Perfect VS Accurate

My opinion is that your opinion is inaccurate. Not to mention, in your view accurate explanation can make an inaccurate translation accurate! How about that!

 

I feel sorry for so many today who choose to remain ignorant. Ask your Greek friends how to translate untranslatable particles such as two found in Romans 9:15. Ask a Spanish speaking person to translate ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cómo está? directly without any explanation. That person will look at you like you are crazy. If you went to Mexico and used the wrong phrase you might get some strange looks and some might think you to be rude.

 

Your opinion is just that--opinion. In effect you are telling me the same thing the world says that God's word is a lie.

 

The translation is accurate. In Moses's day a bat was considered a fowl as were many insects.

Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

If you were to change this, you would alter the original understanding of the author. The ancient Jews considered the bat and the locust a fowl. If you change this, then you change the original meaning of scripture.

It is better to understand that the ancients had a different classification of animals than we do today, then you properly understand the text.

What I am saying is that the ancients classified animals as having wings and the ability to fly. We have a different system today. If you change the text to a modern rendering, then a person would fail to understand the classification system they used in that day.

 

But if you believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scripture, to call something a fowl that wasn't would be inaccurate. Remember, it's God that is ultimately writing the Scriptures. However, the word the KJV translators translated as fowl can also mean flying creature. Now, is a bird a flying creature? Sure it is. Also, what is translated as bat, might not be a bat as we know it today.

 

It's not inaccurate. In Moses day a bat was a fowl, and so was a locust.

This is the point I am making. If you change the scriptures then you fail to understand how the ancient Jews classified certain animals.

In Jonah's day the whale was considered a fish. There is nothing wrong with this, this is the classification they used in those days. And it is important to understand how they classified animals in those days to properly understand the scriptures.

 

First, do you have any evidence for this? Secondly, it doesn't say whale in the OT in Jonah. It wans't a mammal but a fish as Jonah has it. The point you are missing is that it is still technically inaccurate. One thing, Moses doesn't say that a "fowl" as we use the term today was a "bat" as we refer to today. What we are discussing is the English rendering of the passage. The KJV translators made their best guess as to what the Hebrew terms were, but they didn't always get it right.

 

We weren't talking about how to translate untranslatable particles but rather how to translate the most common verb in the human language. Wie dumm!

 

Well, fowl is the English translation of the Hebrew word owph or ofe according to Strong's Concordance.

If you would have asked an ancient Jew to draw two pictures of fowl, he might draw you a picture of a bat, and another of a bee. In his mind these were owph or ofe, creatures with wings that fly. Of course this would include birds as well.

Ask a modern person to draw a fowl and they will probably draw a chicken.

So, the ancient person's perception of what a fowl is is different than ours. However, if you substitute the word insect for fowl when talking about the bee, then you do not correctly understand the perception of the ancient Jews. When they thought of a fowl, they did not just think of birds and especially chickens, they also thought of bats and winged insects.

Do you follow that?

So, substituting the word insect is less accurate. If a modern person reading the KJB sees the word fowl used to describe a bat or locust, then a modern person can understand the ancient person's perception of this word meant more than birds, but included many winged animals and insects that could fly.

Think about it.

 

Great. I just read post #110. Now my head hurts.

 

so it would be more accurate to put something other than fowl when you are translating. That's part of the job of translating the work. Just like with an idiom. A person reading Hebrew might understand an idiom, but in English, they would not. So you give the dynamic equivalence so that you don't change the meaning to the English reader.

Remember, there are 0 Hebrew words that read "Fowl." That is an English word. The word in Hebrew isn't talking about flying creatures, not necessarily the scientific "fowl" as we know it today.

btw, I'm not saying the KJV is in a big error here. I was pointing something out about skeptics of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

 

In Leviticus 11, the KJB uses the word fowl to describe certain insects with wings, while the NIV uses the word insect.

You would probably say the word insect is the more accurate translation, but it is not, because the ancient Jews were talking about winged creatures that could fly, not insects only.

Using fowl as the KJB is more accurate because it causes the reader to understand this word represents more than insects only. The NIV gives a misleading understanding.

 

You should stop digging the hole you are standing in right now.

 

2 Things.

1. I think you just proved MY point. You say that "bird" is more accurate because it helps the reader(English) to understand properly what the original was meaning. I would agree that would be the way to decide which word to use.

