Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Show me "heavens" (plural) in Genesis 1:1.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The word translated "heavens" is described thus in my Concordance:
08064 shamayim [shaw-mah -yim] dual of an unused singular
Sorry, how so? The KJV is in English. The concordance is explaining the Hebrew word from which the KJV word "heavens' was translated. Sorry, I don't know why I used a capital C for concordance. That wasn't intentional.Here's my stance on that:
Where your concordance* differs from the King James, your concordance is wrong.
* Interesting that you capitalized it.
Sorry, how so?
The KJV is in English.
The concordance is explaining the Hebrew word from which the KJV word "heavens' was translated.
Sorry, I don't know why I used a capital C for concordance.
That wasn't intentional.
The King James is a divine Translation.
The concordance is not.
So if they differ ...
The autographs are indeed long gone. They were gone before 1611. The makers of concordances have access to the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 translators had.Yes indeed.
Using what as its source document?
The Autographs were long gone.
Yes, but continuing with your analogy, the KJV wasn't even the first 'piano' in English, let alone Hebrew.If you have 100 pianos to tune, you don't tune the second one according to the first, then the third one according to the second, then the fourth according to the third and so on.
You tune the first one, then all 99 according to that first one.
Faux pas?
Not by you ... no.
Are you saying that because the KJV says 'heaven', and the original Hebrew word is plural, the must be a correction of the Hebrew?
The autographs are indeed long gone. They were gone before 1611.
The makers of concordances have access to the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 translators had.
Yes, but continuing with your analogy, the KJV wasn't even the first 'piano' in English, let alone Hebrew.
This is a funny question.It is Day One of the Creation Week and God creates Earth ex nihilo (from nothing) by speaking it into existence.
Heretofore the level of mass/energy in the physical universe is zero; since the physical universe didn't exist yet.
Afterwards, the level of mass/energy in the physical universe is now equal to the earth.
Here's my question:
What physical evidence would convince you this happened?
I submit there isn't any.
What say you?
... there is no evidence.
Furthermore, to avoid accusations such as digital editing, you tube videos would not be evidence enough. This "speaking into existence" would need to be reproducable so the "created thing" could be examined by science to document it according to what matters to people who read scientific studies.
The thing is, in order for something to become "evidence" it needs to go through a similar vetting process that scripture had to before it became scripture.God doesn't cater to threats.
"Make sure what You did is reproducable, or I'll believe what science tells me" isn't going to cut it.
The thing is, in order for something to become "evidence" it needs to go through a similar vetting process that scripture had to before it became scripture.
Part of this process is showing the principle can be reproduced.
That's why the 'faith is the evidence' passage says "by faith" we understand that God created the world.Okay.
And if it can't, does that mean it didn't happen as documented?
Did Jesus walk on water? or do scientists need to see His footprints out there?
We trust he did, it's not about evidence.
No trust. The key is on the other side of the door.They why do they ask for it?
The Hebrew text the KJV is translated from is the Masoretic Text (MT) which is the most widely used Hebrew text for Bibles and is authoritative in Jewish canon.How do you know it's the "original Hebrew"?
The Hebrew text the KJV is translated from is the Masoretic Text (MT) which is the most widely used Hebrew text for Bibles and is authoritative in Jewish canon.
The MT uses the same word for 1:1 and 2:1 which is the plural for heavens/skies which is "shamayim".
This word is always in the plural and there is no singular form so there is no alternative Hebrew text that would conflict this.
It can equally refer to the physical expanse of the sky or to the spiritual realm.
And is a matter of interpretation as to its meaning.
Yes, I agree it is vague. Thanks for pointing it out. I meant "the Hebrew text from which the KJV translators translated the Old Testament." Hopefully, you will not find that vague.How do you know it's the "original Hebrew"?
"Original Hebrew" is a pretty vague term, don't you think?
And why do people have to clarify it by saying "original"?
Why don't they just say "Hebrew"?
Has the Hebrew language changed?
Or is there a "Koine" and "Classical" Hebrew language?
So if the 1611 translators didn't have the autographs, but relied on copies of the autographs, how is the KJV more reliable as a translation?Yes, that's my point.
