Corn or Grain in Mark 2:23?

I find it interesting that you're arguing that we all need to learn English, and you proceed to spell the plural of whale is "whale's". The plural of "whale" is "whales" without an apostrpohe. I wouldn't make a point of it if you yourself weren't making a point of us learning English. To say nothing about the plural of aquatic life (which would be "fishes", not "fish"). No disrespect intended, but your ignorance on the topic is showing.

 

In 1828, over two hundred years after the KJV was translated, we find this definition of "corn."

1. A single seed of certain plants, as wheat, rye, barley and maiz; a grain. In this sense, it has a plural; as, three barley corns make an inch. It is generally applied to edible seeds, which, when ripe, are hard.

2. The seeds of certain plants in general, in bulk or quantity; as, corn is dear or scarce. In this sense, the word comprehends all the kinds of grain which constitute the food of men and horses. In Great Britain, corn is generally applied to wheat, rye, oats and barley. In the United States, it has the same general sense, but by custom, it is appropriated to maiz. We are accustomed to say, the crop of wheat is good, but the corn is bad; it is a good year for wheat and rye, but bad for corn. In this sense, corn has no plural.

Young's Literal Translation and Darby's Translation have it pretty similar to the KJV. I found it interesting that the Twentieth Century New Testament reads, "One Sabbath, as Jesus was walking through the cornfields, his disciples began to pick the ears of wheat as they went along." This translation uses the term "cornfields" and "ears of wheat."

 

I wouldn't make a point of it if you yourself weren't making a point of us learning English. To say nothing about the plural of aquatic life (which would be "fishes", not "fish"). No disrespect intended, but your ignorance on the topic is showing. </font>[/QUOTE]What is showing is my late night typing skill, or lack thereof. But you are right about my misuse of the possessive form of "whale." (You could have digged a little harder by reminding me that I am a teacher in public schools. That would have really put me in my place.)

As to my use of the word "fishes", it is correct. When describing plural fish of one kind (i.e. "I caught ten fish." {bass}), you use the plural "fish". When describing multiple kinds (craw-fish, star-fish, jelly-fish and whales), you use the plural "fishes". So you got me on one misplaced, late-night apostrophe.

BTW, I did say WE, not y'all, need to learn English. Looks like we proved my point!

 

Oh my!!!

Again, I mean no disrespect. Now, go get some sleep!!!!

 

I wonder if fishes get corns?

 

Are you British or living in Britain? The Brazilians refer to primary grain as something else? Should we use their word and claim that people just need to know language better? That is what I don't understand. Words communicate things. If a word in its common usage communicates the wrong thing, then it needs to be changed.

I don't know what the Brits mean by "corn." Perhaps one of our British friends here can comment on that.

Yep ...

 

If we revise the Bible every time "common usage" changes, we'd need a new version every week.

Here is the "Lord's Prayer" from the Ebonocs bible for your "enjoyment".

There's some "common usage" for you.

Lacy

 

Yes, and no. I am British but I live in San Diego.

As Brazilians speak Portuguese, not English, the point is moot, isn't it? We are talking about English, aren't we?

That seems self-evident.

So, does that mean you have abandoned the words "gay," "grass," "high," "loaded," "user," "bad," "sick," "bomb," "busting," "dead," "hot," "ill," "jammed," "map," "pork, "squelch," and "word?"

I already told you.

It shows.

 

Did you think Ebonics was common usage??? Of course not. We are talking about standard English and it change far less that weekly. In fact, it changes over the course of a century or so.

 

I can't beleive this is an issue. English is a broad language. Corn does mean either maize or a grain. It seems that you are insisting on a total Americanisation of the Bible.

If I want the yellow stuff that comes off a cob I buy "sweet corn" here. If I want to make "cornbread" I have to buy maize meal.

Why is this a problem? A lot of folks seem to think that American English is the ONLY English anyone should ever speak.

Let me let you in on a secret, the vast majority of the English speakers in the world do NOT speak American English.

 

Neat ... I didn't know that.

I am talking about American English; you are trying to talk about British English; I merely mentioned another language that has words that mean something different.

But what I don't understand is why you are not getting something so simple. This ain't rocket science, as they say.

"Gay" is probably the only word I consciously avoid out of that list. Several others are not common words. In none of those cases (except "gay") is the standard usage confusing. In all of those cases, the context very easily identifies what the word means. That is not true in this case. So what you have done is drawn an invalid comparison. You should have asked if I still use the word "let" or "prevent." That would have been a valid comparison since those two words are ones that, like corn, mean something entirely different in 21st century common usage than they did in 1611.

After I asked the question.

 

I agree, but for a different reason.

First, most people on this board are talking about American usage. To them, "corn" means something that KJV does not. Should the word of God be confusing? Of course not. That is why this is a simple discussion. It should have ended right there.

Because the word used in the KJV is not clear as to what is being referred to.

But the majority of people in American do speak American English. And the majority of 21st century Americans speak 21st century American English. That is why a Bible translated in American 21st century English is a far better choice for clarity.

 

• No, the KJV is not wrong.
• No, the American Heritage Dictionary is not wrong.
• “the New Collegiate Dictionary” ??? Do you mean Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, or Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition or ???
• No, the Oxford Concise Dictionary is not wrong
• No, I am not the ONLY One who is right
• YOU are wrong!

And not only are many of your statements wrong, the attitude in which they are presented is wrong.

 

Is "grain" such a bad word? Seems like if we preach this we must define "corn", but would not need to define "grain". Certainly that is not a litmus test of which word a translation should use, but I am unaware of the doctrine of the corn being affected (or is it effected?) by this.

 

I agree, but for a different reason.

First, most people on this board are talking about American usage. To them, "corn" means something that KJV does not. Should the word of God be confusing? Of course not. That is why this is a simple discussion. It should have ended right there.

Because the word used in the KJV is not clear as to what is being referred to.

But the majority of people in American do speak American English. And the majority of 21st century Americans speak 21st century American English. That is why a Bible translated in American 21st century English is a far better choice for clarity. </font>[/QUOTE]So now we need an American English Bible as well as an International English Bible. Plus it would eb good to have British English, Irish English, Australian English, South African English, Singaporan English, etc Bibles.

 

I would not have any problem with that, C4K. The word of God ought to be in the language of the people. If those various countries use words in different ways, then the translation should properly reflect that.

 

The corn on my left little toe has neither grains nor ears, but with my work boots off, I can "barley" feel it.

 

Sure, why not? Each person should be allowed a Bible in his/her own tongue. My tongue is American Standard English. Not UK English, and not Jaobean/Elizabethan English.

 

My son is a fish this year and he acts pretty corny. I think he's just feeling his oats. I just take it with a grain of salt.

Lacy

 

I'm not British but I'll bet that they would understand "grain" to mean "grain" just like we American's do. Since "corn" is confusing to Americans, why not use "grain" which is clear to both Brits and Americans? Is that so bad?

Andy