My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar

[fredoheaven]

The question is not can Hebrew masculine forms be translated into English singulars; rather, the question is if it should be in the case of Gen 1:1. The context would demand plural, not singular. Gen 1:8 is appropriately singular because samayim is referring to raqia, which itself is singular. That is not speculative; it's Hebrew grammar. So no problem, and the KJV is still in error in Gen 1:1. Regardless I have seen no documention from you on why a singular heaven in Gen 1:1 is approporiate as per the KJV, and so, by your logic, rendering your opinion speculative. And given that 'DBW' is a PhD, his opinion is hardly irrelevant.

The point is clear: it is possible to translate the masculine plural 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) into English as a singular noun. The primary reason for this is syntactic agreement, where the singular verb 'created' and the singular noun 'earth' in Genesis 1:1 influence the translation of 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular).
Furthermore, the masculine plural 'Elohim' can be translated as 'God' (singular) due to the plural of majesty or plural of intensity.
Historically, pre-KJV English Bibles, such as Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, and the Geneva Bible, also translated 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular).
1395 In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe. Wyclif's Bible
1526 In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth. Tyndale Bible
1535 In ye begynnynge God created heauen & earth: Coverdale Bible
1540 In the begynnynge God created heauen and earthe. The Great Bible
1587 In the beginning God created the heauen and the earth. The Geneva Bible
1568 In the beginnyng GOD created ye heauen and the earth. The Bishops' Bible
1609 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. Douay-Rheims Bible
Lexically, various Hebrew dictionaries, including Strong's, Thayer's, and Brown-Driver-Briggs, support the translation of 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular). Even modern translators acknowledge that 'heaven' is a legitimate translation of 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim)

Snnipet from Sellg Newman Hebrew Lexicon
https://archive.org/details/englishhebrewlex00newmuoft/page/168/mode/2up?view=theater&q=heaven


Snnipet from A Complete Hebrew-English Pocket Dictionary
https://archive.org/details/acompletehebrewe00feyeuoft/page/346/mode/2up?view=theater&q=heaven

 

[tharkun]

Again, the point is not whether it can be translated as singular, it is whether it should be. I can post a list of translations that all translate it as 'heavens' but that doesn't settle the point. The question is context. The context of Gen 1:1 is a banner statement of the initial primordial creation of all things, heavens and earth. KJV itself indicates that there are plural heavens in multiple places. The creation of those heavens must go go back to the original creation narrative; therefore a plural heavens is demanded by other scripture.

Your response also begs the question of why a KJVO needs to appeal to other 'non-pure' texts to support the argument? Doesn't seem very logical to me: KJV is the only 'pure' text yet I'm going to appeal to 'non-pure' texts to back up my argument? Regardless, the example given is only one of many places KJV has been shown to be incorrect, and therefore, not 'pure'.

 

[fredoheaven]

Again, the point is not whether it can be translated as singular, it is whether it should be. I can post a list of translations that all translate it as 'heavens' but that doesn't settle the point. The question is context. The context of Gen 1:1 is a banner statement of the initial primordial creation of all things, heavens and earth. KJV itself indicates that there are plural heavens in multiple places. The creation of those heavens must go go back to the original creation narrative; therefore a plural heavens is demanded by other scripture.

Your response also begs the question of why a KJVO needs to appeal to other 'non-pure' texts to support the argument? Doesn't seem very logical to me: KJV is the only 'pure' text yet I'm going to appeal to 'non-pure' texts to back up my argument? Regardless, the example given is only one of many places KJV has been shown to be incorrect, and therefore, not 'pure'.

Thank you for your response. As we examine the context, I'd like to reiterate that the presence of the Hebrew suffix 'im' is no longer a valid reason to claim that the KJV is in error for translating Genesis 1:1 as 'heaven' (singular).

I've listed previous English Bibles that also translated Genesis 1:1 as 'heaven' (singular), demonstrating that this translation choice wasn't unique to the KJV. These earlier translations had valid reasons for rendering 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular). Interestingly, Jewish Bibles also support the translation of 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular) rather than 'heavens' (plural).

