A Whale of a Translation

[Dr. Bob]

On another thread there is a discussion about Jonah and the whale. Implication is (and I made it, so I should know) that the whole controversy is because of a translation issue.

OT story of Jonah does NOT use the word "whale". It translated the Hebrew "dag" as a fish, the proper meaning.

NT account of Jesus mentioning Jonah translates the simple Greek word for fish "ketos" as WHALE.

Only in the AV1611 and its various revisions.

What's up with that? Thanks.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
On another thread there is a discussion about Jonah and the whale. Implication is (and I made it, so I should know) that the whole controversy is because of a translation issue.

OT story of Jonah does NOT use the word "whale". It translated the Hebrew "dag" as a fish, the proper meaning.

NT account of Jesus mentioning Jonah translates the simple Greek word for fish "ketos" as WHALE.

Only in the AV1611 and its various revisions.

What's up with that? Thanks.

Look up "fish" in a good English dictionary. A whale is a fish.

Lacy

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Look up "fish" in a good English dictionary. A whale is a fish.

Lacy

My 3rd grader knows that a whale is not a fish. I am quite certain that God knows that a whale is not a fish. And, it is likely that the Greeks, if not the Hebrews also, knew the distinction between air breathing sea animals and fish.

 

[Lacy Evans]

LOOK UP "FISH" IN A GOOD ENGLISH DICTIONARY! A WHALE IS A FISH!

Lacy

 

[RaptureReady]

As I posted in the mentioned forum, "In Genesis 1:21, God created "great whales." If the Bible says great whale or great fish, we should believe the Bible and not doubt it. If I were to see a whale for the first time, I would probably say, wow, look at that big fish. If it looks like a fish, then it is a fish."

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Do you think God created the whale on the sixth day then? I don't believe God classified differences in fish and animals because of their chracteristics of classsifying them as mammal or fish. He made the living things of the sea on one day and the living things on land the next. I think a whale, in this sense would be a fish.

 

[Lacy Evans]

I am amazed at how quickly some will run to a Greek dictionary to defend anything that disagrees with the KJB. But they cannot simply look at an English dictionary to find out what an English word means. Deny the historic use of the word "fish", deny hundreds of years of literature, but don't confuse your limited knowlege of the English language with "mistakes" in the Bible.

My eighth graders "know" what the word "gay" means. (A gay person is a sodomite right?)

So the KJV translators got it wrong in

Jas 2:3 -
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say
unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand
thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

See there! it's only wrong according to the KJV to "have respect" to cross-dressers! More proof that the KJV is not perfect!

This is the dumbest argument yet.

Lacy

 

[Abiyah]

Well, Lacy, since I have thrown out all dictionaries
other than the few best I had, I looked up whale in
the English dictionaries that are left.

One Oxford says this: "large marine mammal
having a streamlined body and horizontal tail,
and breathing through a blow-hole on the head."
And it goes on, never mentioning fish. My other
Oxford, which varies in certain ways, says the
same thing.

So I got my Ultimate Visual Dictionary of 2001.
The only mention of "fish" is when it says that it
has a "fish-like shape." Not even my Roget's
thesaurus says, anywhere, that another word for
whale is fish.

I don't know what dictionary you are using, or if
you are pulling our collective leg, but if you are
serious, any dictionary that calls a whale a "fish"
is, well, very interesting. Before I was very
dictionary quality-aware, I once bought a
student's dictionary for my daughter when she
was in 4th grade. After I got it home, I looked
in it and found, to my surprise and dismay, that
it was not alphabetized!! I also once had a
dictionary which said that "feb-u-ary" was an
acceptable pronunciatin of February. I have also
had dictionaries which did not even have some
very ordinary words in them - they just weren't
there!

I, like Dr. Bob, was also on the other threads
where the Jonah incident was mentioned. I
contended that a fish is a fish and a whale is a
whale; to claim that this fish was anything more
distinct than a mere fish is to add to the Word.
I don't want to go there.

 

[Scott J]

You missed the qualifier Abiyah.