2. I would disagree with you over fowl being more correct. Insect is a better term. (per my point earlier, we might not have a perfect word for this.) The Hebrew term here means " a swarm, that is, active mass of minute animals: - creep (-ing thing), move (-ing creature)." Insect is a lot closer to this meaning that fowl, especially to an English reader.

The point is that either "fowl" or "insect" you choice the one that best gives the reader the proper understanding of what the original meant. The point I made earlier is that skeptics like to look at English translations instead of the original language to come up with these "contradictions." If they were to do their homework, the would realize that there is no contradiction.

 

Hoo boy.

If there were ever a doubt that rational discussion can be had with winman on this subject....well, this post takes care of that.

 

I'll try to explain this one last time. I am not always so good at expressing myself.

In Leviticus 11, Moses is explaining certain animals that can be eaten, and others that cannot. In the ancient Hebrew you have the word "ofe". The definition of the word ofe means animals with wings that could fly. It did not mean birds only, but also included the bat, and many insects such as a locust or a bee.

The KJB translates this word ofe as fowl. The KJB properly uses this one word in Lev 11:13 where it is speaking of various birds but also includes the bat. The KJB also properly uses the word fowl in Lev 11:20 where it is speaking of insects with wings that can fly.

Lev 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

The modern reader of the KJB will properly understand that the word ofe translated fowl meant winged flying animals that included birds, but also included mammals such as the bat, and insects such as the locust.

The NIV uses the word birds in Lev 11:13, and the word insects in Lev 11:20. These words do not convey the proper definition of the ancient word ofe.

NIV

Lev 11:13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

The word "birds" is not a proper translation of the ancient word ofe. The ancient word ofe did not mean birds, it meant winged flying animals.

Lev 11:20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.

The word "insects" here is not a proper translation of the ancient word ofe. The word ofe did not mean insects, it meant winged flying animals.

I can't make it much clearer than this. By using the modern words birds and insects in the NIV it does not convey the proper definition of the ancient word ofe which meant winged flying animals that included birds, but also included the bat, and many winged flying insects.

 

I'll try to explain this one last time. I am not always so good at expressing myself.

In Leviticus 11, Moses is explaining certain animals that can be eaten, and others that cannot. In the ancient Hebrew you have the word "ofe". The definition of the word ofe meant animals with wings that could fly. It did not mean birds only, but also included the bat, and many insects such as a locust or a bee.

The KJB translates this word ofe as fowl. The KJB properly uses this one word in Lev 11:13 where it is speaking of various birds but also includes the bat. The KJB also properly uses the word fowl in Lev 11:20 where it is speaking of insects with wings that can fly.

Lev 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

The modern reader of the KJB will properly understand that the word ofe translated fowl meant winged flying animals that included birds, but also included mammals such as the bat, and insects such as the locust.

But using modern words that reflect our modern classification of animals, some versions will not convey the proper definition of the ancient word ofe.

NIV

Lev 11:13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

The word "birds" is not a proper translation of the ancient word ofe. The ancient word ofe did not mean birds only, it meant winged flying animals.

Lev 11:20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.

The word "insects" here is not a proper translation of the ancient word ofe. The word ofe did not mean insects only, it meant winged flying animals.

I can't make it much clearer than this. By using the modern words birds and insects the NIV does not convey the proper definition of the ancient word ofe which meant winged flying animals that included birds, but also included the bat and many winged flying insects.

 

Exactly. It is speaking of any flying animal. It's not speaking about a scientific definition of fowl. That was my point when skeptics charge the Bible with an error from the English term "fowl" without understanding what the original term meant.

Actually, by using fowl, you are doing the same thing. You are making an issue about something that isn't there. Just another attempt to try to find a fault with a modern version. Bird is a more general term and is the closest to what the Hebrew term is (per your definition you gave). Fowl can be used for birds in general but usually more specific. Bird can be more general.

The word "fowl" here is not a proper translation of the ancient word ofe. The word ofe did not mean fowl only, it meant winged flying animals. Bird is more general than fowl. Insect is proper for the place it is at because the context limits it to something closer to insects. You have dug yourself in a big hole. I let you get out cause I'm nice.

 

Obviously you do not understand what I wrote. The modern translation "birds" and "insects" are not accurate because that is not what the ancient word ofe meant.

There is really no use in trying to explain this to you again.