Reversed identification of two birds in early English Bibles

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
logos1560	Reversed identification of two birds in early English Bibles	Lead	[-]
Posts: 372 (12/24/2008 20:13:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None At Isaiah 38:14 and Jeremiah 8:7, there is a difference in the identification of two birds in the early English Bibles (Tyndale's to 1611 KJV). The 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1540 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles have the order and identification as "the swallow and the crane." The 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV reverse that order and have the identification as "the crane and the swallow." Which identification of the two Hebrew words in these two verses is the correct one in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles?
SAWBONES		#1	[-]
Posts: 17 (12/25/2008 10:17:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Another example of a non-significant difference. Can anyone think of any reason why it would be genuinely important which bird was named before the other, so long as both were named? Merry Christmas!
77		#2	[-]
Posts: 102 (12/25/2008 10:35:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	logos1560 wrote: At Isaiah 38:14 and Jeremiah 8:7, there is a difference in the identification of two birds in the early English Bibles (Tyndale's to 1611 KJV). The 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1540 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles have the order and identification as "the swallow and the crane." The 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV reverse that order and have the identification as "the crane and the swallow." Which identification of the two Hebrew words in these two verses is the correct one in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles? As unlikely as this must sound, I seem to recall that W. Kinney wrote an article about these very two verses. I could be mistaken, but that is what I recall. As I remember the article (whether Kinney's, or whoever) did argue that the order has significance. I'll do some digging and try and track it down. Again, maybe Kinney wasn't the author, but I am certain that I read an article, from a KJV-Oer, that dealt with this very question. Hope that helps! "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
logos1560		#3	[-]
Posts: 374 (12/27/2008 08:21:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	SAWBONES wrote: Another example of a non-significant difference. Can anyone think of any reason why it would be genuinely important which bird was named before the other, so long as both were named? The reason that it could be considered important is that the order indicates how the translators translated the two Hebrew words and thus would indicate which Bibles translate the Hebrew words correctly. While the meaning of the verse may remain basically the same, the order indicates the important matter of which translations have the correct rendering of the Hebrew words.
logos1560		#4	[-]
Posts: 375 (12/27/2008 08:42:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	J. G. Wood wrote: "In these passage the interpretation of the [Hebrew] words sis and agur have been interchanged" (Story of the Bible Animals, p. 550). H. B. Tristram wrote: "In both passages [Isa. 38:14; Jer. 8:7], it appears certain that our [KJV] translators have interchanged the words, and that for 'crane and swallow' we should read 'swift (sis) or crane (agur)" (Natural History of the Bible, p. 239). Tristram wrote: "With respect to the second word, 'agur,' it would appear that our translators have simply interchanged this rendering, and that sus should be translated 'swallow,' or rather 'swift,' and 'agur' 'crane'" (p. 204). Tristram maintained that "the swifts are known in Arabia by the name sus, identical with the Hebrew" (pp. 204-205). Tristram asserted that "in Palestine, the Swallow is only a partial migrant, many remaining through the winter. The Swift, on the contrary, is a regular migrant, returning in myriads every spring" (p. 205). Tristram added: "Sus or sis appears to be derived from the rushing sound made by the bird in its flight, and is strictly referable to the Swifts (Cypselus)--a genus well known in all countries, and ordinarily classed with the Swallow, to which it bears much outward resemblance in its flight, habits, and migration, but from which naturalists separate it entirely on account of its anatomical structure" (p. 205). Thaddeus Harris maintained that "Pagninus, Muster, Schindler, Junius, and Tremellius suppose the agur to be the crane; as do also the learned Hebrews, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Pomarius, following Jonathan in the Chaldee Paraphrase, where it is kurkeja. This latter word is adopted in the Talmud and Arabian writers" (Natural History of the Bible, p. 90). In Smith's Bible Dictionary as edited by Hackett, this is stated: "There can be little doubt that the A. V. is incorrect in rendering sus by 'crane'" (Vol. I, p. 505).
