Creation and KJV?

[Seamus_Sully]

Genesis 1: 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

after HIS kind!

Does this His refer to God?

Other translations are “its” kind.

Thanks!

 

[teachccd]

I see it referring to the seed as in direct relationship to the plant. It bears seed of his kind would indicate the plant as a plant is a creation and cannot bring forth the seed of God…my two cents…teachccd

 

[Seamus_Sully]

In the KJV the pronoun of HIS is used.

Does the HIS refer to God?

 

[thistle]

Genesis 1: 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

after HIS kind!

Does this His refer to God?

Other translations are “its” kind.

Thanks!

THe D-R Bible and the NAB both use “its”. I would agree with teachccd’s comments. It is not a reference to God.

 

[lak611]

THe D-R Bible and the NAB both use “its”. I would agree with teachccd’s comments. It is not a reference to God.

“His” in the KJV is an archaic personal pronoun that is even used to describe inanimate objects. For instance, “his” describes the furnishings of the tabernacle.

Exo 25:31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.

In modern English, the pronoun to describe these things would be “its”. Compare this with the RV (an update of the KJV).

(RV) And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it:

Here’s Genesis 1:12 in the RV:

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

lak611

I am sorry, but I am unable to comprehend your teaching.

Is His an incorrect translation?

 

[lak611]

lak611

I am sorry, but I am unable to comprehend your teaching.

Is His an incorrect translation?

“His” is not incorrect, but outdated. Nowadays, for instance, “his” only refers to something belonging to a person. “Its” refers to something belonging to an animal, plant, piece of furniture, etc. His used to refer to something belonging to any person or object because the word “its” did not exist in the English language. The KJV is old and still uses outdated language. The translation was not wrong at the time, but the word is not used in that context today. For instance, we no longer say “Four score and seven years ago” as Lincoln did in the Gettysburg Address. Nowadays, we would say “eighty seven years ago”. “Four score and seven years ago” is not incorrect, just old-fashioned. “His” in this use in the KJV is not incorrect, just old-fashioned (or archaic).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

lak611

I am sorry, but I am unable to comprehend your teaching.

Is His an incorrect translation?

It’s correct - for 1611, that is.​

Now, “its” is the correct form for expressing the neuter possessive singular, & has been for a long time. In 1611, the neuter possessive singular - which is what “his” was - was expressed by the use of a possessive form which matched the masculine possessive singular.

Those forms were correct for Early Modern English, but the English of 2007 is no longer (from our POV, who speak it) Early Modern. The English of the AV of 1611 was slightly archaic even then - for the AV is largely based on the work of William Tyndale, who died in 1536.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

lak611 and Gottle of Geer!

Thanks, I understand it clearly.

Again, thank you for your help.

 

[lak611]

lak611 and Gottle of Geer!

Thanks, I understand it clearly.

Again, thank you for your help.

You’re welcome!