7 x Sunday
February 09, 2012, 02:45:31 AM
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email?
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
7 x Sunday
-
Bible Teaching & Study
-
Translation Questions and Discussion
(Moderators:
Amy Joy
,
SC lady
,
Travis
) -
What about the English word "corn"?
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Print
Author
Topic: What about the English word "corn"? (Read 903 times)
brandplucked
Adept
Posts: 296
What about the English word "corn"?
«
on:
July 04, 2009, 07:29:22 PM »
What do we do with the word “corn” as it stands in the King James Bible?
I recently had an email exchange with a man I know who is a Wycliffe missionary working in Papau New Ginea. He and his family are translating the Bible into the Koluwawa language. My wife and I help support them in their work and wish God’s blessings upon them and their labors to bring the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the native Koluwawa speaking people.
Over the years we have from time to time discussed the Bible version issue and whether or not there exists such a thing as a Bible that can truthfully be called the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God. My position is that there is and it is the King James Bible. His position is that there is not, but we need to do the best we can to communicate God’s “message” in the language that the target audience will understand.
This article is in response to some of the objections my missionary friend Brad brought up. He writes: Hello again to Will and all. I want to address a couple things you said in your reply. You said: “He (the Lord Jesus Christ) was talking about His preserved words. They would not pass away. Where are His preserved, inspired and infallible words today? Your side doesn't know. Or they tell us that they are scattered all over the place in a multitude of conflicting and partial mss. Not in a single Book.”
Brad continues: “You talk about "His preserved words." My concern for the accurate preservation of God's Word is exactly why I can never be a KJV-onlyist. Take for example the word "corn." Matthew 12, Mark 2, and Luke 6 in the KJV all have Jesus walking through the "cornfields." But "corn" in modern American English does not mean what it meant in King James English. The term "corn" was good, accurate translation when it was used in the KJV, but if you ask a person on the street today to give you all the words and ideas they can think of that associate with the term "corn," you're going to hear about maize and ears of corn and popcorn and caramel corn, etc. You'll even hear something about corny jokes and corned beef and foot corns before you hear anyone say that it is an archaic general term for "grain" (if you hear them say that at all). The meaning that Jesus walking through the cornfields had for readers of the KJV 350 years ago is not preserved for readers today when that same form "corn" is retained. But your position holds that you must preserve the form "corn" because it is inerrant and inspired, and in order to hold that position, you must either face the fact that you are retaining a form that no longer carries the meaning originally intended, or you have to deny that the meaning has actually changed in the face of extremely strong evidence to the contrary.” (end of quote from Brad)
So what do we do with the word “corn” as found in the King James Bible? Well, the short answer is - We keep it, just as it stands.
People who do not believe that there ever existed and does not exist now any Bible in any language that is the preserved, inspired, complete and 100% true words of God seem more concerned about “communicating in the target language” their assumed meanings of a few individual words like “corn”, “conversation”, “let” and “gay” than they are about whether or not literally thousands of God inspired words, whole phrases or entire verses (anywhere from 17 to 45 in the N.T. alone) belong in the true Bible or not.
I and many others firmly believe that the sovereign God of history has indeed fulfilled His promises to give us “the book of the LORD” which we can hold in our hands, read and believe every word. This real and tangible Book is the Authorized King James Holy Bible. It is the Standard and final written authority by which all other “bibles” are to be measured.
God put His pure words in the end times universal language of the English tongue. The true Bible comes from England, not the United States of America, nor Rome, nor Spain, nor Germany nor from Papau New Ginea. All we need to do to understand the meaning of those few English words that some people label as “archaic” or misunderstood, is to simply look them up in a dictionary and learn what they mean.
In the old days they used to call this “getting an education”. Students look up and learn new words and meanings every day of their lives. Technical names, scientific terms, medical terminology and slang are picked up on a regular basis. Don’t even Bible teachers have to teach the meaning of words like Amen (So be it - Greek, from a Hebrew word meaning Truth or Certainlty), Hallelujah - (Hebrew/Greek meaning Praise to Jehovah), “the rapture” (from the Latin rapt meaning to be carried away), “Trinity” (Latin meaning a unity of three) or “Messiah” (from the Hebrew meaning ‘anointed’)?