StevenAvery	over a crate and barrel about crane and swallow	#5	[-]
Posts: 391 (12/27/2008 19:33:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, First, the King James Bible and the Geneva Bible - 'suggested' by Rick Norris. Jeremiah 8:7 (KJB) Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD. Geneva (1587) Euen the storke in the aire knoweth her appointed times, and the turtle and the crane and the swallowe obserue the time of their comming, but my people knoweth not the iudgement of the Lorde. Isaiah 38:14 Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward: O LORD, I am oppressed; undertake for me. Geneva (1587) Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourne as a doue: mine eies were lift vp on high: O Lord, it hath oppressed me, comfort me. Looking at the sources Rick shared, the key issue here is the Hebraics, and we have seen Rick Norris stumble badly offering us selective secondary and tertiary sources on the Hebraics before. In one case Rick quoted a plant-writer who claimed that the King James Bible followed only Rashi, while blaming Rashi for limited geography and background,. While a little checking showed that the incredibly astute and respected Kimchi also viewed the word the same. That was combined in the same case with the plant-writer's blunder about two items (one chestnut trees) being declared not indigenous to the middle east. While in another case Rick quoted Arthur Farstad on the manuscripts of Joshua 21 with a total blunderama quote. Those two come right to mind. Oh, Rick even repeated the totally false Farstad quote here even after it was shown to be false months earlier ! Amazing. Ok, on to the present, simply a reminder that properly finding and sharing and representing the Hebraics is a glaring weakness in Rick Norris probabalism attempts. So let us ask Rick about his most important quote here: Afaik, Thaddeus Mason Harris has never been noted as an expert in Hebraics, and he was the earliest writer quoted (1833). So if he blundered, then something akin to Rick's "criminal" methodology of secondary source citations could easily have been a factor in errors of understanding and accusation. Passed along as the common wisdom and received by Wood (1870) and Tristam (1889) and Smith (1863). All the sources mentioned bewray an unfamiliarity with the Hebraics mentioned by Harris in their presentations on crane and swallow. As far as I can tell, Mason Harris was one the first to popularize this 'switch words' idea as a Bible correction. First a note about the lack of reliability of Thaddeus Mason Harris. This is the same writer who made the totally insipid claim that Arthur Clarke had "proved" an "error of the press" on "strain at a gnat", a laughable and totally false assertion that can be refuted simply by reading Arthur Clarke, who claimed no such proof. (This accusation is now nonsensical, with the evidence available. Clarke offered no substantive evidence for his conjecture, much less claiming proof.) Although as an active Freemason propagandist, we should not be too surprised that T. Mason Harris was loose with statements meant to attack the pure Bible. So Rick quotes T. Mason Harris. There are three references that are truly significant (If you do not know Hebraics, that is another topic. Tremellius as a Christian Hebraisst was definitely an excellent scholar, however for Hebraics the prime sources are Kimchi and Rashi (Jarchi) followed by Ibn Ezra, not mentioned. And the ancient Aramaic translations. And first we want to see if T. Mason Harris is reliable on the majors). So we have the majors : logos1560 wrote: Thaddeus Harris maintained that... the agur to be the crane ..so the learned Hebrews, Jarchi, Kimchi ... following Jonathan in the Chaldee Paraphrase. There are a lot of questions about this 1833 citation on the Hebraics by T. Mason Harris. So let us first ask Rick, did you check this yourself ? Did you run into anything more recent than 1833 (or anything at any time from a writer known to be familiar with and reliable on the Hebraics) on this assertion given by a mason, one not known for any scholarship in the Hebraics ? For which of these do you have accurate and sure information ? For which of these do you have ANY information other than T. Mason Harris ? Targum Jonathan Peshitta Kimchi Rashi Above I add the Peshitta because it is a very early translation from Hebrew to Aramaic, similar in evidence to Targum Jonathan, and far more likely to be literal. Rick Norris, let us know what you know of these scholars and writings and the crane and swallow. Please try to be honest with us about what material you actually have on these four sources that you did not put in the post above. (Did you do any research or checking at all ? Bump into any other material at all that might indicate that the T. Mason Harris assertions that you quoted here were less than reliable ? Or find or bump into any confirmatory material ? Hopefully, if you want to be taken at all seriously, you made some efforts beyond an 1833 book en passant reference by a writer with no Hebraics credentials whatsoever.) Shalom, Steven PS. To the forum reader. Yes, I am totally aware that there is no difference in meaning in the order of words. As Henry Chichester Hart, who similarly bought into this idea, wrote: "the transposition has not altered the meaning". Moving words around can be totally fine in translation. That is not the issue. The real issue is whether Rick Norris is reliable in his probabalism presentations. Is everything as bad as the totally deceptive "Bancroft tampering" web page that Rick claimed he could not change. Let us see if we get an honest response on this new issue. Another issue is whether either side of the evidence for crane and swallow is actually compelling, That can only be a sensible discussion after we clean up the problems above. Maybe Rick can clean it all up for us, when he answers the questions above. Last Edited By: StevenAvery 12/28/2008 08:02:47. Edited 13 times.
