Proper Translation of Isaiah 2:16?

It is a common practice of those whom have been duped and deceived into a philosophy of men to presume much more than their own intelligence would otherwise allow.

 

It's relative significance is that the ships of Tarshish were greatly expected to return from their voyages with the riches of foreign lands.

They were often adorned with such riches to attract the eye of the beholder to what it's cargo may behold for the expectant sea-side merchants to sell in their dockside stores.

The poetic significance is that men were often very surprised beyond their greatest expectations to actually see what these vessels were to bring back with them. That significance deals directly with what the Lord expressed as His being more than any of man's greatest expectations could ever conceive in pictures formed in his mind.

"Pictures" means mental visions of the mind. The most pleasant images construed of the mind are nothing to compare with the Glory of God or the glory in which He will share with His children.

The word of God is alive, especially in this very passage. I wouldn't be trying to "kill" it with simple dictatory explanations.

 

Isn't the Geneva Bible is the first to have "pictures"?
Whittingham's iconoclasm may explain it.

 

In the time of the Geneva and the KJB, "pictures" were only figments of the imagination or the rememberences of things seen before.

If taken into consideration the introduction of new meanings to try and establish some sort of new doctrine when the language is concerned, it is better to understand that new definitions have their root in older comprehension.

A "picture" today is better undestood to be a photograph, some would define it as actually what we know as a portait.

Those latter definitions are not comprehensive of the true meaning of "pictures". They are contemporary and evidences of departing from original thought processes.

Some argue the antiquity of the originals to be intact and the rule, but when we are speaking English the rule is the root word, not the contemporary definition.

Monoculisms, inoculisms, inconcoctulisms, and iconoclasms aside.:laugh:

 

From what I can find, 'picture' comes from Middle English with its meaning as a noun unchanged. It means a portrait, design, or representation of an object made by any of a number of various means, including drawing or photography. The old British occasionally called a statue or bust a picture if it represented a living being. I believe I saw such a usage in a Shakespeare work, but I can't recall where or when.

 

you mean we had photography in the 1600's????

 

Actually, they had better than photography. Ever seen a photo valued more higghly than the Mona Lisa?(1507)