At Acts 7: 33 and Exodus 3:5 (LXX), the words translated "holy ground" are both in the singular. The adjective there agrees in number and gender with the noun, earth (Gk, gee).

What's probably confusing here is the fact that hagia may be either singular or plural. It is determined by the noun it modifies. hagia with the acute accent over the iota is singular feminine. This is the word that we have in Acts7:33. The same word is plural feminine when the acute accent is found over the alpha. This is how it occurs in Hebrews 9: 2, for instance. It can also be dative singular feminine when the acute accent mark is over the iota and is accompanied with an iota-subscript.

As for why the sanctuary is referred to by the plural, hagia, it is used in the plural neuter because the Hebrew sanctuary had two compartments, and also because, as Hebrews 9: 1-4 explains, it held the numerous holy things, such as the alter of incense, the lampstand, the table of showbread, and the ark of the covenant. Therefore the entire sanctuary is referred to, literally, as the holies, or holy places. Even when referring to only the first compartment, or holy place, the original Greek has the plural, "holies."

I don't see any connection between the fact that it is in the plural and the fact that the Godhead is a Trinity. I'm not denying that this could be related but I don't see any evidence of it. What evidence of a connection have you found?

Ahhh, it was just speculation. In fact, I had not yet looked up the Acts 7:33 in Nestle-Aland--just noted its occurrence. Hadn't gotten that far yet. I do not yet have Greek study tools at home, so would have to get back to the office to look that up. One of the limitations of trying to do this at home. I had also planned to check the LXX when I got there. But you have already pointed out the difference. Thanks!

Do you also have the Majority Text with the apparatus and manuscript evidence supporting each reading?

Yes, I have used that in the past. Been moving stuff from old the office to the new office the last few days, and elsewhere! Gotta go through those boxes. I had a hard copy. The online tools I have don't include the apparatus or ID the manuscripts.

Dave

Was your Majority Text edited by Hodges and Farstad? If so, that's a wonderful text. It gives a wealth of information in the apparatus. I actually use both it and the Critical Text. I am very partial toward the most recent Nestle-Aland. It's apparatus is by far superior to the one given in the UBS 4th Edition.

Did you notice a change at 1 Cor. 10: 9? There was an important change made between the 2nd edition of UBS and the 3rd edition, and between the 25th edition of Nestle-Aland and the 26th. Up until then, virtually all the printed Greek texts had read Kurios, but then with the more recent texts, they were changed to read Xristos. That is very significant. It conforms to the Majority Text and the KJV. Of course, most importantly, it means that the children of Israel were in rebellion against Christ in the wilderness.

This change was made on the basis of manuscript P46, one of the oldest ms. It has been dated to between AD 85 and 150. If the "Jehovah's Witnesses" would accept that evidence (which, by the way, they refer to in the study edition of their New World Translation), they would have to change some of their theology; but I am confident this won't ever happen.

As a result of that change, most of the modern Bible's being translated read "Christ" instead of "Lord." For instance, I noticed this change in such new translations as the NRSV, the TNIV, the NAB, the Standard English Version and the Christian Standard Bible. I expect the next edition of NASB will also adopt that reading.

I also have the texts of the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexanderinus. A friend of mine gave me a first edition of Tischendorf's Greek NT, which of course is based on the Sinaiticus. I've got to get it rebound soon. I enjoy comparing all of them. I haven't seen a single reading yet that I believe leads to false doctrine or would cause someone to reject the true gospel. I believe that God has kept the NT from such error as would prevent anyone from knowing the truth if only they are willing to seek for it.

Yes, I have studied both the 2nd and the 3rd editions. I am familiar with Nestle-Aland 26th. What you mention is an exciting development, at 1 Cor. 10:9. I have a CD with a number of Greek texts, which can be compared in different windows. I gotta find it! Will be updating my hard copy to the most recent Nestle-Aland (27th ed. I recall) Anxious to do that as finances permit. As for the JW's, I can show the Divinity of Christ, have a good study on it. Seems like the folks get pretty attached to their beliefs sometimes, though.

Dave

I gotta get one of the CDs you mention. That would sure be helpful to me. I also want to get a program so I can type and print out Greek script.

Have you seen this wonderful source: http://whnac.biblos.com/revelation/11.htm

It gives you access to the main Greek printed texts and also to a lot of important commentaries and translations.

The only problem is you can't copy and paste these Greek texts onto CA threads for some reason. When you do, it just shows a bunch of numbers. Maybe they would work on a CA for Greek speaking SDA.

Okay, I just looked up for the first time Acts 7:33. Indeed, it is a nominative adjective, modifying a singular subject, and has the iota accented. However, I am still not satisfied in regard to Heb. 9:2. I note that proth matches skhnh, no problem there. The pronoun htis also matches, fem. sing. nom. Having said that, the plural nom. adjective hagia is modifying skhnh . . . h proth specifically, IN WHICH is the table of shewbread, the lampstand, etc. Hagia therefore is NOT modifying the lampstand, shewbread, etc., BUT skhnh . . . h proth, singular. The verb also matches, legetai, 3rd per. singular--which IS called holy. Everything matches otherwise. In this case, either Paul's grammar may be less than perfect, OR there is some larger application of hagia, for it to be plural. KIM that the FIRST (proth) room is being described, specifically, so by 'larger application' I am not referring to the skhnh itself or to grammatical issues, but to possible spiritual applications an definitions.

Dave

Do you mean "ee protee"? Or "ee prothesis"?

Personal preference for me is to use 'h' instead of 'ee.' Am at home right now, but I believe the verse in question reads, 'h proth,' in N-A 26th.

Dave