I have no idea why they wrote "heaven" rather than "heavens." Perhaps it is connect with the fact that the word "heaven(s)" is used in Scripture for various things - the air where birds fly, the place where the sun, moon and stars are, and of course the dwelling-place of almighty God. If we were French, we would have no problem, because they use the same French word for "sky" and for "heaven."Then why do they change the wording of the King James?
If the King James writers had access to the same word -- (shamayim) -- as the makers of your concordance had, why did the King James writers write "heaven," and the makers write "heavens"?
I am not American, but even I can see that the second version completely changes the meaning of the first. Creation is not the same as evolution, and nature is not the same as the divine Creator. That is not the case with the question of heaven/heavens. Is there only one heaven? No, because the bible talks of the place where birds fly as heaven, the place where the sun, moon and stars are as heaven, and the dwelling-place of God as heaven. Did God create them all? Yes. Can the Hebrew word mean "heavens"? Yes. The KJV itself often translates the self-same Hebrew word as "heavens," for instance:All these guys are doing is role-playing what happened from 1604-1611, but doing it their way.
How do you think we Yanks would feel if someone re-wrote the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
... and wrote it as:
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that people evolved equally,
that they are endowed by Nature with absolute Rights,
that among these are biological Life, Freedom and the search for Happiness.
That is a totally unsubstantiated claim. Let me stress that I think the KJV is a good translation, and the translators were helped in their work by God. What biblical teaching is there that teaches that God specially aided the 1611 translators, and none after that?But It is one of the Tuner's eight Pianos, nonetheless.
God tuned the King James piano.
He did not tune anything after that; as the King James piano is the last in His line of special Pianos.
The KJV is translated from the MT, the MT has not changed and it remains the same and you can view copies of it as the KJV translators would have seen. The authority of the KJV is dependent upon the authority of its translated source. But the translation is never greater than the source. the KJV does not trump the authority it's widens it so English speakers who don't understand the ancient Hebrew or have access to it may reference it's authority through a translation.The MT has served its time, and has been superseded in any of its authority by the King James Bible.
From Wikipedia:
A plurale tantum ... is a noun that appears only in the plural form and does not have a singular variant for referring to a single object. In a less strict usage of the term, it can also refer to nouns whose singular form is rarely used.
Examples given are: scissors, pants, clothes, alms, suds, and the like.
The references are not necessary, since you're just sourcing what I already said, but thanks for the additional support.From AI Overview:
There isn't a singular word for "heaven" in Biblical Hebrew; the word shamayim, meaning "heavens" or "sky," is a plurale tantum (always a plural form with a singular meaning) or a dual-form noun. While it's grammatically plural or dual, it's used to describe the atmosphere, the starry sky, or the abode of God, and the context determines its singular meaning.
Or it refers to the whole undivided. The word as it is in Hebrew is ambiguous in number and specific reference. The ambiguity is innate in the reading, when we try and change the word to something more specific this crosses from translation into interpretation.Well, there you have it.
In the case of Genesis 1:1, it refers to either the atmosphere, or it refers to outer space.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Only after the Creation Week, when God has finished His work, do we first see it plural.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Context helps to reveal the meaning. In every one of those cases the plural in Hebrew is used (because there is no singular). But it doesn't really matter because the meaning is clear enough. However the context of Gen 1:1 is paired with Gen 2:1 and should use the same word. This is revealed through the chiastic structure of the account. 2:1 is a conclusionary statement. The "heavens" were not created in 2:1 they were already created and the statement is summing this completed state and is not an action being performed. In like manner 1:1 is an introductory statement saying what is going to be created but no creation action is happening. This makes sense to the flow of the account of how created things are introduced and the chiasmus confirms this since 2:1 is obviously conclusionary thus 1:1 as it's chiastic mirror must be introductory.Absolutely correct.
As we're fond of saying: context, context, context!
Take this little test and tell me what "heaven" is referring to in the context:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
- atmosphere
- outer space
- Heaven proper
Genesis 24:3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
- atmosphere
- outer space
- Heaven proper
- atmosphere
- outer space
- Heaven proper
Heaven is fine. Heavens is also fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?