The only good dictionary is the one that allows KJVO's to preserve their predetermined conclusions. Yours are wrong. As are my Webster's at home- one of which is about 70 years old.

 

[mesly]

According to Webster's 1828 dictionary (which is what KJVO's tend to prefer):

FISH, n. [L. piscis.]

1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs, and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters, &c. We use fish, in the singular, for fishes in general or the whole race.

2. The flesh of fish, used as food. But we usually apply flesh to land animals.

WHALE, n. [G., to stir, agitate or rove.]

The general name of an order of animals inhabiting the ocean, arranged in zoology under the name of Cete or Cetacea, and belonging to the class Mammalia in the Linnean system. The common whale is of the genus Balaena. It is the largest animal of which we have any account, and probably the largest in the world. It is sometimes ninety feet in length in the northern seas, and in the torrid zone much larger. The whale furnishes us with oil, whalebone, &c. [See Cachalot.]

So, it would seem that the word "fish" could be used generically to mean any creature in the sea, including a whale. But, the specific definition of a "fish" could not apply to a whale.

Isn't english fun!

 

[Lacy Evans]

Look up "FISH" in a good English dictionary!

Noah Webster 1828

FISH, n. [L. piscis.]

1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by
Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the
skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called
the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale
and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs,
and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters,
&c. We use fish, in the singular, for fishes in general or the whole race.

Mirriam Webster 2000

gay \"ga\ adj
1 : merry 2 : bright, lively 3 : brilliant in color 4 : given to social pleasures; also : licentious 5 : homosexual; also : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals


(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Lacy

 

[Pastor Larry]

Having just preached through Jonah, I know that commentators say that the word dag is broad enough to include whale. This whole issue is "much ado about nothing." There are real issues in the KJV that mislead people or cause confusion. This is not one of them.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Having just preached through Jonah, I know that commentators say that the word dag is broad enough to include whale. This whole issue is "much ado about nothing." There are real issues in the KJV that mislead people or cause confusion. This is not one of them.

The only misleading and confusion that is being done is the modernist. When you doubt God's word, you become confused and mislead others.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
The only misleading and confusion that is being done is the modernist.

I agree completely. At best, KJVOnlyism is still less than 100 years old. It rests on the modernistic premise that in order for something to be true it must conform to their ability to measure and comprehend it as well as their presuppositions about what a 'good' answer is.

When you doubt God's word, you become confused and mislead others.

Once again, agreement. KJVO's doubt God's Word as preserved in faithful, accurate versions other than the KJV. There is no doubt that they are very confused and are misleading the naive and uninformed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
The only misleading and confusion that is being done is the modernist. When you doubt God's word, you become confused and mislead others.

All the confusion I have experienced is from those who have been taught that only the KJV is the word of God. They are confused because this is never taught from Scripture, but rather from man's own words. False teaching usually brings confusion and that is what is has done in this instance. It is truly sad to see believers who are all tied up because someone has told them they only have God's word if they use the KJV. These unwarranted attacks on and denials of God's word in other versions is shameful and destructive to Christians.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

NT account of Jesus mentioning Jonah translates the simple Greek word for fish "ketos" as WHALE.

If Jesus said it was a Whale,then it was a Whale.


I mean really,putting what a dictionary or some lexicon over God's word,what a shame!!! liberal GMO at it's worse.

I agree completely. At best, KJVOnlyism is still less than 100 years old.

LIE!! There has always been a group of Bible(KJB)believers that held to the FACT that Bibles from Syrian/Byzantine manuscripts are the word of God,and that the "bibles"(200 +)from corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts are hopelesly corrupt.

KJVO's doubt God's Word as preserved in faithful, accurate versions other than the KJV. There is no doubt that they are very confused and are misleading the naive and uninformed.

Bible Believers KNOW that the "faithful, accurate versions[ad nauseam]other than the KJV" that come from Jesuit-Egyptian dark-age manuscripts are NOT the word of God;most liberal GMOs bury their heads in the sand when confronted with this;in short,1st Cor 14:38.

