Perfect VS Accurate

Neither is "fowl" as it is less general of a term than "birds" and the Hebrew term is more general of a term. Fowl can mean birds in general or in a more specific way. Insects in the passage is defined by the context. There is more than just the word ofe there in the passage.

 

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

The word oph or ofe did not mean birds. It meant all flying creatures. A person reading the KJB would realize that when they see the same word fowl used to describe the bat and flying insects.

Those reading MVs will never realize this. You did not realize this.

You yourself did not realize that the term fowl in the KJB properly included the bat and flying insects. You are proof that I am correct and that the modern translations mislead the reader.

 

I gave you the definition of the English word for "fowl" today. TODAY in ENGLISH "fowl" doesn't mean all flying creatures. To say such is to just be ignorant of the English language. It means "A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game." In your quote, you said "but formerly it denoted all flying creatures;" WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! Can you read. The HEBREW term means all flying creatures. Fowl, the English, it doesn't mean "all flying creatures;" What you quoted was speaking about the Hebrew term and what it meant. Today in English, Bird is the closest to what we have"besides all flying creatures" to the term. Fowl is more specific.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fowl
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fowl

I didn't say that "fowl" was incorrect in the KJV. And you cannot say that "bird" is any more incorrect. Neither are perfect translations of the Hebrew term. Which was my point. I'm not sure why you keep making a deal out of something that isn't there. Obviously, you have a kjvo agenda and will find any opportunity to promote it. Here, you are dead wrong, and you didn't have to be if you actually read my point.

 

Just to help those out in reference to "perfect." The Scriptures are perfect. The writers of Scripture were kept from error. In English, sometimes we can't have a perfect translation because we might not have a word that equals the original word. Such is the case for the discussion of "fowl." The Hebrew word ‛ôph means anything that flies. It mentions the bat as one of the fowls. Well, a bat isn't a bird or fowl. But a bat is a flying creature. The Scriptures are not in error here. We just don't have a perfect word for it. Bird is our closest word to it.

 

I completely understand that one, jbh28.

To me, fowl adds confusion as fowls are edible birds. And, honestly, I could care less what fowl meant in 1611 as I happen to be living in the 21st century. I may know the difference, but most won't. That is why we need to maintain current translations in TODAY'S venacular.

 

This thread has gone to the birds- I mean fowl- I mean it is foul- aw shucks, I'm just gonna bug out now!

 

What do you mean there isn't an English word that equals oph? You used a term that properly translates, "flying creature". If the NIV had used flying creature instead of birds in Lev 11:13 and instead of insects in Lev 11:20 then it would have been an accurate translation.

A serious scholar, historian, and interpreter would care very much that fowl had a different meaning in 1611 and that oph meant many types of winged flying creatures to the ancient Jews.

 

Flying creature would be find. Bird is fine too. It's the closest word we have to the Hebrew term. NASB has "winged" for flying creature" KJV has fowls. Nasb has insects. All the singed insects and KJV has all fowls that creep. This is interpreted to be insects, but nobody is totally sure. Many of the old names of animals in Hebrew we are not sure what they mean. The KJV translators even said that.

You have totally missed my entire point. We are not in 1611. We are in 2010. Today, bird is the better translation. You have made a big deal out of something that was unnecessary.

You're right. I shouldn't followed winman's hijack of the thread.

 

1828 Dictionary

found the 1828 dictionary online. It gives some definitions to some of the words used in the KJV.

 

Who said anything about what oph meant to ancient Jews? The discussion is about what oph means in today's English. The meaning of oph has not changed, but how to best convey that meaning into modern English HAS changed. If oph means "winged creature" then it should be translated as such; fowls may be winged, but the word "fowl" does not encompass the whole meaning of oph.

So, like I said, I could care less what "fowl" meant in 1611. I am very concerned with how to best translate oph into the language of today.

And thanks for the backhand slap. I may not be a professional "scholar, historian, and interpreter" but I am very serious about God's word, what it says and what it means. The fact that I don't bow before the KJV has no bearing on whether I am serious in my endeavors or not.

 

First of all, I am not the person who brought up this subject. It was jbh28 who originally brought this subject up when he said this:

I responded to this, so I did not hijack the thread. Jbh28 incorrectly states that the KJB called a bat a bird. The KJB did not call a bat a bird, it called it a fowl, which in 1611 meant a winged creature. If you check the KJB, it has a different word altogether that it correctly translates bird in the OT. That alone should tell a reader of the KJB that there is a difference between a bird and a fowl.

It is actually the NIV that does a poor job of translation. Moses was speaking of winged creatures in Lev 11:13, not specifically birds. And Moses was speaking of winged creatures in Lev 11:20 not specifically insects.