Or even the simple word “Bible”. How many people know what this word literally means and where it comes from? All we need to do is a little study if we do not understand the meaning of a Bible word. We do not need to dumb down the greatest book ever written. People actually read these modern language, conflicting and contradictory “updated” bible versions and believe them less and less every day.
Corn - what does it really mean and how many Bible translations use this useful and accurate word?
If you bother to actually look up the English word “corn” to see what it means rather than assuming you already know what it means and that the King James Bible is “deficient or out of date”, you will learn some very interesting details about this wonderful, all embracing, generic English word “corn”.
Webster’s Dictionary tells us that the word “corn” comes from the Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German & Old Norse korn grain, Latin granum. And it means: a: the seeds of a cereal grass and especially of the important cereal crop of a particular region (as wheat in Britain, oats in Scotland and Ireland, and Indian corn in the New World and Australia) b : the kernels of sweet corn served as a vegetable while still soft and milky.
Another English dictionary tells us that corn is: 1.a cultivated American cereal plant (Zea mays) of the grass family, with the grain borne on cobs enclosed in husks; maize 2. the ears or kernels of this cereal plant 3. British - the seeds of all cereal grasses, as wheat, rye, barley, etc.; grain 4. any plant or plants producing grain 5. the leading cereal crop in a particular place, as wheat in England or oats in Scotland and Ireland
So we see that the simple word “corn” can refer to any type of grain crop including Indian maize, or wheat, barley, oats or rye. It is a general term for any kind of cultivated grains.
One of my nieces, a really wonderful and highly intelligent young Christian woman, told me about how when she was in 4 H clubs they used to make what they called “Corn Dolls”. These are actually made out of wheat sheafs or any other kind of grain. You can read about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_dolly
How many English bible translations use the word “corn” besides the King James Bible? The answer may well surprise you. Beginning with the liberal RSV of 1946 some English bible translations began to remove the word “corn” and substitute the generic term “grain”, apparently unaware that the word “corn” is itself a generic term for any kind of edible grain. Now the word “corn” is also omitted by the NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB and NIV.
However, the word “corn” is found in the following English language Bible translations throughout history. The Wycliffe Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525 - example: Matthew 12:1 “In that tyme went Iesus on the Sabot dayes thorow the CORNE and his disciples were anhogred and begane to plucke the EARES OF COORNE and to eate.”, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 to 1602, John Wesley’s translation of the New Testament 1755, Webster’s bible 1833, Youngs ‘literal’, Darby’s translation 1870, the Douay-Rheims bible, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1936, the New English Bible 1970, the Complete Jewish bible, the Jewish Publication Society bible of 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company’s 1936 translation, the World English Bible - (example: “For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn." 1 Corinthians 9:9), the New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987, the Jerusalem Bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the Revised English Bible 1989, the Living Bible 1981 (see Mat. 12:1 and other verses); the 21st Century KJV 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
Surprise! Even Peterson’s 2002 The Message contains the use of the word “corn” to describle any type of edible grain.
Micah 7:1 - “I'm overwhelmed with sorrow! sunk in a swamp of despair! I'm like someone who goes to the garden to pick cabbages and carrots and CORN And returns empty-handed, finds nothing for soup or sandwich or salad.’”
Hebrews 6:7 “Parched ground that soaks up the rain and then produces an abundance of carrots and CORN for its gardener gets God's "Well done!"
When people tell you that such and such a word in the King James Bible is either “archaic” (How can it be archaic if it is used every day by thousands of Bible believers?) or misunderstood, it is all a smokescreen and a shallow excuse for their not submitting to any Book as God’s final authority for both faith and practice. Not one of these people who claims that either the underlying texts or the English translation should be “revised” actually believes there exists such a thing as the complete and 100% true Holy Bible in any language.
