Steven Avery

This is all silly stuff. As if the verse numbers are what determines whether a vav should be translated ?

Please, Api. You know your concern was not really the "beginning of a verse" since verse numbers were a later addition to the text. Your concern was that the vav was untranslated.

You are simply playing ultra-parsing games. Also you simply ignored what Benefit shared, which made for a double refutation. He showed that the vav was translated, you just do not like the grammar placing. Please. Why don't you just give this one up.

LOL .. you are STILL basing your argument on the "formula that wasn't there", reminds me of the eggplant that ate Chicago.

And I should really care about the Vaticanus ??????? You must be kidding. What relevance does such a corrupt text have ? (That TRULY is a corrupt text, both Tanach and NT, as per the famous "fool and knave" note)

None of these were a dropped word. Genesis 4:8 is a whole different type of *contextual* claim, weak in its own right, and not related. You want to add a whole phrase to that one. You keep bringing it up because you don't want to simply admit the truth. That the 1 Samuel 13:1 claim is an "orphan", a unique type of supposed corruption, one in the whole Hebrew Bible. A compelling reason to doubt the whole concept, especially combined with your lack of even a proposed original and method of textual corruption (e.g. such and such a letter dropped out of such and such a word).

If you misreprented his view from the book to make a point, as he implied to me (haven't checked yet) ... that is only fair. Hmmmm. If you did, maybe you should fess up now, to clear the air. Did you ?

Actually, I've seen him be quite harsh on the Talmud.

LOL.. sure if I want to understand how to create a whole new text matching nothing mishmoshing in the Samaritan Bible, the Vulgate, the Greek OT, the DSS and the kitchen sink. sureeee...

Translation... I got out on a limb and goofed.

What "rule" ? The "rule" is a fabrication of your own mind. This type of fabrication of rules is common in grammar and translation discussions from those fishing to try to cover some obscure and weak point. Api, I expected a little better from you.

I really suggest you drop the whole issue, but if you want to state

Api's Rule of King James Bible Translation
_____________________________________________
I'll give it due consideration.

Be sure to explain
a) what makes it a "rule"
b) who created the "rule"
c) what relevance verse numbers has to the rule
d) whether the "rule" is claimed to be a requirement of proper translation
e) where it applies, what languages, texts, translations
f) why you think the rule would have no exceptions
g) what are the penalties for breaking the "rule" ?

Please be vigorous with your rule .. or maybe show some insight and admit that this whole issue is a diversion, that you painted yourself into a corner. You would do better to leave gracefully with a simple "I made a mistake, there is no issue there".

One of the ironies here is that Api ignores the basics that nowhere in the Bible, 50K or so words, dozens of books, is there any other supposed error at all comparable to what he claims in 1 Samuel 13, a 'formula' lost, especially an unknown word-simply-dropped, a supposedly difficult construction. There really is a "rule" of thumb, the Bible is consistent, making sense (even if you don't accept it as scripture). Api wants to violate this rule on the weakest pretense, and goes on a rabbit-trail about a vav translation to try to cover his tracks. Amazing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

The versification bears on the translation, of course, since the beginning of a verse marks the beginning of a sentence. The fact that the KJV translates, without fail, each and every vav at the beginning of a verse in 1 Sam 12, 13, and 14 with the sole exception of 1 Sam 13:2 is powerful evidence for my argument.

Incidentally, you never provided an explanation of why the KJV's translation of 2 Sam 21:19, which adds words which are unequivocally not present in the Hebrew, is superior to that of the NRSV. As this seems a very odd claim indeed, I'm sure that readers would benefit from some insight into your arguments.

I've cited 36 other instances of the same formula, and 38 other instances of b'malkho. I'm content to let readers judge for themselves who is arguing with facts and who is blowing smoke.

Nope. See E. Tov, "Textual Criticism and the Hebrew Bible" for other examples of haplography in the MT.

Oh really? Where?

You keep dropping Schiffman's name but you've not provided a scintilla of evidence in the form of a quote or citation. I think you're full of hot air, Steven. (Perhaps you misrepresented my statement to Schiffman -- if you ever spoke with him at all, which I am beginning to doubt.) By the way, here's what I said: At any rate, I provided the precise reference to the discussion in Schiffman's book. Go look it up.

By the way, make sure to ask Professor Schiffman what he thinks about Christian identification of Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. I'm sure you'll have a very nice discussion.

Where did I "goof"? Can you be more specific? Please quote the exact sentence which you feel is in error.

The rule that each vav at the beginning of a verse is translated, of course. Can you find an exception or are you going to just blow more smoke up my tachat?