Now, let's examine the accuracy and contextual fit of 'heaven' (singular) versus 'heavens' (plural) in Genesis 1:1. The KJV begins with 'In the beginning…', which indicates the start of God's creative work. This creation is 'ex nihilo', bringing something into existence from nothing. According to the biblical account, this creative process occurred over six literal days, culminating in the creation of mankind on the sixth day. So, let's focus on the first day. What was created on this day?"

• The creation of heaven and earth
• The biblical account confirms that "heaven" (singular) refers to the vast vault of the universe, encompassing everything within it, including the invisible realms that require telescopic aid to observe. On the second day of creation, the focus shifts to the "sky" or "firmament" (also referred to as "heaven"), where birds fly. Interestingly, the abode of God, alluded to by Paul as the "third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2), is not part of the Genesis creation account. This is because the third heaven, Lucifer, and the angels existed before the events described in Genesis.
• Logically, the initial creative acts in Genesis describe a singular "heaven" referring to the universe. Below it lies the sky, and above it, the abode of God.
• This context is crucial, as Genesis 2:1 subsequently mentions the "heavens" (plural) and the earth, implying that the creation of the universe, sky, and heavenly realms has been completed."

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Sorry, folks. I was busy lately. I went to the Bible Museum today.
Did not get time to explore the whole thing, but it was really cool.
I really had low expectations despite two people praising it in Washington DC.
Granted, it does not really tell you the truth about the Critical Text vs. the Textus Receptus.
But it does have a great section praising the King James Bible, and Erasmus with cool displays and cutting edge tech. Really cool.
I only had seen the 4th level (Bible history), and the 5th level (the cool Mosaic discovery that declares Jesus is God).

An ancient mosaic discovered in 2005 beneath a prison in Megiddo, Israel, dates back to approximately 230 AD, placing it in the early 3rd century. This mosaic contains a Greek inscription that refers to ”God Jesus Christ,” providing early evidence of Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity. The inscription reads: ”The god-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.” This artifact is significant as it predates the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the nature of Christ’s divinity was a central topic of discussion. The mosaic is believed to have been part of one of the earliest known Christian prayer halls. Since September 2024, it has been on display at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., and will remain there until July 2025.

Definitely a must see!


….

 

[Blain]

Sorry, folks. I was busy lately. I went to the Bible Museum today.
Did not get time to explore the whole thing, but it was really cool.
I really had low expectations despite two people praising it in Washington DC.
Granted, it does not really tell you the truth about the Critical Text vs. the Textus Receptus.
But it does have a great section praising the King James Bible, and Erasmus with cool displays and cutting edge tech. Really cool.
I only had seen the 4th level (Bible history), and the 5th level (the cool Mosaic discovery that declares Jesus is God).

An ancient mosaic discovered in 2005 beneath a prison in Megiddo, Israel, dates back to approximately 230 AD, placing it in the early 3rd century. This mosaic contains a Greek inscription that refers to ”God Jesus Christ,” providing early evidence of Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity. The inscription reads: ”The god-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.” This artifact is significant as it predates the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the nature of Christ’s divinity was a central topic of discussion. The mosaic is believed to have been part of one of the earliest known Christian prayer halls. Since September 2024, it has been on display at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., and will remain there until July 2025.

Definitely a must see!


….

they have a bible museum? that is so cool

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

they have a bible museum? that is so cool

Yes. It is huge, and it is in Washington, DC. There is a lot to see even in Washington DC. Not only do you get to see the the capital city of the United States and its unique buildings here, but, it also holds the spy museum here, too. But we may have to catch that for another visit. The Bible Museum was way better than the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. Actually, it was probably my favorite museum experience because they went overboard with the careful attention to detail, abundance of manuscripts, and Bibles, and cool interactive displays that enhanced the experience.


....