For me and thousands of other Bible believers the choice is very clear and simple. If we have to choose between the absolute Truth of God’s preserved words in the English language, though it may be harder to understand in certain places, or the multitude of conflicting, contradictory and often false modern language versions, we will take our stand on that old Book that has stood the test of time and the enemies attacks - the King James Holy Bible.
“Kept by the power of God through faith” - 1 Peter 1:5
Will Kinney
Logged
jchthys
Adept
Posts: 86
Re: What about the English word "corn"?
«
Reply #1 on:
July 04, 2009, 09:20:32 PM »
This use of “corn” is obsolete in American usage, but survives in England. The issue raises the question of at what point the language is considered to have changed enough to warrant a translation into modern English (granted for the sake of discussion that the KJV is the inspired word of God…).
Logged
brandplucked
Adept
Posts: 296
Re: What about the English word "corn"?
«
Reply #2 on:
July 04, 2009, 10:29:25 PM »
Quote from: jchthys on July 04, 2009, 09:20:32 PM
This use of “corn” is obsolete in American usage, but survives in England. The issue raises the question of at what point the language is considered to have changed enough to warrant a translation into modern English (granted for the sake of discussion that the KJV is the inspired word of God…).
Yeah, you are right on there, John. Those 16 bible translations from the 1900's on to 1998 are way out of date. You have something much better for us, huh? Your Hebrew and 27th edition of the Critical text Greek. Yes, indeedy, that is a whole lot easier to understand. You probably can't read 5 words in Greek, and yet that is what you recommended as your pure and 100% infallible words of God.
Of course the "bible" you keep piecing together from a little bit of this and some of that according to your own understanding still isn't the complete and infallible words of God, but What does that matter?
"And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in he street, and equity cannot enter." Isaiah 59:14
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15
Will K
Logged
jchthys
Adept
Posts: 86
Re: What about the English word "corn"?
«
Reply #3 on:
July 05, 2009, 05:08:17 PM »
Quote
Those 16 bible translations from the 1900's on to 1998 are way out of date.
No, most of them are good. Except for the ASV, they all seem to use up-to-date English.
Quote
You have something much better for us, huh? Your Hebrew and 27th edition of the Critical text Greek. Yes, indeedy, that is a whole lot easier to understand.
Yes, the original Hebrew and Greek is better, since they the pure words of God. For people who don’t read those languages, they are not easier to understand, so of course they need to be translated. I appreciate the labours of all who have endeavoured to translate the Bible faithfully into another language, including those who wrote the KJV.
Quote
You probably can't read 5 words in Greek, and yet that is what you recommended as your pure and 100% infallible words of God.
I am really disappointed at your attacking assumptions directed at me, but no, you are wrong in your assumption. I have read the Greek of several books of the New Testament. I say this not in pride, but only in defence of myself.
I suppose that the point you are trying to get across is, “The Hebrew and Greek cannot be God’s words because few people today can read Biblical Greek and Hebrew.” I find this far less convincing than “The KJV cannot be God’s words because few people today speak ‘biblical’ English.” I believe one reason why God caused ancient Hebrew and Greek to die out was so that all peoples would be able to have equal access to his word.
«
Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 06:03:44 PM by jchthys
»
Logged
brandplucked
Adept
Posts: 296
John's "the" Hebrew and Greek
«
Reply #4 on:
July 05, 2009, 07:11:52 PM »
Quote
You have something much better for us, huh? Your Hebrew and 27th edition of the Critical text Greek. Yes, indeedy, that is a whole lot easier to understand.
Quote
Yes, the original Hebrew and Greek is better, since they the pure words of God. For people who don’t read those languages, they are not easier to understand, so of course they need to be translated. I appreciate the labours of all who have endeavoured to translate the Bible faithfully into another language, including those who wrote the KJV.
