Alive to God and Whitestone,I do understand what you are trying to say, how the word of God relates in some way to all of us. I just strongly oppose Anonymous777 theory that the KJB has special properties that make it the only acceptable bible. On the particular issue of addressing in the singular versus the plural, in Hebrew of course this is done, and I have found it interesting to note the significance of it when I studied Genesis. When God spoke to ONE person but used a plural form of 'you' (I noticed this using a Hebrew/ English interlinear bible).The fact is though is not all languages are the same, and in modern english, we don't this distinction. The translators work faithfully to convey the meaning accurately in many languages, and I for one commend them for their efforts. Each version has strengths and weaknesses. As someone who speaks English only, I am just thankful for the choice of versions we have.
Wrong Andy, I know there are many Bibles that have been faithfully translated.Reina-Valera Gomez is also a faithful translation.
Andy, my comment on the "history" book was referring to the broader implications of tampering with God's Word.
No anonymous777 you said in this thread which relates to a particular passage that it was "another example" of how this has been done, could you please explain this, or retract your statement about this.Apologies for not realizing that your hold another bible as being correct.
Andie,Sorry for the delay. I am traveling this weekend and only have my phone. Consequently, my replies have been short, and possibly not explanatory enough. Tomorrow afternoon I will be at a keyboard.Blessings,777
On the particular issue of addressing in the singular versus the plural, in Hebrew of course this is done, and I have found it interesting to note the significance of it when I studied Genesis. When God spoke to ONE person but used a plural form of 'you' (I noticed this using a Hebrew/ English interlinear bible).
Alive to God,I can't remember the exact context offhand. I'll have a look later and perhaps give an example.
I had a look through, and it is when God establishes his convenant with Abraham. In most of the verses God refers to Abraham with the singular you, but in verse 17:10 and 11 he switches to the plural. I don't think it is very significant to be honest looking back at it.10"(A)This is My covenant, which YOU shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And (B)YOU shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. The you's in caps are plurals, I guess referring all the convenant people.
Hi andie,This is a good example, showing Abraham's role in conveying his hearing from God both for himself and his descendants.Here is it in the KJV, beginning in the verse before, which helps to give it context. Genesis 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. I am thinking that - particularly after the wilderness when circumcision lapsed - the use of the plural removes any possibility of Jacob's children thinking it didn't need to apply to them. This is assisted by began with 'you and your' in v 9, 'you and your' v 10. There is also an important connection being made between God and subsequent male descendants of Abraham, individually, as you said, the 'covenant people'.