logos1560		#6	[-]
Posts: 377 (12/28/2008 10:38:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Most of the "hot air" in StevenAvery's post seems to be a red herring that attempts to change the subject of this thread. His post ignores the original evidence in the first post concerning the difference in order of identification in most of the pre-1611 English Bibles and also ignores the question asked in that post. I am also amazed that after his editing his post 13 times that it still seems filled mostly with personal attacks, character assassination, or smear tactics. To respond to the misrepresentations and use of fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy in that post would be permit him to succeed in his seeming attempt to change the subject. The problems he imagines seems to be created by his own negative tactics or based only in his own biased KJV-only reasoning. It seems that some KJV-only advocates feel entitled to make accusations without providing any evidence at all in some cases or without any valid evidence in others while they attack others for supposedly not providing enough evidence. Perhaps they do not find enough evidence to be able to invent some KJV-only rationalization. If he has any valid evidence that proves that any of the documented statements provided were inaccurate, he is welcome to provide it.
logos1560		#7	[-]
Posts: 378 (12/28/2008 11:17:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	StevenAvery wrote: Thaddeus Mason Harris ...was the earliest writer quoted (1833). Actually, I looked at the edition of Harris's book that was printed in 1824. The first edition of his book was printed in 1793, but I did not know if the same statements are found in it. Thaddeus Harris wrote: "Bochart exactly reverses them, and the reasons which he adduces are incontrovertible. Pagninus, Muster, Schindler, Junius, and Tremellius also suppose the agur to be the crane; as do also the learned Hebrews, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Pomarius, following Jonathan in the Chaldee Paraphrase, where it is kurkeja. This latter word is adopted in the Talmud and Arabian writers" (Natural History of the Bible, p. 90). On the page before, Harris had a footnote reference to Bochart's book Hierozoicon [Samuel Bochart (1599-1671)] so it was evidently one of his sources. A couple sentences after the statements above there is a footnote reference to Meninki Lexicon. I found it interesting that the statement referred to several sources that KJV-only authors would likely claim that the KJV translators consulted
StevenAvery	dancing on the barrel	#8	[-]
Posts: 392 (12/28/2008 12:42:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, logos1560 wrote: Thaddeus Harris wrote: Hebrews, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Pomarius, following Jonathan in the Chaldee Paraphrase ... I found it interesting that the statement referred to several sources that KJV-only authors would likely claim that the KJV translators consulted This is very true. Especially Rashi and Kimchi, extremely significant sources, very highly respected on Hebrew words and grammar. And the Targum Jonathan for ancient views of words and text (especially interesting is Isaiah 53). Which is why I asked you if your own research shows T Mason Harris to be accurate with the quote above ? For which of these do you have ANY information other than T. Mason Harris ? Targum Jonathan Kimchi Rashi Obviously if you did no checking whatsoever, and found no other references to these sources, you are incompetent. However, that may be the case. At least you can acknowledge that you did you no other checking and ran into no contrary material, if that is the case. Another refusal to answer would make the obvious conclusion - you withheld from the readers contrary material, deliberately and deceptively. Do you stand behind the T. Mason Harris claim above as accurate or not ? Shalom, Steven Avery PS. Yes, Harris utilized Bochart. Bochart probably originated the idea, although exactly what he said is unclear. Harris is very possibly the first in English to claim the switch idea, at least in popular literature, as one of his attacks on the pure Bible. Last Edited By: StevenAvery 12/28/2008 12:46:41. Edited 1 times.