John, try to think. Engage your brain before flapping away with your fingers on that keyboard, OK? THERE IS NO THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK!!! Have you got that? You are referring us to a mystical, non-existent, invisible and hypothetical Standard that you nor anyone else living today has ever seen.
In addition to this, the fact that you will not acknowledge how utterly corrupt your "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus really are shows that your are unwilling to admit you are mistaken even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Even the example of 1 Samuel 13:1 that we never finished shows that even you believe that some of the Hebrew texts have been lost and not preserved. I could tell you that nothing has been lost at all. It is right there in both the Hebrew and the King James Bible, but you would probably refuse to see it and would prefer to think that the Hebrew text has been lost in part of that verse rather than admit that the King James Bible might be right afterall.
If you can read Greek, great. But apparently it has not done you much good as far as finding this inerrant and pure Bible you keep referring to as "THE original Hebrew and Greek". That is absurd. You should know better than to say silly stuff like that. How can we take you seriously when you keep saying stuff like that?
Will K
Logged
jchthys
Adept
Posts: 86
Re: John's "the" Hebrew and Greek
«
Reply #5 on:
July 05, 2009, 07:34:39 PM »
This discussion is getting derailed[, from my perspective]. I brought up the following issue: At what point can one say that the English language has changed enough to warrant another translation?
Anyway—I believe the originals were inspired. And I believe that God has preserved them for us—not in any single book (He never promised that), nor in any single language, but in the wealth of manuscripts He has preserved for us. Do you suppose that God is unable of preserving his word through manuscripts?
«
Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 10:00:39 AM by Gabriel Anast
»
Logged
brandplucked
Adept
Posts: 296
Re: John's "the" Hebrew and Greek
«
Reply #6 on:
July 06, 2009, 06:15:16 AM »
Quote from: jchthys on July 05, 2009, 07:34:39 PM
This discussion is getting derailed. I brought up the following issue: At what point can one say that the English language has changed enough to warrant another translation?
Anyway—I believe the originals were inspired. And I believe that God has preserved them for us—not in any single book (He never promised that), nor in any single language, but in the wealth of manuscripts He has preserved for us. Do you suppose that God is unable of preserving his word through manuscripts?
Hi John. First point. If God has indeed given us His perfect words in the English language (from England, not the good ol' US of A, which by they way I love and am saddened to see its rapid decline) then there will never be a time to change its language. I and many others believe it is the complete and infallible Book of the Lord. You do not, and [as I see it] have nothing of equal value to replace it with.
Would any God fearing Jew wish to "update" his Hebrew Old Testament just because Biblical Hebrew is not like the spoken Hebrew of today? I trow not. Why? Because they believe it is God's inspired words, and the very fact that it has a slightly "archaic" flavor adds to its reverence as being a very old and unchanged Book in these turbulent modern times.
Second point. Your "God preserved word in a wealth of manuscripts" means absolutely nothing but confusion and uncertainty[, as I see it]. Are you going to lug around a wheelbarrow full of conflicting and often wildly divergent manuscripts with you everywhere so you can claim to have God's preserved words? The 'scholars' who try this trick don't even agree among themselves as to what may or may not be included in their "bibles".
To say that God has preserved His words in this way is very much like saying God's words are found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. There out of order, mixed up with lots of words that are not Gods, but "Hey, there in there somewhere".
So, until such a time comes that God and not man decides to put His pure words into another language or an updated English version (and I do not see this happening anytime soon, if ever) then I will stick with "the book of the LORD" and accept no poor imitations.
Will K
«
Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 09:58:48 AM by Gabriel Anast
»
Logged
Gabriel Anast
Administrator
Master
Posts: 1588
Re: What about the English word "corn"?
«
Reply #7 on:
July 06, 2009, 10:19:58 AM »
OK, so this is an interesting discussion... in part.
@jchthys, every discussion usually tracks a little more wildly than any of the participants would like... hang on and stick to it thoughtfully, and with a will to change if change is reasonable.