Steven Avery

You are very confused, mixing issues. Translations will vary as to where they start sentences, and the verse numbers were assigned separately.

You will see all sorts of cases where a sentence runs over multiple verses, and you will find all sorts of verses that have multiple sentences. So your "of course" is only indicative of your own confusion.

What argument ? None of this makes sense. Are you saying the Hebrew is wrong ? Are you saying the English is grammatically incorrect ? Have you addressed Benefit's post. Naah. You give us nothing.

And how can you base some theory on the "beginning of a verse" when that has no direct and compelling relationship on either the Hebrew or English construction ? The verse numbers were assigned independently of the King James Bible, and it is the RIGHT thing for the KJB translators to do to to NOT let them rule the translation.

You probably know that but realize your original position (simply a vav untranslated) was totally shot down, even in multiple fashions. Analogy to another verse in the previous chapter in Samuel and the translation of 1 Samuel 13, per Benefit's analysis.

Even the skeptics here should be able to see the absurdity of your position, although I dunno if they have the werewithal to call you on it.

Api, please. If you asked me that particular question, and it is unanswered, I would like to see it. This is a tacky posting technique you have, of misremembering other threads. Be a mensch and go back to the exact thread and question, so folks can read what has transpired, and THEN ask the question. And you can ask it on that thread, for simplicity.

LOL and as I've explained again and again, it is a kindergarten error or a sophisticated deception to use the phrase "the same formula" when one element is missing and another one has major non-functionality. 1 Samuel 13:1 is as much the "formula" you propose as --
"he went in the cart before the horse was fed"
represents a well-known English idiom.

The phrase "the same formula" SHOULD be used when...
It IS the same formula.
You are flunking Logic 101.

Why don't YOU offer, as I have requested before, the "next best" three examples, or at least one or two, so the forum members can see ? Are they real, or are they textcrit wishful thinking ? I've been asking you for long time, and you always evade. We just want to see the famous "missing words" that you claim are demonstrable in the Masoretic Text. Are they conjectural contextual emendations, or a cases of a simple ellipsis about which many Hebrew scholars would see no problem, or are they real "word drops" like you claim here? Until you have the verve to really make a claim on a verse, the forum sees that 1 Samuel 13:1 is an absolute orphan.

Right, I asked you if you misrepresented the book you quoted. Apparently you don't want to answer straight, maybe you did, maybe you didn't.

Email so far, he suggested I call at the office, but I am waiting till he is out here in Queens and I've seen the book.

Of course, and I said I plan to look it up. The question isn't whether you quoted accurate 'words' on p.174, but whether you played around some to change his sense. You know that happens a lot in "quotes", little "..." or "(omitting context). As I said, I wanted to give you a chance to consider an adjustment first, before I checked.

The last or next-to-last talk where I chatted with him was on on the Passion movie. He is a very well informed and fun to talk to, even when perspectives are quite different. I agree, the discussions are nice.

Every thing you've said about the "vav" has been a goof, from claiming that the King James Bible had a translation error on the vav, long since disassembled but unacknowledged by you, to the weird stuff above trying to correlate every verse with a sentence, to the next quote about a fabricated "rule" involving verse numbers !!!!

LOL .. you (snipped) everything I asked you about such a "rule".

Api, it is totally asinine to try to make up a new "rule" about verse numbers, which are not part of either the Hebrew or English text, and you should know it. You get a gold star for diversion and for trying to cover your backside, but I have no idea why you want to look so silly.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

On the contrary, I have been crystal clear. My claim is that in every single verse, with a sole exception, in 1 Sam 12, 13, and 14, the leading vav is directly translated in the KJV. This happens over 80 times in these three chapters alone, and I challenge you to find a single exception to this rule other than 1 Sam 13:2. Therefore, 1 Sam 13:2 is suspicious, and if we look at 1 Sam 13:1, we can see why. The KJV translators chose to omit the vav so they could impose a harmonizing translation on 1 Sam 13:1.

I am saying that the Hebrew of 1 Sam 13:1 is corrupt in the MT.

You're being a bit dim here, Steven. Of course the versification of the Hebrew Bible was a medieval innovation. The point is that the KJV translators were apparently rather meticulous when it came to translating the leading vav in each verse -- you have still not come up with a single counterexample. The fact that this is not the case in 1 Sam 13:2 proves that this verse is somehow exceptional. I have provided a coherent and compelling theory as to why the KJV translators chose to break their own rule here.

Try here:What is tacky is repeatedly making false accusations, as you do, to cover up for the holes in your arguments.

More dissembling from Steven. I asked you to provide a quote where you think I have "goofed." Your failure to do so suggests you have nothing in mind.

