jewish commentators, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, and in the Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, and above all by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, it is best to interpret it of them: Notice that the exception, among the ancient translations given by Gill, is the Latin. You can see the Targum here. http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/targum/pss/ps1.htm What is a son of man, because you will remember his deeds, and a son of man, because you will punish him? And you have made him a little less than the angels, and you will crown him with glory and brightness. Lamsa's Peshitta translation is : http://www.studylight.org...tion=pes&oq=&sr=1 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast clothed him with glory and honor. In both these cases it would be helpful to know if there is any ambiguity in the Aramaic, however John Gill indicates not. The Douay-Rheims represents one Latin translation : http://www.drbo.org/chapter/21008.htm Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: With Jerome having done three translations of the Psalms (at least partial) from Greek and from Hebrew, and with the Latin having some flux over time, it is sometimes hard to determine the full Psalms-Latin history. However if Jerome translated the Hebrew-->Latin as God that would be the only ancient version we have seen so translated. (Do you have a URL or book name for the text ?) In contrast, the Aramaic Targum, the Aramaic Peshitta, the Greek and the Ethiopic would be similarly early translations that use "angels", showing it to be a very common translation understanding among the ancients. With the Arabic coming later. The Greek may well have multiple editions or original hands as well. All this is strongly confirmed by the later Rabbinics as well, and, perhaps most emphatically, the New Testament. Shalom, Steven Avery
mko		#30	[-]
Posts: 398 (12/14/2008 11:13:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I was quoting from one of the PD Vg texts, one that has both the Juxta Hebraica and the Gallican (LXX-derived) psalter, adding in punctuation. http://www.speedbible.com/vulgate/B19C008.htm There's several versions here. I think this is ultimately taken from the Stuttgart Vulgate? "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
HoLogos	LXX is junk, unless it is the sole support for KJV	#31	[-]
Posts: 1086 (12/14/2008 14:15:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Here is a fine example of the dishonesty, inconsistency, and hypocrisy of KJV onlyists. The Septuagint is a myth and worthless, unless it is the only support for a KJV rendering, then the Septuagint is great! KJV onlyists are the laughingstock of Christianity. I am ashamed they claim to be the same religion as I.
StevenAvery		#32	[-]
Posts: 358 (12/14/2008 15:55:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, mko wrote: I was quoting from one of the PD Vg texts, one that has both the Juxta Hebraica and the Gallican (LXX-derived) psalter, adding in punctuation. http://www.speedbible.com/vulgate/B19C008.htm There's several versions here. I think this is ultimately taken from the Stuttgart Vulgate? I only see one text there, so maybe you can explain how it has both the Juxta Hebraica and the Gallican. (Although apparently the Stuttgart tries to have them on opposing pages.) John Hurt often does an excellent job describing his source texts, however here we have: http://www.speedbible.com/vulgate/index.htm Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) http://www.speedbible.com/vulgate/about.htm Latin Vulgate HTML Bible ... public domain Bible texts Which tells us next to nothing. Especially since nobody has Jerome's 405 AD text. (The earliest extant NT Vulgate is 6th century, not sure of OT.) It is very possible that this is the Stuttgart Vulgate. It looks like CCEL says the files came from the UnBound Bible Project and some places say Biblia Sacra Vulgata, which is apparently the Stuttgart. While Augustine has commentary that references Psalm 8:5, I have not found any from Jerome. I think it is reasonable to say that he is the one ancient translation reference that has God over angels (ie. in translation preference, not just authority) in the verse. Shalom, Steven Avery
mko		#33	[-]
Posts: 399 (12/14/2008 16:02:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The normal Gallican is at the bottom. "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
StevenAvery		#34	[-]
