Does archaic language hurt our understanding of this verse?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Bro Tony, Sep 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is this verse saying? Does archaic language hurt our understanding of this verse? Was the king saying he forgot the dream?

    Daniel 2:5 (King James Version)
    5The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.



    Comments and thoughts.

    Bro Tony
     
  2. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've got to be kidding?:tonofbricks:
     
  3. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have some input, or just an empty comment? What is he saying in this passage? And does the archaic language make it harder to understand? If you don't want to answer the OP--then keep your nose out:tongue3: :tongue3: :tongue3:

    Bro Tony
     
    #3 Bro Tony, Sep 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2006
  4. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since Nebuchednezzar demanded his astrologers,wise men, and soothsayers to also give him his dream and the interpretation thereof, you have no logical leg to even limp on.

    BTW, why the nasty attitude?

    No matter how "archaic" you try to make the KJB, it's still very precise and very clear; the dream is the "thing" that was gone from him.

    Sleight of hand tactics do not work in a versions discussion.

    Nebuchednezzar demanded something ludricrous, except that God knows all things and God gave the dream and the interpretation to Daniel.:thumbsup:
     
  5. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,835
    Likes Received:
    115
    The king had not forgetten the dream.

    The word "thing" is the aramaic word "millah" which means command or decree.

    The word "gone" is the aramaic word "azad" which means firm.

    The phrase "....the thing is gone from me....." means my command or decree or decision is final or firm.

    I believe that the same phrase also appears in verse 8.

    He brought the astrologers before him and they said, "Tell us your dream and we'll interpret."

    He told them to tell him the dream and the interpretation or they would be in dire trouble.

    They repeated themselves. They told him, "Ok, you tell us the dream and we'll interpret it."

    He got mad and said in verse 8 and following, "I know you are just trying to gain time because you know my decision is final. If you don't tell me both the dream and the interpretation, I will know that whatever you have prepared to say as your "interpretation" is a prepared lie. If you can tell me the dream, then I will know that your interpretation is valid."

    He was testing them for their validity. He did not forget the dream.

     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,624
    Likes Received:
    45
    There is no archaic language. All of the words in the phrase "the thing is gone from me" are still widely used.
    Imprecise language might be a better description.

    "The decree has gone forth from me" comports with the idea that a royal decree could not be revoked (see Esther). "Firm" is used to clarify this in English.
     
    #6 Jerome, Sep 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2006
  7. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,835
    Likes Received:
    115
    I agree. "Imprecise" is more precise. :laugh:
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to agree, here. And as to how "The thing is gone from me.", I'd suggest that as king if he said this, even tongue-in-cheek, meaning I'm not telling you as another said, no one was going to question that very strenuously.

    Ed
     
  9. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does archaic language hurt our understanding of this verse?


    Maybe not this verse, but others.
    It does when the meanings of words change over time.
     
  10. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no intent to be nasty in the OP...you are the one who responded "you got to be kidding".

    Already you have seen the difference in language has an impact. We don't say "this thing has gone from me" when we say that we have made up our mind- thus the phrase archaic language. Some could assume that by the phrase "Neb" was saying he did not remember the dream. The rest of the verses in this passage read in context wont let that interpretation stand. My point is that the old english language can leave confusion because we don't use phrases like that any more. No animosity, just a good reason for the update of language as our English language is a dynamic thing. And isnt the point of reading the Bible to clearly understand the Bible?

    Bro Tony
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hey Scarlett O., your explaination is awesome! Nice job!

    I cannot be sure that this an "archaic" phrase. All unsure phrases are not archaic.

    Archaic only means that the characteristic of the words or language was once in regular use but are now relatively rare, and is suggestive of an earlier style or period.

    Some idiomatic phrases, metaphors, and other figures of speech maybe somewhat unique and never were widely popular (gang slang, for example). Idioms are always difficult if you are unfamilar with them, even when they are contemporary (listen to a BBC broadcast today).

    Is "The thing is gone from me" archaic? Maybe not. Imprecise? Definately.
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose one could stick with what has been stated concerning the phrase, but to get the meaning of the passage we find that Nebuchednezzar NEVER told anyone his dream.

    In fact he demanded the Chaldeans to tell him what he dreamed then interpret. Daniel told him his dream and interpreted it.

    Go read the passage again. God performed two miracles here, proving the men of Babylon and the Chaldeans to be a farce and God to be true.

    Whether Nebuchednezzar remembered the dream or not isn't really important but is understood that he did remember.

    Nothing is done to harm the understanding what God would have us to understand.
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, the decree came after Nebuchednezzar demanded his men to tell him the dream and the interpretation. Follow verse 1-5
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all due respect Salamander, your intepretation of the verse in light of the facts posted by others here was not correct. The "thing" was not his dream as you claimed.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    You mean like the following verses?

    1Pet 3:1,2 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.”
     
  16. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which again proves that the archaic language leaves one with the wrong understanding of the text. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying we don't speak in that manner and because we don't it causes confusion---even to those who wont admit being confused.

    Bro Tony
     
  17. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how this is any real issue. The average person can get theh thought of what was going on I would think.

    On a general note about this "archaic language" issue:

    The South Pacific cannibals had no issues with it when John Paton got the whole island converted by using an ole' King James Bible.

    The uneducated coal miners during the 1700's had no issues with it under the preaching of George Whitfield and John Wesley.

    Our uneducated forefathers and backwoods farmers were raised on the King James Bible in their homes - was basically one of the few books in the homes back then and look what they produced.

    Why do modern these "educated and enlightened" folks have such issues with 5th grade Englsih and words that average 5 letters or less? Never understood this?

    God bless :wavey:
     
  18. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always have to wonder with the above claims as to how many of these groups including 5th graders really understand the 1611 KJV. Any other year is a revision and the language has been updated. Very few KJVOist can understand or read the 1611. Their KJV has be updated in language, why is that all of the sudden wrong?

    Also by the response given by Salamander is proof that this language is not that easily understood even by those who are KJVO.

    Bro Tony
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Is this really that hard to read??

    http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1384

    If you know the "long s" and that the "u" is used instead of a "v" it is not really all that hard for anyone to read it.

    I am not opposed to revision and updating, but to claim that "very few can read the 1611" is dodgy at best, IMHO.
     
  20. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roger,

    How many 5th graders you know who can read the 1611? How about uneducated coal miners? And truly how many who claim it is the only inspired Word of God actually spend the time to to read it rather than an update? My point is that there is nothing wrong with updating the language for clarity sake. Some of the claims that a child can clearly understand the 1611 KJV are beyond the pale.

    Bro Tony
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...