Corn or Grain in Mark 2:23?

Huh? It is typically the KJV folks who insist that the KJV is written so clearly that a 5th-grader can read it. A 5th grader who reads the word "corn" in this context will take it to refer to the yellow stuff on the cob. They will not take it to mean "grain", even though "grain" is what it's referring to.

 

My point is that if you try to change everything that is "out-of-date" it doesn't take long before you lose something important. Give 5th graders some credit. My son is a 5th grader. He knows that "ye" means "y'all", and that "conversation" means "the way you act". It is still in the dictionary as such. Granted, I had to teach him but it really wasn't that hard. The fact is, our modern limitation on the word "corn" to mean exclusively "the yellow stuff on the cob" is a dumbing down of the richness of our language. Corn also means grain in English. And a fish is anything that lives in the water (like a whale). It is a perfect translation. We just need to learn English!

Lacy

 

It involves a lot more than simply learning English Lacy. We must learn Elizabethan-Jacobean English, the word order, the grammatic and structure differences, the archaic words, word nuances, words with different meanings than the modern counterpart, familiar voice, period colloquialisms, etc, etc...

Psalm 88:13
But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee.

Philemon 20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

"God forbid", "would to God", etc.

OK, In our cloistered churches we don't have a problem. Certainly there is a reason why the NT was written in "koine".

HankD

 

Ed,

I think this is another KJVO double standard! LOL

Lacy and Skan,

Just face the facts. Our English usage for corn has changed. Corn to the average Joe is corn, grain is grain. I'm sure that there are many KJVOist who don't know that "corn" in the KJV means "grain". Lacy, a 5th grader reads corn as corn unless told that corn in the KJV actually means grain since corn did not grow in the Holy Land. The limitation is coming from the KJVO Camp and not that of modern version users.

Rome once said something like you wrote about Latin.

According to the KJV in Ruth 4:1, I certainly don't want my 6 year old son referring to anyone as Ho,come here etc...<--- just to make a point! Modern versions render this verse far better than the KJV.

The KJV is not perfect and the KJVO Camp testifies to this fact because they do not use a true AV1611. Perfection does not need updating and correcting.

 

I know that. And that, of course, is not the point. The point is that it is foolish to say the KJV is in error because it is 1) British (which uses the word differently than Americans) and 2) was correct in 1611.

If you happen to be a Midwestern American that may be true, but don't you think it more than just a bit jingoistic to insist that American English is the only "correct" English? After all, when compared to all the English speakers in the world, American English speakers are in the minority.

 

I know that. And that, of course, is not the point. The point is that it is foolish to say the KJV is in error because it is 1) British (which uses the word differently than Americans) and 2) was correct in 1611.

If you happen to be a Midwestern American that may be true, but don't you think it more than just a bit jingoistic to insist that American English is the only "correct" English? After all, when compared to all the English speakers in the world, American English speakers are in the minority. </font>[/QUOTE]Hence (like that old word?), the New American Standard Bible.

 

Learn Today's English, or that used 400 years ago? Why put an added yoke upon the readers of God's Word? Why bind the Scriptures? Why not follow the pattern laid out in 1604-1611? i.e. as they "diligently compared and revised ", why don't we do the same?

 

Lacy Evans:My point is that if you try to change everything that is "out-of-date" it doesn't take long before you lose something important.

What's so important about still calling any grain a "corn"? We were born into English usage of corn as that stuff on a cob. Why try to unlearn something we've heard our entire life.

Kinda reminds me about the mom whose son came home from school & said, "Mom, what does (a common term word for feces) mean? Not wishing him to become a "slangaholic", she told him what it meant, including its use to mean almost any substance, drug, or situation, and told him to say either frces or "dwoob" for its original use.

When he said "feces", his friends called him "highbrow", and when he said "dwoob", no one knew what he meant.


Give 5th graders some credit. My son is a 5th grader. He knows that "ye" means "y'all", and that "conversation" means "the way you act".

While "ye" is still in use a little, "conversation" is NOT used for "lifestyle" every day now.


It is still in the dictionary as such. Granted, I had to teach him but it really wasn't that hard.

I hope you DID explain to him that this definition was no longer in use.

The fact is, our modern limitation on the word "corn" to mean exclusively "the yellow stuff on the cob" is a dumbing down of the richness of our language.

Actually, it's a "smarting up".


Corn also means grain in English.

But it's seldom used in that capacity now.


And a fish is anything that lives in the water (like a whale). It is a perfect translation. We just need to learn English

But call a whale a fish & see how quickly you get laughed outta the room.

It's not a matter of learning English; it's a matter of learning ARCHAIC or OBSOLETE English.

 

Perhaps nothing is important here, I can't say. It bears study. But there are times when the word one wants to change is much more pregnant with meaning.

We use it every Sunday, Wednesday, and each night before we go to bed.

It depends on what part of the country you are from. I think this is perhaps the weakest argument the MV faction has come up with yet.

Whale's are called fish in classic literature. I don't hear many laughing at Herman Melville.

