From: Bill Ross (wross@farmerstel.com)
Date: Sat Mar 21 1998 - 00:17:51 EST
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>In the KJV, Leviticus 19:2 reads "Ye shall
be holy"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>In the Hebrew, "Ye shall be" is not an
imperative, but an imperfect: "You are".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>In the KJV, 1 Peter 1:16 reads "Because it
is written: Be ye holy".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>In the Textus Receptus (TR), this is an
imperative. But there are several manuscripts, used in some modern translations,
that use a different word which is in the indicative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>* What does the Septuagint say for Leviticus
19:2?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>* Which NT manuscript should I trust here: TR? or the ones
that agree with Leviticus?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I think that if the NT agrees with the OT form, it is for a
powerful reason.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT