Israel and their corn

good samaritan · #1 04-25-2016, 11:49 PM

Interesting thing I stumbled across tonight and it may be just for the simple minded. I was reading tonight in the Old Testament about grain offerings. It mentioned corn that was beaten and it appeared to me that corn as we know it did not likely exist in that part of the world in those days. Corn as we know it, was domesticated in the Americas.

Other Bible translations say grain in the place of corn. The English word for corn simply means kernels (by some dictionaries). No doubt, the KJV translators had a different use of the word for corn when it was translated. Wheat, barley, oats, etc. could all be considered corn.

It was a grain with kernels in the OT they would have used, but the mental picture we get of golden yellow corn is just another example of how our understanding of language can affect the mental images we see when reading the Bible.

Praxeas · #2 04-26-2016, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Interesting thing I stumbled across tonight and it may be just for the simple minded. I was reading tonight in the Old Testament about grain offerings. It mentioned corn that was beaten and it appeared to me that corn as we know it did not likely exist in that part of the world in those days. Corn as we know it, was domesticated in the Americas.

Other Bible translations say grain in the place of corn. The English word for corn simply means kernels (by some dictionaries). No doubt, the KJV translators had a different use of the word for corn when it was translated. Wheat, barley, oats, etc. could all be considered corn.

It was a grain with kernels in the OT they would have used, but the mental picture we get of golden yellow corn is just another example of how our understanding of language can affect the mental images we see when reading the Bible.

Another example of why I dont use the KJV

votivesoul · #3 04-26-2016, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Interesting thing I stumbled across tonight and it may be just for the simple minded. I was reading tonight in the Old Testament about grain offerings. It mentioned corn that was beaten and it appeared to me that corn as we know it did not likely exist in that part of the world in those days. Corn as we know it, was domesticated in the Americas.

Other Bible translations say grain in the place of corn. The English word for corn simply means kernels (by some dictionaries). No doubt, the KJV translators had a different use of the word for corn when it was translated. Wheat, barley, oats, etc. could all be considered corn.

It was a grain with kernels in the OT they would have used, but the mental picture we get of golden yellow corn is just another example of how our understanding of language can affect the mental images we see when reading the Bible.

Good stuff, especially the conclusion at the end.

The likely grain grown in Israel at that time was barley.

Evang.Benincasa · #4 04-26-2016, 03:14 AM

If you have one it sure hurts to walk on it.

deacon blues · #5 04-26-2016, 03:37 AM

This is a corny thread.

shazeep · #6 04-26-2016, 07:19 AM

lol--the conclusion is quite illuminating though. Anyone with any foreign language experience knows that translation is not linear. Some expressions in a foreign language simply have no direct translation, and when you are talking about an ancient language, from an ancient people, with completely different mores and culture, the problem is vastly compounded.

A lexicon helps, but who understands the "shame" of having no children, for instance? It is a lifestyle choice for many now. Scripture abounds with these, for us.

good samaritan · #7 04-26-2016, 07:44 AM

I used to be a KJV only. Through study I have come to the conclusion that the English has changed so much that it is not as easy for everyone to read and understand. I think every Christian should own and read a KJV Bible, but I think it would be good to encourage people to also consider a more modern translation as well. I really like parallel Bibles.

I don't feel the KJV is in any way in error, but we error in our understanding of the 16th and 17th century English. It is not a problem if people will study and rightly divide the Word. I love finding discrepancies in the KJV bible because when I study it out I usually learn something new about differences of language.

shazeep · #8 04-26-2016, 07:59 AM

amen, i ditched Easter that way.

aegsm76 · #9 04-26-2016, 09:25 AM

Still love the KJV, probably because I grew up with it!
Have been using The Message translation lately, in conjunction with KJV.
It sometimes adds more meaning for me.

Pressing-On · #10 04-26-2016, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I used to be a KJV only. Through study I have come to the conclusion that the English has changed so much that it is not as easy for everyone to read and understand. I think every Christian should own and read a KJV Bible, but I think it would be good to encourage people to also consider a more modern translation as well. I really like parallel Bibles.

I don't feel the KJV is in any way in error, but we error in our understanding of the 16th and 17th century English. It is not a problem if people will study and rightly divide the Word. I love finding discrepancies in the KJV bible because when I study it out I usually learn something new about differences of language.