 

[Blain]

Yes. It is huge, and it is in Washington, DC. There is a lot to see even in Washington DC. Not only do you get to see the the capital city of the United States and its unique buildings here, but, it also holds the spy museum here, too. But we may have to catch that for another visit. The Bible Museum was way better than the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. Actually, it was probably my favorite museum experience because they went overboard with the careful attention to detail, abundance of manuscripts, and Bibles, and cool interactive displays that enhanced the experience.


....

sounds amazing I have never been but would like to one day even just for the sights

 

[tharkun]

I'd like to reiterate that the presence of the Hebrew suffix 'im' is no longer a valid reason to claim that the KJV is in error for translating Genesis 1:1 as 'heaven' (singular).

I don't agree to this at all - it's exactly what I am arguing. 'im' can be interpreted a singular, but the burden of proof is on you to show from scripture why the KJV's interpretation in the singular is preferred.

I've listed previous English Bibles that also translated Genesis 1:1 as 'heaven' (singular), demonstrating that this translation choice wasn't unique to the KJV.

True, but irrelevant as to establishing which translation is correct. As I said before, I can create a list of translations that show it in the plural, but that won't change your mind, so showing me a list of ones that translate in the singular is not convincing either.

These earlier translations had valid reasons for rendering 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular).

But what were those reasons? I've seen no evidence presented to support such reasoning.

Interestingly, Jewish Bibles also support the translation of 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) as 'heaven' (singular) rather than 'heavens' (plural).

This is false, the very first Tanakh I pulled up online from Chabad.org shows it as a plural translation:

1In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. אבְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ:

In fact, among the more that a dozen Jewish translations I looked at, there seems to be a pretty even split whether it's translated as singular or plural.

The KJV begins with 'In the beginning…', which indicates the start of God's creative work. This creation is 'ex nihilo', bringing something into existence from nothing.

This is only one possible rendering according to the Hebrew grammar. An equally valid interpretation is "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void...". This can indicate that there was creative activity going on prior to what's listed in Gen 1, and that the primordial substance of the earth was already in existence when the recorded activities began to take place. But this gets us away from the discussion at hand...

According to the biblical account, this creative process occurred over six literal days, culminating in the creation of mankind on the sixth day.

Again, this is but one possible interpretation. When placed within its literary and cultural context, it is more likely that Gen 1 is not giving us a scientific chronology of how creation took place, but is rather a narrative-poetic polemic aimed at undercutting Israel's neighbor's creation myths. But this too gets us away from the discussion at hand...

So, let's focus on the first day. What was created on this day?"

• The creation of heaven and earth

But you're simply assuming what you're trying to prove here. Classic circular reasoning.

• The biblical account confirms that "heaven" (singular) refers to the vast vault of the universe, encompassing everything within it, including the invisible realms that require telescopic aid to observe. On the second day of creation, the focus shifts to the "sky" or "firmament" (also referred to as "heaven"), where birds fly. Interestingly, the abode of God, alluded to by Paul as the "third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2), is not part of the Genesis creation account. This is because the third heaven, Lucifer, and the angels existed before the events described in Genesis.

Again, you're simply assuming what you're trying to prove, and making assertions without scriptural backing.

• Logically, the initial creative acts in Genesis describe a singular "heaven" referring to the universe. Below it lies the sky, and above it, the abode of God.

It's only 'logical' if one accepts the assumptions and assertions you are making without scriptural backing. You're arguing in a circle. 'Logically' if the heaven (singular) is the entire universe, the earth and all things in it are logically a part of that creation as it is within the universe, and therfore, logically, would contain the sky/heaven as well thus making the heavens plural (unless we're special pleading now).

• This context is crucial, as Genesis 2:1 subsequently mentions the "heavens" (plural) and the earth, implying that the creation of the universe, sky, and heavenly realms has been completed."

I agree that context is crucial, but it does not support your argument. The discussion is not about Gen 2:1 as I believe we both agree that heavens plural is correct there. It is about Gen 1:1 where we disagree.