logos1560		#9	[-]
Posts: 381 (12/28/2008 17:50:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	StevenAvery wrote: logos1560 wrote: Thaddeus Harris wrote: "Bochart exactly reverses them, and the reasons which he adduces are incontrovertible. Pagninus, Muster, Schindler, Junius, and Tremellius also suppose the agur to be the crane; as do also the learned Hebrews, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Pomarius, following Jonathan in the Chaldee Paraphrase, where it is kurkeja. This latter word is adopted in the Talmud and Arabian writers" (Natural History of the Bible, p. 90). I found it interesting that the statement referred to several sources that KJV-only authors would likely claim that the KJV translators consulted This is very true. The very fact that the statement referred to several sources that relate to the KJV translators was enough reason to post it. For one thing, I was interested to see if others who post here had any more information that related to it: whether to agree with and support it or to disagree with and attempt to disprove it. I also found the statement very interesting in relation to the fact that the Geneva and the KJV had reversed the order of identification of the birds as they were found in the other pre-1611 English Bibles [Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops']. Since both orders of identification are found in the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles, KJV-only advocates would seem to have the burden of proof to demonstrate whether both can be valid or otherwise to show which one of the two is more accurate. It is also interesting to see how that StevenAvery seems to complain about a 1824 statement that comments on Kimchi's view when he himself in another thread referred to an 1883 statement as representing Kimchi's view. I already asked him once to post it if he had information or evidence that relates to the statement.
StevenAvery	shooting ducks from the barrel (with an air-guitar gun)	#10	[-]
Posts: 393 (12/28/2008 23:55:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, Apparently Rick does not stand behind his quote, or his own conclusions from the quote. This is his political concession speech: "I really have no idea if my weak secondary or tertiary source was accurate. So I will now imply I checked nothing. My purpose was to accuse, accusation-by-proxy. So my scholarship was selective bumbling to fit that accusation purpose." logos1560 wrote: I was interested to see if others who post here had any more information that related to it: whether to agree with and support it or to disagree with and attempt to disprove it. And Rick, you still should simply answer the question, yes or no. Did you do all that research on crane and sparrow and the only reference you found on: Targum Rashi Kimchi was T. Mason Harris ?? Since you built your whole edifice of amazement that these were respected KJB sources (Rashi and Kimchi and the Targum definitely are) on this one reference. So I find it a little bit difficult to believe that you found no other references, which you sort of imply in Norris-speak. Since there are in fact many other references and you obviously did some scouring. Unless you say truthfully and specifically otherwise, the likelihood remains that you did run into contrary references against the T. Mason assertion. And suppressed them from your presentation. Although I would rather learn you were incompetent rather than deliberately deceptive by omission in your accusation-by-proxy post. On the other hand, it is easy to believe is that you were so incompetent that you built your whole probabalism attack sans real positive-affirmative checking., not even a decent Google search. Or looking up any primary source. (The problem is that there are many sources that contradict T. Mason that you should have bumped into en passant in your initial probabalism accusation-crafting research.) And if you were so much in the dark, why not post an inquiry first ? Instead of trying to frame your post as a series of second-hand probablism accusations. Quotes and accusations that you will not stand behind. Why do you rush so quickly to try to confuse or deceive others with dubious secondary and tertiary sources ? And also shoot yourself in the foot. (ie. Only if somebody else takes the time to do the inquiries you should have done before accusing. Otherwise your accusation-by-proxy will stand for a long time, your apparent hope and expectation.) And rather than only continuing to play dumb, and refusing to answer --. Why not at least simply start by looking up the Rashi commentary (and related Bible text) online. You surely know the URL. And tell the forum what it says. A very good starting point. Oh, why not tell us the Peshitta, too. At least the English translation, easily available online, as a starting point. Which somehow did not make your presentation. Since you have now switched to inquiring .. and are standing behind nothing you posted .. there you will find some answers. Shalom, Steven Avery Last Edited By: StevenAvery 12/29/2008 00:39:58. Edited 7 times.