What element is missing? 1 Sam 13:1 has a perfectly coherent translation:

Saul was one year old at the beginning of his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

Can you identify an error in this translation? I've shown that ben-shanah means "yearling" (Exod 12:5), so this indeed follows the standard formula.

Can you or can you not find an instance where the KJV fails to translate a vav at the beginning of a verse? A simple question, Steven.

Apikorus

To all lurkers:
I'm curious whether (i) anyone else is reading this thread, and (ii) whether they find any of the arguments presented by either me or praxeus to be compelling. Does anyone care to weigh in with casual observations? You don't have to get involved in the discussion.

Anat

You know my opinion. I stopped commenting because this seems to be an endless repetition and banging against walls.

BenefitOfTheDoubt

And what you refuse to accept is that the writer did not intend in this verse to give the full duration of his reign, but to contrast the first two years in which he was childish and did nothing to the third year in which he performed his first kingly act and raised an army, i.e. "he reigned two years..., then..." This is so obvious that I feel stupid even talking to you, because only a fool tries to correct a fool; so that makes me a fool.

Are you completely ignorant of all language <edit>? Anyone who knows anything about Hebrew knows that a vav is translated based on CONTEXT. Sometimes it's "and," sometimes "but," sometimes "so" or "then." Obviously in 2 Chronicles 20:31 a simple "and" makes the most sense, whereas at the beginning of 1 Sam 13:2 "then" or "and then" is the obvious meaning of the vav. You may be fooling a bunch of mindless drones with your prattle, but you're not getting far with those whose brains are still awake.

The KJV does not give a literal translation there, but it does preserve the sense, that Saul did nothing in the first two years of his reign but that he got to work in the third year.

What does that have to do with anything? Who doesn't know that? What kind of straw-man are you trying to erect?

BenefitOfTheDoubt

You apparently know nothing about vav's. The KJV commonly moves mid-sentence vav's when they mean "then," and therefore they effectively change the English construction from "something happened, THEN something was done" to "WHEN something happened, something was done." So, when we have "He had reigned two years, THEN (VAV) he raised an army" they render that "WHEN (VAV) he had reigned two years, he raised an army." The vav is translated, but is is moved to the beginning of the preceding clause. AND, 1 Samuel 13:1-2 is NOT the only time this was done: another example is 1
Samuel 12:9 "And **when** [vav translated here in KJV] they
forgat the LORD their God, [vav was here in Hebrew] he sold them
into the hand of Sisera.." So, instead of saying "And they forgot the LORD their God, THEN (VAV) he sold them..." they say "And WHEN (VAV) they forgot the LORD their God, he sold them..." Is there really a difference? No. It's just that one kinda flows better in English.

Apikorus

kulanu yodiim mi po yodea likro ivrit v'gam mi po lo yodea klum.

That's right -- at the beginning. Not in the middle of the previous verse. The point is perhaps too subtle for you to apprehend. Despite 38 other occurrences of b'malkho in the Hebrew Bible, and over 80 occurrences of the KJV directly translating the initial vav of every single friggin' verse in 1 Sam 12, 13, and 14 (and perhaps all of 1 Sam -- I leave it for you to check), such is the power of the Holy Spirit that evangelical Christians can ignore all evidence and grimly insist that their beloved text is still perfect. The plain sense translation of 1 Sam 13:1 is

Saul was one year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

There is no end to the amount of absurd exegetical gyration that credulous bibliophiles will engage in when it comes to defending the Holy Writ. Here we've heard a variety of absurdities -- that Saul "did nothing" during his first year (the text says no such thing), that Saul "was sinless like a yearling" when he became king (a painfully obvious attempt to make sense of the corruption, straight out of the Targum Yonatan), that b'malkho suddenly doesn't mean the same thing it means in each and every one of its other 38 appearances in the Hebrew Bible, etc. The only thing we've yet to hear is that Saul actually was one year old upon taking the throne -- due to a miracle of Yahweh, he was fully grown at the age of one year. This solution is only marginally more imbecilic than the others.

The KJV harmonizes the corrupt underlying Hebrew text. This is hardly the only example.

BenefitOfTheDoubt

If the guy who invented the verse numbers split a sentence where he should not have, are you going to blame the translators for his mistake? The verse number have absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING--for all intents and purposes they don't even exist! They are NOT part of the text! The fact is that the beginning of 1 Samuel 13:2 is the MIDDLE of the sentence that runs accross both verses 1 and 2.

The only thing corrupt is the verse numbering, and that's not part of the text at all--and yet you are defending it!!! <edit>