Quote from: brandplucked on July 05, 2009, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: jchthys on July 05, 2009, 05:08:17 PM
...the original Hebrew and Greek is better, since they the pure words of God. For people who don’t read those languages, they are not easier to understand, so of course they need to be translated.
THERE IS NO THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK!!! Have you got that? You are referring us to a mystical, non-existent, invisible and hypothetical Standard that you nor anyone else living today has ever seen. [...]
Even the example of 1 Samuel 13:1 that we never finished shows that even you believe that some of the Hebrew texts have been lost and not preserved. I could tell you that nothing has been lost at all. It is right there in both the Hebrew and the King James Bible, but you would probably refuse to see it and would prefer to think that the Hebrew text has been lost in part of that verse rather than admit that the King James Bible might be right afterall.
So, this is interesting. Will is right. You need to answer this, jchthys.
Then...
Quote from: brandplucked on July 06, 2009, 06:15:16 AM
Quote from: jchthys on July 05, 2009, 07:34:39 PM
This discussion is getting derailed[, from my perspective]. I brought up the following issue: At what point can one say that the English language has changed enough to warrant another translation?
Would any God fearing Jew wish to "update" his Hebrew Old Testament just because Biblical Hebrew is not like the spoken Hebrew of today? I trow not. Why? Because they believe it is God's inspired words, and the very fact that it has a slightly "archaic" flavor adds to its reverence as being a very old and unchanged Book in these turbulent modern times.
Here I disagree... even you, Will, "expound" the texts where they are difficult to understand. I know that you don't see this as translation... but I see all teaching (into which category translation falls) to be an important part of fulfilling the commands of Christ and of God.
I think it is right and good for a man of God who is an elder according to character and ability as taught be Jethro, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Peter and many others... that this man should teach... and if necessary translate. This could be an update of the Hebrew text (not to the exclusion of the old) or it could be the teaching of Hebrew ideas in Greek and sending them in a letter to the Jews (and Gentiles) at Ephesus.
Realize that I am not disagreeing with you generally, just that as concerns the finality and utter perfection of the KJ text, I do not see it. I see the original translators of the text as qualified elders, the KJ harmonizers as being as faithful as they could be, and the result is a generally excellent text. In places, the Anglican church insisted on its own translations, and in others it seems that there were accolades to the king and 15th century English culture. Let these be what they are.
These do not obviate the KJ... indeed I agree that we have nothing with which to replace it, however, let right elders and teachers teach and assert the right things of God as God and Christ have commanded.
--gabe
--gabe
Logged
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify anything I post under the terms of the
Design Science License
brandplucked
Adept
Posts: 296
Re: What about the English word "corn"?
«
Reply #8 on:
July 06, 2009, 01:04:09 PM »
Quote from: Gabriel Anast on July 06, 2009, 10:19:58 AM
Quote
Would any God fearing Jew wish to "update" his Hebrew Old Testament just because Biblical Hebrew is not like the spoken Hebrew of today? I trow not. Why? Because they believe it is God's inspired words, and the very fact that it has a slightly "archaic" flavor adds to its reverence as being a very old and unchanged Book in these turbulent modern times.
Here I disagree... even you, Will, "expound" the texts where they are difficult to understand. I know that you don't see this as translation... but I see all teaching (into which category translation falls) to be an important part of fulfilling the commands of Christ and of God.
I think it is right and good for a man of God who is an elder according to character and ability as taught be Jethro, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Peter and many others... that this man should teach... and if necessary translate. This could be an update of the Hebrew text (not to the exclusion of the old) or it could be the teaching of Hebrew ideas in Greek and sending them in a letter to the Jews (and Gentiles) at Ephesus.
Realize that I am not disagreeing with you generally, just that as concerns the finality and utter perfection of the KJ text, I do not see it. I see the original translators of the text as qualified elders, the KJ harmonizers as being as faithful as they could be, and the result is a generally excellent text. In places, the Anglican church insisted on its own translations, and in others it seems that there were accolades to the king and 15th century English culture. Let these be what they are.