Posts: 359 (12/14/2008 16:09:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, HoLogos wrote: Here is a fine example of the dishonesty, inconsistency, and hypocrisy of KJV onlyists. The Septuagint is a myth and worthless, unless it is the only support for a KJV rendering, then the Septuagint is great! KJV onlyists are the laughingstock of Christianity. I am ashamed they claim to be the same religion as I. Thanks, HoLogos, for a textbook example of tawdry posting. I have shared many times that the Greek OT is one window on the translation or words in the early centuries, and we watch you go haywire with a petty and vindictive and false accusation post as above. HoLogos, you should be ashamed. I will not laugh at your ill-considered posting, just be aware of how dumb a person can get when they are enmeshed in false views of the Bible. Oh, incidentally, for the readers with some actual sense and savvy, I never say the Greek OT is a myth and worthless. The common modernist error is in claiming that there was an OT translation circulating at the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Even the Preface of Antiquities by Josephus is powerful evidence that this view is false (or a myth). Personally I actually write against even calling the "Septuagint" a "myth" even if the Letter of Aristeas is a forgery, the title "Septuagint" is misleading, the evidence is against a 1st-century Greek OT, and the evidence is against NT usage of the Greek OT. And even as we know the "Septuagint" is heavily tarnished by NT "smoothing" - tampering as we see in the abject corruption of Psalm 14 including a whole section from Romans 3. In railing falsely like above, in ignorance and vitriol, is HoLogos showing "dishonesty, inconsistency, and hypocrisy" ? Quite clearly, yes. Shalom, Steven Avery
StevenAvery		#35	[-]
Posts: 360 (12/14/2008 16:31:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, mko wrote: The normal Gallican is at the bottom. I've tried your URL on post 30 in a few browsers, and only see a bunch of links at the bottom . Shalom, Steven
mko		#36	[-]
Posts: 400 (12/14/2008 16:59:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Try this one then: http://www.speedbible.com/vulgate/index.htm "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
HoLogos	to Steven Avery	#37	[-]
Posts: 1087 (12/14/2008 22:05:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Steven, I just now skimmed your posts. I generally don't read your posts. I didn't read your posts in this thread before I posted, and I guess that is a mistake. My "railing" was about KJV onlyists in general, not about your posts. And what I said is generally true. You appealed to non-LXX support for "angels" as a translation of Elohim. Fine. What I said is true of KJV onlyists in general. Still, you are guilty of justifying every single mistake in the KJV no matter what great lengths you have to go to to do so. That is the dishonest part of what you do. A standard of evidence in support of a KJV reading that you would not accept if it were the support for one in a modern translation, is perfectly fine if that is all there is in support of a KJV reading. And even less support, like the KJV containing the Johannine Comma. That is what I mean by your dishonesty, hypocrisy, and unreasonableness. And yes, this kind of thing is a laughing stock of Christianity. Anyway, I'm not going to read your posts again, or participate in threads in which you are a part. It is just a waste of time, and fruitless. You have false beliefs about the Bible about which you will never change your mind, and I do not feel it is an appropriate thing for me to participate in this kind of thing. Last Edited By: HoLogos 12/14/2008 22:11:50. Edited 2 times.
StevenAvery		#38	[-]
Posts: 367 (12/15/2008 08:53:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, HoLogos wrote: I didn't read your posts in this thread before I posted, and I guess that is a mistake. It would have been good to do that before falsely accusing ... better late than never. I will take the above as being as close to an apology as you are capable of when you rail against a King James Bible defender. HoLogos wrote: That is what I mean by your dishonesty, hypocrisy, and unreasonableness. However I came to the King James Bible view by studying the issues, and seeing that the purity of the Bible was consistent and sensible. Thus the common circularity accusation is false, and does not deal with the fact that you have a paradigm that God cannot have his Bible pure and readable. Thus you are once again a false accuser. Your bumbling here is the laughingstock, if it weren't so sad. HoLogos wrote: Anyway, I'm not going to read your posts again, or participate in threads in which you are a part Your choice. I realize that you don't like having your various errors and misconceptions and false accusations and textual mishegas corrected publicly. Your proposed silence and withdrawal will likely be beneficial to the forum. Shalom, Steven Avery
steelmaker		#39	[-]
Posts: 1955 (12/15/2008 15:47:07) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Actually, Avery, you came to the KJVO myth by believing a man-made false doctrine derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book. Try as you might, you cannot really defend it. You are stumped by its total lacka SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. You tryta act like a scholar, but your overall theme is that of one who's stuck neck-deep in error.
Tatermonkey		#40	[-]
Posts: 149 (12/31/2008 00:46:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In the print, the NASB has a margin note "Or Angels" Heb: Elohim.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Psalm 8:5 in KJV and NASB

Quick Reply