Search results

While this explanation might seem satisfactory at first, it fails to address why Noah cursed Canaan, rather than Ham.

Apt analogy! I like it. :)

Here we go with the blatant misrepresentation again. Quote anyone who says we should ignore the Law. ANYONE.

Aaaaannnd... that helps us how, exactly?

It doesn't say that; it says that God would keep them from that generation forever. Your conclusion just doesn't follow. Psalm 12 says nothing of the sort. I'm not going to tolerate you turning this thread into another KJV-only diatribe. Kindly stick to the topic: Psalm 12!

It has to do with the nature of his parentage. It is likely that Ham took advantage of Noah by sleeping with his wife, Ham’s own mother, in an attempt to take authority of the family. When Noah discovered that Canaan wasn’t his own son, he cursed him, essentially saying that he had no part...

So then, we have God preserving words from an evil generation. It still says nothing in favour of the KJV. ;)

In your own words, please explain what the phrase, "the sons of God", as used in Job 38:6, means.

Each new translation was made from the Greek, not from the previous edition of the English. Your case has no merit.

That's a stupid comment. I'm not the one continuing to make an issue of a non-issue.

No, because she did knew neither Hebrew nor Greek. She wasn't involved in the translation. Just drop it; it's irrelevant.

And yet, you still have not answered my question. Please do so.

Your claim is incorrect, for the simple fact that English does not have a personal third-person genderless pronoun. "It" does not refer to a person, but to a thing. "He" is the best-available term. Again, the translation must make sense in the destination language.

I would appreciate a direct answer to my specific question, not other information loosely related to it.

No, you responded to a comment I made. I did not ask a question until after posting this. Anyway, my question is not baited. It is a simple question, though there is intention behind it.

Instead of asking one question after another, how about answering one: What is your understanding of the phrase, "the sons of God" from Job 38:6?

I'm not interested in answering baited questions.

It's not dishonest at all. The goal of translation is to present the original language and meaning in the destination language, which includes grammar, style, and punctuation thereof, and not necessarily of the original. If the message is not presented in the correct form of the destination...

Did you miss the part about the non-existent analogy?

Speculation is a waste of time. We live in reality, and there is no need to be injected with a potentially dangerous substance to forestall a “speculation”.