To reiterate, the first verse is a summary statement about the entire creation not the first of a sequence of creative acts. It mirrors later areas of the 'toledot' that summarize 'these are the generations of...' . It's an introductory statement encompassing the whole of the what is about to be detailed out in the rest of Gen 1 and therefore necessarily includes all of the heavens to be delineated, therefore, plural is required.

 

[GWH]

Come on buddy I am asking you for LIVING WATER. Stop trying to be cheeky and save your face... ANSWER.
You have called yourself Christian for how long? And you don't know where the pure and perfect word of God is?
You quoted Galatians 5 earlier... Surely you would know Galatians 5:9


What is it called? Give me a link to the exact word of God in English... I wait.

I say only the KJV is perfect. how say you?
WHERE IS THE WORD OF GOD THAT CONTAINS NO LEAVEN?
WHAT IS IT'S NAME?
Give me a link so I can buy it right now.

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation. Again, God determines that the revelation each generation has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God may allow minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation. Again, God determines that the revelation each generation has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God may allow minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).

If one has an overly simplistic view of salvation, which most seem to have these days, then the issue of what Bible you have does not really matter all too much. In my view, there would be no real reason to get up in arms about this topic if that were the case.

I say this because Modern Bibles teach false doctrines, which can affect your right standing with the LORD depending on the false doctrine. I have run into Christians who said Jesus sinned, and they pointed to a Modern Bible. It is heretical to say that Jesus sinned. Modern Bibles teach that the eternal Living Word (which was made flesh) had a beginning in John 1:18 and Micah 5:2. To say that the second person of the Trinity is not eternal is heretical.

Modern Bibles teach that you are to marry your rapist, which is a false teaching that can turn people away from the Bible altogether. They also leave room for a person to justify the sin of committing abortion, which is the murder of the innocent.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and these are very serious matters. So, another here who strains at gnats—by insisting that Genesis should say heavens instead of heaven—is making mountains out of molehills while ignoring the large doctrinal camels, which is the real problem.


....

 

[Dino246]

Modern Bibles teach false doctrines, which can affect your right standing with the LORD depending on the false doctrine. Modern Bibles teach that the eternal Living Word (which was made flesh) had a beginning in John 1:18 and Micah 5:2. To say that the second person of the Trinity is not eternal is heretical.

Modern Bibles teach that you are to marry your rapist, which is a false teaching that can turn people away from the Bible altogether. They also leave room for a person to justify the sin of committing abortion, which is the murder of the innocent.

Step up with evidence. Address the “false teachings” in ONE (major) modern translation.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Step up with evidence. Address the “false teachings” in ONE (major) modern translation.

I already did. Both in the debate and on this forum.


....

 

[Dino246]

I already did. Both in the debate and on this forum.


....

So far I have seen short lists of your misinterpretations of scattered verses from a variety of translations. You have not provided clear, coherent, conclusive evidence that any particular translation “teaches” error.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

So far I have seen short lists of your misinterpretations of scattered verses from a variety of translations. You have not provided clear, coherent, conclusive evidence that any particular translation “teaches” error.

If it makes you feel any better, I am working on finishing the underlying textual differences, and also translation differences that affect meaning between the KJV vs. the Modern Bibles in my slides. Once I am finished, I will make my slides available to whoever wants them so one can examine them more closely. In addition, I will go more in-depth at explaining these differences in more detail in a future video, as well.

I hope this will help, and may God bless you.

....

 

[Dino246]

If it makes you feel any better, I am working on finishing the underlying textual differences, and also translation differences that affect meaning between the KJV vs. the Modern Bibles in my slides. Once I am finished, I will make my slides available to whoever wants them so one can examine them more closely. In addition, I will go more in-depth at explaining these differences in more detail in a future video, as well.

I hope this will help, and may God bless you.

....

Then, as a matter of integrity, perhaps you can refrain from making assertions in your posts about the reliability of modern translations until you have made the (alleged) evidence available.