These do not obviate the KJ... indeed I agree that we have nothing with which to replace it, however, let right elders and teachers teach and assert the right things of God as God and Christ have commanded.
--gabe
Hi gabe. Thanks for your thoughts. No, I do not see expounding or explaining the Scriptures as a form of bringing in a new translation. I keep the old one which I fully believe was directed by the sovereign hand of God. What we need to do when we come across a word or an expression that might be unfamiliar to those we are teaching is to simply explain what the word or phrase means.
Look at the O.T. pattern and practice - "So they read in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." Nehemiah 8:8.
Did they change the text? No. They simply explained it and then left it alone.
God bless,
Will K
Logged
Gabriel Anast
Administrator
Master
Posts: 1588
Re: What about the English word "corn"?
«
Reply #9 on:
July 06, 2009, 02:36:30 PM »
Quote from: brandplucked on July 06, 2009, 01:04:09 PM
Hi gabe. Thanks for your thoughts. No, I do not see expounding or explaining the Scriptures as a form of bringing in a new translation. I keep the old one which I fully believe was directed by the sovereign hand of God. What we need to do when we come across a word or an expression that might be unfamiliar to those we are teaching is to simply explain what the word or phrase means.
Look at the O.T. pattern and practice - "So they read in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." Nehemiah 8:8.
Did they change the text? No. They simply explained it and then left it alone.
I am not suggesting that a new Hebrew translation would be different in meaning than an old one... actually as concerns Hebrew, it seems that this would be a very un-likely case... but that it could be done.
I guess, this is what I am saying: the KJ was, "directed by the sovereign hand of God" if and only if those that handled the translation were proper elders according to the word of God... if they were not, their work must be carefully analyzed by elders, and even if they were elders with the gift of prophecy, the prophets are subject to the prophets.
I believe that almost entirely this was indeed the case. I believe that Tyndale and Coverdale were indeed elders as the Bible describes elders. I also believe that many of the men on the KJ translating committee were elders... and in constant counsel with each other. The outcome? An excellent translation.
There are places, however, where there are problems. Not many, as I see it, but some.
In more than 9 times in 10 I agree with you as concerns the handling of the text. The vast majority of the "errors" that are claimed are claimed by people that don't believe the meaning of the text, the God whose word it is, the nature of His preservation of the text or anything else... and so they are blind.
As concerns those who believe, even to them the statutes sometimes change... not the message of God, but the specific statutes:
Priest's wives:
As described in the law of Moses:
Lev 21:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them,
[...] v13
he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.
Here a priest cannot marry a widow at all.
As they will offer sacrifice in the New Jerusalem (could not find the ref, but I believe this actually changed under the high priest, Ezra):
Eze 44:15
But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD
[...] v22
Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.
Here they may marry a widow if she was married lawfully to a priest as her last husband.
As I see it, the law changed but the ways of God did not. This does not mean that now that we have Ezekiel, that we should do away with Leviticus. Neither does it mean that the word of God... the message of God to His people changed.
Also, as concerns a Hebrew marrying a non-Hebrew, it was not permitted in general:
Exo 34:16
And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Deu 7:3
Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Neh 13:23
In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.
The point being that the women of people that worshiped other gods would lead the children of Hebrews to worship other gods.
However, as Paul instructs the body at Corinth:
2Co 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Here he is specifically instructing Messianic Jews to refuse marriage with unbelieving Jews and comparing the unbelieving Jews to unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, infidels and idolaters. This not changing the word of God, it is establishing His message that the holy are to remain holy.
I am not saying here that a God fearing Hebrew would revise or change the old Hebrew text, but that it could be right and just for him to make a new "translation" into modern Hebrew according to the Spirit of God, his right standing as an elder, and his ability to do so.
I am not sure that this would be necessary, but I am saying that according to God's established order of apostles, prophets and elders... this would be a proper thing for him to do if he was so called.