All the confusion I have experienced is from those who have been taught that only the KJV is the word of God. They are confused because this is never taught from Scripture, but rather from man's own words. False teaching usually brings confusion and that is what is has done in this instance. It is truly sad to see believers who are all tied up because someone has told them they only have God's word if they use the KJV. These unwarranted attacks on and denials of God's word in other versions is shameful and destructive to Christians.

BOO!!!!!!!! Why is it you try and blast people to intimidate them?? Save that garbage for your congregation;you might can bully them around,I reject you and what you say.Keep in mind this portion of Scripture(KJB):Jeremiah 23:1-2

 

[Lacy Evans]

A whale is a fish!

Lacy

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
BOO!!!!!!!! Why is it you try and blast people to intimidate them?? Save that garbage for your congregation;you might can bully them around,I reject you and what you say.

I don't blast people and try to intimidate them. I speak the truth in a manner consistent with a love for God's word. I have no garbage and I don't bully people around. You can reject me and what I say. That won't hurt me. But you have rejected the truth of God's word and that will hurt you.

You cannot deal lightly with God's word as you have and not reap the rewards of it. God will not smile on those who treat his word in the manner in which you do. I will not be a party to it, nor will I stand by and let such treatment flow unrestricted to God's people who may not know better. You have been taught the error of your ways. You continue in them and continue to divide people over your unbiblical position. That is a rejection of Scripture and God's truth.

Keep in mind this portion of Scripture(KJB):Jeremiah 23:1-2

I keep that passage in mind. But that has nothing to do with KJVOnlyism. I protect my flock from the likes of you. In fact, last week I spent some time exposing the false teaching known as KJVOnlyism. I had them open their Bibles and refuted it from the pages of God's word. It was an easy task as anyone knows who has tried.

The unfortunate thing for you and your ilk is that you trumpet a love for God's word but never bother to teach it to people on this issue. You have not one word from God to support you. Yet you go on acting like God is on your side. If he was, he would has said so. Yet every word that we have from God on this topic unequivocally supports our side. We have shown that time and again, using God's word. You have yet to use the word of God rightly to support your position. Your attempt above was yet another abuse of Scripture, trying to tie the words of Jeremiah to the KJVOnlyism that is infecting Christianity and killing the spiritual life of people. It is a true shame that you refuse to get in the word of God and study it rather than studying the teachings of false teachers.

 

[NeilUnreal]

I agree with Lacy, the concept of fish is clearly being used in a colloquial sense, not in a scientific sense. Translating it as "fish" in one context and "whale" in another is inconsistent translation, but not incorrect. I would think a simple footnote on each passage informing the reader of the meaning and scope of the original words would be sufficient.

-Neil

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I don't blast people and try to intimidate them. I speak the truth in a manner consistent with a love for God's word. I have no garbage and I don't bully people around. You can reject me and what I say. That won't hurt me. But you have rejected the truth of God's word and that will hurt you.

BOOOOOO!!!!!!

I keep that passage in mind. But that has nothing to do with KJVOnlyism.

I did not aim it at your man made COP OUT called KJBonlyism;I aimed it at YOU.

I protect my flock from the likes of you.

If they wanted the truth,they would find it;no matter how much poision you inject.

You have not one word from God to support you. Yet you go on acting like God is on your side.

I have Acts 13.The Bible(KJB) says nothing about Alexandria being assoiciated with the word of God;It says that the word of god comes from Antioch,Syria;the KJB comes from those manuscripts.End of discussion;the Bible believers(KJB)win,you never was even in the race;so you LOOSE!!

Your attempt above was yet another abuse of Scripture, trying to tie the words of Jeremiah to the KJVOnlyism that is infecting Christianity and killing the spiritual life of people. It is a true shame that you refuse to get in the word of God and study it rather than studying the teachings of false teachers.

BOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! You just dont know when to quit do you?? I told you,save it for those who are intimidated by you!! The Bible beleivers WIN!!!! as per Acts 13...