Corn or Grain in Mark 2:23?

"Ears of Corn", "Heads of Grain"

The terms are synonymous in English.

No one understands every English word they encounter. We don't have to fix every word, term, or phrase that we don't understand. Instead we need to improve our grasp of English. IMHO, Too many times (perhaps not here) something very valuable is lost in the fixing, and rarely (if ever) is anything gained by the "fix".

Lacy

 

This is a great example of needed changes. Lacy, why would anyone using a KJV bother to look up "corn"? They think they know what it means (even though it doesn't). It is therefore misleading to them.

There is nothing at stake here, to be sure. But usually a whole lot is gained by the "fix," like proper understanding for starters ...

 

This is an excellent example of the terrible condition of the American education establishment.

corn (kôrn) n. Any of various cereal plants or grains, especially the principal crop cultivated in a particular region, such as wheat in England or oats in Scotland.

 

But the common usage of corn has a particular meaning that most people, even the well educated, would think that they understand. When you go to the market and ask for an "ear of corn," you know very well what you will get and it is not what Christ and his disciples ate.

The American educational establishment, as deplorable as it is, is not at fault in this one. This is just an outdated translation.

 

Well said, NCT. The word of God should not depend on a dictionary to define words that used to be used in a different way than they are. The Bible should be translated in teh common man's language.

 

But I would still ask the question, Why would anyone actually look it up?? It has a common, well understood meaning. The people reading it would say "I Know what that means" when in fact they don't. And when looking it up, why in the world would anyone choose the second definition?

 

Corn certainly historically can mean "grain" generically in English, and therefore it's correct to say that it's not an erroneous usage in the KJV. In Spanish, however, Maize (alt. "mais" or "maiz") does only refer to "ear corn" (i.e. corn-on-the-cob).

When some no-doubt well meaning KJVO's decided some years ago that their needed to be a new version of God's Word in spanish (the Reina-Valera apparently not being acceptable, even though it's TR-based) translated directly from the KJV, they made the unfortunate choice of "maiz" in this passage.

Here's how Doug Kutilek tells the story:

"--At Mark 2:23, the KJV mentions the picking of "corn" on the Sabbath. In 1611 British English, "corn" meant "grain" (of whatever sort, but usually wheat, rye or barley), not specifically what we in America today call "corn" (think "Iowa in July"). As Americans who misunderstood the KJV's use of "corn" as though it was the 20th century American meaning of the word, the Rey Jaime translators give "maiz" ("corn," that is Indian corn; the Latin name being Zea mays). What is especially egregious about this mistranslation based on personal ignorance is that they have introduced into their version what is an actual historical error. You see, what we Americans call "corn" is a native American plant and was completely unknown in the Old World in general, and in Palestine in particular, until some while after A.D. 1492 when Columbus made his first voyage to the New World. To insert this plant into a first-century Palestine narrative is as much a historical error as if we found Paul driving to Damascus in a Chevy or Peter watching "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather" on TV while on the rooftop of the house in Joppa."

---------------------------------------------

Here's a link to the full article (look for the "Rey Jaime" section):

http://www.kjvonly.org/aisi/2001/aisi_4_5_01.htm

 

You don't know what "corn" means so it must be the KJVs fault. Yep. Uh huh. Makes perfect sense to me! NOT!

 

You don't know what "corn" means so it must be the KJVs fault. Yep. Uh huh. Makes perfect sense to me! NOT! </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry is right. What does "corn" mean to your everyday Joe? Of course to most today we assume w/o further inquiry (who's gonna look up "corn" in the dictionary?)that this word is the yellow stuff that grows on a cob. I'd be willing to bet (fig of speech) that the vast majority of Americans who read "corn" in our Bibles don't know it's actually grain. Hence, for moden day Americans, the reading should be "grain", not "corn". See how MV's clarrify God's Word for us?

 

Sounds to me like the spanish translators need a better grasp of the original English.

Lacy

PS. . .. Uh, that's a joke son. . . (Foghorn
Leghorn)

 

How far are you willing to dumb down the English language?

I absolutely guarantee that at least 90% of my low-level readers in my 8th grade class would read this and think Boaz was a pimp and was addressing one of his whores. Should we change the text? Or should we "study to show ourselves approved?"

Lacy

 

You're 100% correct. The Old English word "corn" referred to grains in general. Today, the words "grain" and "corn" are two different things. This is an example of how the English language has evolved over time.

 

I know of no KJV-onlyist who doesn't believe that archaic words should be explained. But I have a biblical precedent for retaining the original word while taking the time to explain it to the younger hearer.

What have ya'll got?

Lacy

 

You don't know what "corn" means so it must be the KJVs fault. Yep. Uh huh. Makes perfect sense to me! NOT! </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe because that is because you don't want to understand the issues. The fact is that out of all the definitions that "corn" has in the dictionary, there is one that commonly understood ... and if someone understands that, why would they look for something else.

I didn't say the KJV was wrong. I said it was outdated and this is a prime example. It should make perfect sense to you. The fact that it does not may say more than you would like for it to.

Lacy, this is not about dumbing down the English language. It is about standard English. When you say "We had corn for dinner" no one asks you if it was cereal, or grain. They know exactly what you mean. They are not dumb. They are using the language the way it is commonly used.

As for Ruth 4:1, yes, you should use a modern version. Your eighth graders deserve that ...

 

I do understand the issues. I just don't major on minors, and stupid minors at that.

 

I fail to see how the definition of a word is in any way a KJVO issue. "Corn" in today's use not a good choice for translating this verse, since its use as grain in general is outdated. The best word to use is "grain". There's no way that anyone can say that "corn" is the best word to use in a translation in today's language. There's nothing in scripture that says we need to stick to outdated words in translations.