As concerns the KJ, I am asserting that I believe this is EXACTLY such a case. As such, I am even fine with the possibly evident problem of currently missing Hebrew texts. If this is the case, there may well be reason to use the English KJ to re-store a Hebrew text. Why? Because of the nature of the handling of the text, and our ability to observe both this handling and the ways of God. Having done so, to agree with God that the KJ text was in significant and amazing measure handled in the ways of God by a right standing elder or prophet.
To us? It is given (with fear of God and all diligence) to stand and show ourselves approved as such: elders with fruit, and to desire the gifts achieved for us by Christ, the chief of these, the gift of prophecy.
--gabe
Logged
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify anything I post under the terms of the
Design Science License
Pages: [
1
]
Print
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Bible Teaching & Study
-----------------------------
=> Bible Discussion
===> (Old) Bible Discussion & Questions
===> (Old) Bible Questions
=> Translation Questions and Discussion
=> History—the paths of God & man
-----------------------------
Communicating the Word
-----------------------------
=> Meeting Together
===> Psalms, Hymns & Spiritual Songs
===> Prayer & the Sword of the Spirit
===> Testimony & Thanksgiving
=> Missions & Ministry
=> Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction
-----------------------------
Keepers at Home
-----------------------------
=> School Stuff
=> Healthcare @ Home
=> Can You Cook This?
=> House and Home
=> Sarah's Daughters
-----------------------------
Humanly Speaking
-----------------------------
=> Relationships
=> Parenting
=> The Healing
-----------------------------
Community
-----------------------------
=> Announcements & Updates
=> Nothing Deep
=> Technorati
Search
Advanced search
Bible Study
1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
andiclare
(3)
Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets"
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
brandplucked
(0)
What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
brandplucked
(0)
1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
brandplucked
(3)
What About the new NIV 2011?
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
brandplucked
(2)
Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
brandplucked
(0)
We are Gods?
:
Bible Discussion
by
Soffi
(0)
Every Man For Himself Bible Versions
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
brandplucked
(0)
Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?
:
Translation Questions and Discussion
by
AndysDad
(6)
General
Japanese/English Bible?
:
Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction
by
GarlicMomma
(5)
Beka....?
:
Announcements & Updates
by
andiclare
(0)
HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this)
:
Healthcare @ Home
by
andiclare
(1)
Where is everyone?
:
Nothing Deep
by
GarlicMomma
(5)
Introduce Yourself!
:
Nothing Deep
by
piperjameson
(325)
The scoop on Soap
:
House and Home
by
Cherika Four Seasons
(1)
Ideas: Children serving each other
:
Parenting
by
jenibee
(0)
My husband needs help with something I think is wrong
:
Relationships
by
jackiee
(4)
like minded moms?
:
Parenting
by
Homeschool_Newbie
(2)
"Courtship" discussions/questions
:
Relationships
by
Homeschool_Newbie
(15)
Announcing....
:
Announcements & Updates
by
BJ_BOBBI_JO
(5)
80 days dream
:
Announcements & Updates
by
basething
(16)
strabismus
:
Healthcare @ Home
by
Free Woman
(10)
Prayer Requests -- Health Related
:
Healthcare @ Home
by
BJ_BOBBI_JO
(640)
Translations in Guatemala...
:
Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction
by
AndysDad
(5)
Boring christian life
:
Sarah's Daughters
by
BJ_BOBBI_JO
(6)
Is this site for real?
:
Relationships
by
andiclare
(2)
Emergency food: canned or powder?
:
Nothing Deep
by
GarlicMomma
(9)
A heart issue for my children?
:
Parenting
by
andiclare
(9)
Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks
:
House and Home
by
herbalmom
(60)
User
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email?
February 09, 2012, 02:45:31 AM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Stats
Members
Total Members: 6896
Latest:
ESTel987
Stats
Total Posts: 243886
Total Topics: 21906
Online Today: 31
Online Ever: 437
(April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 26
Total: 26
TinyPortal v.1.0.6 beta 2 ©
Bloc
Powered by SMF 1.1.7
|
SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Manuscript
design by
Bloc
Loading...