Apikorus

You found only one example, from 1 Chr 10:12. In all the other cases, the vav is translated as "that". Perhaps after more hours of poring over the text, you might find another example in Job. None of this is much help in 1 Samuel, however. You've basically proven my point.

By the way, ben-shanah shaul b'malkho means "Saul was one year old when he began to reign" if translated according to the standard formula (which appears 36 other times in the Hebrew Bible). b'malkho is literally "in his reigning" so if one didn't know about the dozens of other examples one could try to rescue the text by translating 1 Sam 13:1 as you do. But, unfortunately for your case, we have these dozens of other examples which tell us exactly what b'malkho means. So you've got to argue that its meaning in 1 Sam 13:1 is somehow exceptional. This is a tough row to hoe, since it is all much more easily explained by simple scribal error.

BenefitOfTheDoubt

Well it's not really omitted in 1 Sam 13:2 either, seeing it is translated there as the "when" in verse 1, but you won't admit that, so it's being translated as "that" counts as just as much of an omission as that does.

Why does it matter what book it's in? Hebrew is Hebrew. I've shown quite conclusively that it is not uncommon to leave an vav "omitted" in a 2-verse sentence when the word "when" starts a clause in the first verse and then that sentence continues in the next verse with a vav that is left untranslated because it contributes to the "when" clause in the preceding verse. You on the otherhand have shown nothing, except that you don't know what you're talking about. First you make a big deal out of verse numbers and now, you only accept examples of constructions from the same book even though there are plenty in other books of the Tanak. <edit>

Apikorus

You are saying that the vav at the beginning of 13:2 is translated in the middle of 13:1? Ludicrous. In your own example from 1 Chr 10:11-12, you've got vayishm'u at the beginning of 10:11 which grammatically is preterite plus vav consecutive, and is translated as "and (when) they heard". The vav in ushtei in 1 Sam 13:1 doesn't function this way, though, and to try to displace the beginning of 13:2 into the middle of 13:1 makes a balagan out of everything.

All this proves, Ben, is that you don't read biblical Hebrew. There are marked differences in style between different authors. Chronicles is a much later text than 1 Samuel (as the orthography itself attests). But this is somewhat beside the point, since the issue here is more the KJV's translation scheme than the underlying Hebrew.

The reason why it is relevant to look at surrounding verses and the rest of the book is obvious<edit>. I'll leave it to you to struggle with this and see if you can find a reason.

...you have no command of this material, if by "not uncommon" you mean one exception out of 400 instances in 1 Samuel (and who knows for the Hebrew Bible as a whole -- so far you've found exactly one other instance in the entire Tanakh). If words have any meaning at all, this frequency would be best described as "extremely uncommon" or "almost unheard-of".

pharoah

The above passage is before Saul is anointed king 4 chapters later. So you would have us believe that the tallest person in all of Israel, described as being a young man, was only a year old? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Apikorus

The problem, pharaoh, is that the text of 1 Sam 13:1 is corrupt. It clearly says that Saul was one year old at the start of his reign, using a structure which is repeated three dozen other times in the Hebrew Bible. In order to avoid the absurdity of the text as it stands, apologists are forced to reinterpret it. So "Saul was one year old" becomes "Saul was like a child of one year..." even though the text says no such thing.

The second half of the notice, which again is standard Deuteronomistic language, says that Saul reigned over Israel for two years. This is also troublesome, since the events of Saul's reign don't fit into a two year span. So they meddle with this too, changing "and for two years Saul ruled over Israel" to "when Saul had ruled two years over Israel..." which is also not what the text says.

Steven Avery

LOL.... what a joke ! Your "rule" is a laughingstock, being based on VERSE NUMBERS !!! .... As I told you, I don't waste time on garbage.

Steven Avery

You mean Benefit wasted time, and showed that your "Rule" was junque.

Api, I have rarely seen <edit> someone who supposedly understands translation concepts between two languages try to foist a "RULE" involving verse numbers. Even that "RULE" failed, in addition to having no meaning or purpose, but who cares, it only showed your desperation, and cluelessness about translation issues.

Apikorus

LOL! Grammatically his example is not parallel to 1 Sam 13:1. But I expect your knowledge of Hebrew grammar is commensurate with your knowledge of the Hebrew Bible in general.

At any rate, can you find a single counterexample in 1 Samuel, other than 1 Sam 13:1?

Steven Avery

<edit>

Steven Avery

Is there a Latin name for the fallacy of refining qualifications ?

This one could go right into the textbooks.

Find another example ... of
a) an absurd "RULE" of no import or significance
b) be sure it is placed by the VERSE NUMBERS, and
c) be sure it is in the same book.

On top of all this, to make things worse, the whole purpose of the supposed "RULE" (it is a single-purpose "RULE", specially designed to buttress a failing attempt to accuse the Masoretic Text on 1 Samuel 13:1) is to demonstrate that the King James Bible translators considered the verse an unusual construction, as not being a "literal" translation. Ironically this is true in hundreds of verses where the King James Bible translators varied from 'literal Hebrew' (Isaiah 53:9 being a fav example), which is no surprise to anyone anyway. The "RULE", to the minuscle extent that it has any meaning or sense, demonstrates only what we already know, that 1 Samuel 13 is best translated in an idiomatic or non-literal fashion.

On top of all this, the KJB could simply have put an "then" in the beginning of verse two, with no change of meaning, if anybody actually cared a diddle or a whittle about Api's weird conceptions and convolutions and bogus "RULES".

<edit>