You guys say big deal, we live today and do not use the word fowl anymore. We call birds birds and insects insects. That is not the point. The point is that some of the newer versions do not properly represent the true definition of ancient words. Moses was speaking of winged creatures, and that is what a good translation should show.

A person needs to understand what the ancient people understood to properly understand the scriptures. It doesn't matter that we don't use the word fowl anymore to mean winged creatures, to properly understand the scriptures a person needs to know the ancient meaning of the word.

I bet if it was the other way around, and you fellas could show where the KJB used a word that did not properly represent the real meaning of an ancient word, you guys would be shouting it from the rooftops.

This thread is about the accuracy of the KJB, and the word fowl is a great example of how accurate it is to convey the true meaning of ancient words.

 

That depends on who you talk with. Just a few days ago I heard someone refer to birds as fowl.

You are right. Too many spend to much time doing nothing except engaging in fruitless argument and being preserved in pickling juice. They would make better undertakers.

Try the word conversation in the KJV in:

Phil 3:20, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:"

Heb. 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Heb. 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

 

It was a hijack because it totally ignored the OP and it totally ignored the point of my post. And yes you are correct, the KJV has "fowl" and not "bird". "Fowl" is more specific that "bird." Bird is closer to the original meaning of flying creature. "Fowl" is a specific type of bird.

Right, which was my point about people looking at English translations (Fowl or Bird) and saying there is a contradiction in the Bible. The original word mean winged creature, not "bird" or more specific "fowl."

Um, actually we do. It's a specific type of bird.

And neither did the KJV by using the more specific term "fowl."

And "fowl" would be INCORRECT today in a translation because "fowl" is a specific type of Bird.

Actually, this is one of the places, and I was saying how that just because we don't have a perfect word there, doesn't make the Bible have a contradiction. Wow did this go way over your head.

Fowl is a specific type of bird. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fowl

 

I disagee with you completely here. Anybody who reads the KJB knows it was written hundreds of years ago and uses some archaic words. It is just common sense that a person would need to do a little study and find out the definition of these outdated words. You don't change literature simply because it is difficult to read or uses archaic words.

There are many words in the KJB that have changed over time, for instance "conversation". Today we define that to mean two or more persons conversing with each other. But in 1611 it meant a person's conduct or behavior.

I have never had much difficulty with words like this, and the few times I have I have looked the word up in a concordance or Bible dictionary. We are told to study the Bible, it is not unreasonable to have to look up the definition of an archaic word once in awhile. You have to study a little history to understand the Bible as well.

The modern trend today is to dumb everything down.

 

Actually that started in, uh, 1611 or thereabouts...

 

Then why not be real smart and go back to Wycliffs's Bible? All it would take is some study.

God's people have died to see the Bible translated into languages that people can understand with accuracy. Why did this supposedly stop in 1611?

 

Understand with accuracy, or translated accurately? I think I demonstrated that the NIV did not accurately translate the Hebrew word ofe or oph accurately.

Any person can accurately understand the NIV in Lev 11:13,20, that does not mean it was translated accurately.

 

I would agree with you completely here. I never said anybody should change the KJV. I'm saying that for a translation today, bird is better than fowl. Per our conversations here, I looked up the word "fowl" at it wasn't as specific as it is today.

Of course. "study" in II Timothy 2:15 is another example too.

No, the modern trend is to update so the words are to our language. That is what the KJV translators did. They made a translation that was to the common tongue of that day. They did a awesome job at it too. When we translate today, we should put the words that most closely match the original meaning to our current language. That's exactly what the KJV translators did.

 

Yes, it does use archaic words... hence why we look to newer translations that use current words. Why should anyone be shackled with having to translate archaic words to understand a translation? If you, or anyone else wants to use the KJV then go right ahead... but trying to force it on someone who doesn't know all the archaic words is burdening them down with needless legalism and making the truth even harder to find.

Yet another glaring example of why a modern translation, using modern language, is useful. A translation should not have to be translated; if it does you might as well go back to the original languages and translate them.

Oh, wait... that's exactly what today's translation have done...

Again, translating a translation.

You just don't get it. You are so blinded by your delusional worship of the work of a group of men from 400 years ago that you cannot see the sheer absurdity of what you are advocating. The bible should be readily readable AND understandable. Only a fool would claim that the KJV fills both of those criteria in today's world. While the prose used is striking, it is not of this century (nor the last three, either)... and even you admit it uses archaic words. When was the last time someone used "verily" or "sitteth" (or any other "-eth" verb form) in a conversation?

If translating the bible into today's modern English that can be understood is "dumbing it down" then I guess you are right. Too bad time didn't stop in 1611, huh?

 

Read your Bible to discover that is not the case.