77	The relevant question	#11	[-]
Posts: 111 (12/29/2008 15:54:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As an aside from the Avery/Logos cage-match - does anybody know what the average reader is supposed to make of this? Does it really matter? "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
StevenAvery		#12	[-]
Posts: 394 (12/29/2008 17:45:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, logos1560 wrote: It is also interesting to see how that StevenAvery seems to complain about a 1824 statement that comments on Kimchi's view This is a reference to a secondary source, T. Mason Harris, that did not simply "comment on Kimchi's view". Harris got the basic facts wrong, he got the basic facts OPPOSITE of the truth. For Kimchi, Rashi and the Targum. And Rick Norris ran with all the blunders and he still runs alongside every error. We see no indication that anything has been researched and checked, corrected, acknowledged and no accusation claims based on the Harris blunder disowned. In fact Rick is still trying to soft-pedal the Harris multi-blunder that is the centerpiece of his presentation as only a "comment on Kimchi's view" !! Amazing. Oh, what a web. And the bigger problem is that Rick Norris has done nothing to explain how the original problem occurred. Was Rick incompetent, missing both primary sources and numerous other secondary sources that had the accurate info ? Or was Rick deliberately deceptive, omitting the easily obtainable information that contradicted T. Mason Harris ? Note: Secondary sources are not ipso facto bad, the problem is in the "criminal" (Citation Games..Michael Wood) methods of citation used by Rick Norris. There are various ways to approach secondary sources. Generally Rick attempts to maneuver them for one goal, probabalism accusation-by-proxy. If this means missing easily available primary information and/or passing over contradictory information to his desired accusation presentation, all in order to mis-inform the reader -- then Rick Norris goes that route, again and again. logos1560 wrote: I when he himself in another thread referred to an 1883 statement as representing Kimchi's view. I Actually I gave the Kimchi primary source, which is given on an Orthodox Jewish site as Tosafoth, Bekoroth 8a, s.v. Tamegoleth. Where they also say about luz that "Radak (Sherashim) translates it as avelanier (alveane), Spanish for hazel". Which should also clear up any concern you might have had that David Kimchi actually viewed luz as walnut. A modern Spanish dictionary has hazel as avellano, walnut is very different. logos1560 wrote: I already asked him once to post it if he had information or evidence that relates to the statement. Naaah, tacky, Rick. You only asked a question, after months, a few hours before you put in this post (12/28/2008 11:56:17). The thread is Genesis 30:37 hazel or almond? Although under the equivocation concept you can say something as stupid as this "asked him" claim. You asked for no additional information in the thread until yesterday. Now I am sharing more here, since this thread is far more active. In addition Kalisch and Whitelaw and Strong clearly affirm Kimchi as supporting hazel, in addition to the McClintock reference. ====================== CRANE & SPARROW So Rick, come clean, do you still stand by the T. Mason Harris quote ? By quoting it, and then assuming the quote as true as you did above -- clearly you have stood by it up to now. Truthfully, Rick, on crane and sparrow, what is the view of : Targum Rashi Kimchi Do you have any idea at all ? Also the Peshitta is important evidence omitted above. You surely should know the Rashi commentary is online, why have you never checked the information ? Take some stance for truth .. somehow. Rick, don't just try to divert and change topics. Your original two posts were quoting accusations against the pure Bible based on very tawdry mis-information. Are you really going to continue to avoid speaking truthfully ? Why not get straight. Shalom, Steven Avery PS. Oh, yes, technically Rabinowitz was unclear, in fact you have never indicated exactly what he said fully. All we know is that he omitted Kimchi, which, if anyone knows Hebraics, is extremely on the bumbling side. (ie. Assuming Rick is accurate in saying he did not know about Kimchi, then Rabinowitz could not mention him.) So I should not comment overly much about Rabinowitz unless I see his full quote in context.. And to say it was his view of "only Rashi" is reading in too much into Rabinowitz, at least not without the full section to read.. (Of course if he mentioned all the other evidences, if he knew of them, that would undercut his theory.) "Only Rashi" was the implication of the Rick Norris presentation, since Rashi was mentioned in detail and no other evidences were mentioned. Rabinowitz contributed to that by omitting other evidences, especially Kimchi. Other evidences and writers given for hazel, not mentioned by Rick Norris (not sure about Rabinowitz) include Ibn Ezra, Arabic, Luther, Fürst and Kalisch. And Kimchi, Rashi and Ibn Ezra are the first tier of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary writers. Last Edited By: StevenAvery 12/29/2008 18:48:26. Edited 13 times.