Craw-fish, star-fish, jelly-fish, are all fishes, all correctly named today, in modern English.

The word "corn" is neither archaic nor obsolete. It is just not big-city, MTV, boyz-inna-hood American.


Lacy

 

Its probable that men from the start have failed in seeing that their children were properly educated. Are we sure we are not covering up the word evolution with obsolete? I would be interested to know how many times the Jewish people have changed their text. In the Websters 1918 edition they must have known about the debate then because they went out of their way to define the word "corn". Just thought I would throw a little Kansas in the debate.

 

Ugghhh!! I can't believe they ate those in 1611! I guess they got corns on their ears too!

Lacy

 

Hey Kansas! What part? I ran a Gleaner combine all over western Kansas. I cut the ears off the wheat with my header and put the corn in the bin!

Lacy

 

If thats the case,you have likely combined some corn in Grant Co. I grew up between Hugeton and Ulysses.On the mighty Cimmeron.I live back east now,you know were theres trees and water,and lots of corn on the cob.

 

Garden City, Moscow, Norton, Dodge, Imperial. My favorite place on the Earth is a little town called Almena. I know the town like the back of my hand. It holds joyous and magical boyhood memories. Foe the first 21 years of my life, I'd just be leaving there headed for Nebraska.

I'm sorry. I waxed whimsical. I love Kansas.

Lacy

 

The word "corn," in the sense that it is used in the King James translation of the Bible, has dropped out of general use. The mere fact that in some localities and subcultures the sense has been retained does not change the FACT that the word is generally misunderstood when read in the King James translation of the Bible. If you don’t want to take my word for it, and of course you shouldn’t, just walk out of your house and ask the people out there to read the verses in the King James translation of the Bible in which the word corn is used and ask them to comment on the those verses. You will learn soon enough for yourself that the use of the word “corn” in a translation of the Bible is no longer acceptable because it is generally misunderstood. But, of course, if you believe that a translation of the Bible that is generally misunderstood is better than a newer one that is not, you have a right to your opinion, but may have God have mercy upon your soul if you express that opinion as fact when communicating with others.

Translations of the Bible that are so old that they need to be translated to be understood have lost much of their value. The King James translation of the Bible was a masterpiece in it’s time, and it is still a literary monument, but monuments don’t belong in the sanctuary, but some place else.

But, of course, KJOism is not about facts, knowledge, or understanding. It is all about an emotional attachment to a misconception. If you don’t believe this, take a survey of published KJOist authors and inquire about their education. You will find that very few of them have earned even so much as a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited Bible college or university. If, however, you take a survey of published non-KJOist authors, you will find that many of them have earned at least one doctorate from an accredited university. But, of course, if you partake of the errors of KJOism, you probably also partake of the error that accredited institutions of higher learning are institutions of the devil even though it was at such institutions that it pleased our Lord to bless the translators of the KJV with their education.

 

Plain and simple facts! Thank you, Pastor Larry!

 

I agree, but it seems pretty stupid to me to major on whether or not people in modern American think of "grain" when they hear the word "corn." They very obviously do not. It is, at best, a very simple issue that we should acknowledge. I don't see the need to imply that this is a stupid issue. It is a minor one, but it brings up a bigger point of clarity in translation. The word of God should be translated clearly, in the language of the people for whom the translation is intended.

Has anyone said that the KJV was in error? I haven't seen that. I think the point was that the KJV in situations like this is confusing because it does not communicate accurately in modern English. Again, a very simple point that is so easy to see and so easy to grasp.

 

Okay Craig. You win. the KJV is wrong, the American Heritage Dictionary is wrong, the New Collegiate Dictionary is wrong, and the Oxford Concise Dictionary is wrong, but YOU, and ONLY YOU, are right.

 

And my point was, of course, that American English is not the only English used in the world. The British still refer to to primary grain of an area as "corn." Did you miss my question regarding jingoism?

 

OTOH, one should not stick to a translation simply for the translation's sake. There's nothing remotely scriptural in that thought process. What we should endeavor to do is to translate from the source texts to our language today.

He also knows that corn is the yellow stuff on the cob.

That's not dumbing down. That's translating in contemporary usage. Otherwise, we'd still be reading the Geneve Bible, since, by your reckoning, the KJV was a "dumbing down" of the Geneva. Should we be required to say "betwixt" instead of "between", just because "betwixt" is more rich? No. The problem here is that "grain" is a better translation. The only reason to use "corn" instead of "grain" is for the purpose of sticking to one bible version. That's tantamount to versionolatry, a notion that is unscriptural.

If you knew English, then you'd know that "fish" in the general sense does not include aquatic mammals.

That's is by no means a statement of fact.

Then perhaps the KJV authors should have just learned Geneva English.
In contemporary English, "let" means to "allow". It does not mean "to allow" in the KJV.

Please show me a Bible verse that says it is forbidden to translate the biblical source texts to contemporary English. Unless you can come up with one, there's no scriptural reason to be against contemporary translations.