logos1560		#13	[-]
Posts: 383 (12/29/2008 19:50:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	StevenAvery wrote: Harris got the basic facts wrong, he got the basic facts OPPOSITE of the truth. For Kimchi, Rashi and the Targum. I already noted why I posted the statement made by Harris. The statement was interesting in relation to the reversed order between several of the pre-1611 Bibles and that in the Geneva and the KJV and in relation to sources which the KJV translators are claimed to have used. I did not claim that the statement by Harris was true. It was no blunder to post an interesting statement to see if others had information about it. Holders of the KJV-only view seem to have the burden of proof for dealing with this difference in the Bibles that they themselves place on their good line or stream of Bibles. You avoid dealing with that fact. You make accusations against the statement by Harris, but provide no evidence for them. Why would you expect others to believe you when you seem to rely on the ad hominem fallacy in so many of your posts? You seem more interested in diversionary tactics that try to change the subject back to your typical attempted smears, character assassinations, and misrepresentations. Do you think that your posts in this thread are in line with the first rule for this forum: "No ad hominem: no name calling, insults, personal attacks"? As usual, you again misrepresent what I post. I had clearly asked you the second time in this thread to post your claimed information about the statement by Harris. That did not relate to the other thread as you wasted time claiming. Last Edited By: logos1560 12/29/2008 20:08:38. Edited 1 times.
BrianT		#14	[-]
Posts: 1666 (12/29/2008 21:04:18) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve, I appreciate your interest and desire to discuss these issues with logos1560, and I encourage you to continue to do so - however, I notice that a large percentage of your comments are personal attacks. I am asking you as administrator to limit your comments to the issues, and stop the ad hominem. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will begin liberally editing your posts to remove the ad hominem for you. Brian Brian
StevenAvery		#15	[-]
Posts: 397 (12/29/2008 21:19:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, Rick Norris, in addition to Rashi online, another very-easy-to-find source is Calvin's Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations, which is quite helpful on crane and swallow, and with which you should have been familiar even when putting together the [snip] post. Both sources are in English, the Rashi commentary has one or two Hebrew words embedded, quite simple for anybody with simply phonetic Hebrew word recognition. So now you can tell us what is the current status of : "I did not claim that the statement by Harris was true. " What do you claim today ? And what did you know before ? When you originally posted Harris. Did you really lack [snip] contrary material ? There is a large amount of such material, easy to find, primary and very solid secondary. [snip] First and foremost, Rick should tell us the current status of his "did not claim" quote from T. Mason Harris. [snip] Shalom, Steven Avery Last Edited By: BrianT 12/30/2008 10:10:54. Edited 25 times.
BrianT		#16	[-]
Posts: 1668 (12/30/2008 10:13:35) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve, Rick's beliefs are not the topic of this thread. The topic is the possible reversal of words, why it may have happened, and what relevance it has to KJV-onlyism. Brian
SAWBONES		#17	[-]
Posts: 21 (12/30/2008 11:36:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 wrote: As an aside from the Avery/Logos cage-match - does anybody know what the average reader is supposed to make of this? Does it really matter? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed it doesn't. It would be nice to see more examples of meaningful discussion of translational questions here rather than these intensely-personal attacks, seemingly always accompanied by boring long lists of references/citations, and always over trivialities, at that. I know I'm a newcomer here, but as a newcomer, I'm impressed more by a sense of the "looniness" of certain participants here than by any sense of erudition (which is what one suspects they mean to convey).
AlFin		#18	[-]
Posts: 49 (12/30/2008 11:51:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 wrote: As an aside from the Avery/Logos cage-match - does anybody know what the average reader is supposed to make of this? Does it really matter? Nothing! Although it's a good example of people straining out gnats and making mountains out of mole hills. And this goes the same for the "hazel" or "almond" debate. Allen
77		#19	[-]
Posts: 117 (12/30/2008 14:16:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	AlFin wrote: 77 wrote: As an aside from the Avery/Logos cage-match - does anybody know what the average reader is supposed to make of this? Does it really matter? Nothing! Although it's a good example of people straining out gnats and making mountains out of mole hills. And this goes the same for the "hazel" or "almond" debate. Allen You meant straining AT gnats, didn't you?! .......... Just kidding! The topic is interesting enough; it certainly illustrates the frustration of getting even the most inconsequential details straight. And it irritates some of the Onliests. Not too shabby - for a nut! "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
AlFin		#20	[-]
Posts: 52 (12/30/2008 16:11:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	SAWBONES wrote: . . . sense of erudition . . . Well, there's a benefit of being on this board, my vocabulary is expanding. Allen

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Reversed identification of two birds in early English Bibles

Reversed identification of two birds in early English Bibles

Quick Reply