Difficulty Understanding

1611, "17 Eastward were sixe Leuites, Northward foure a day, Southward foure a day, and toward Afuppim two and two. 18 And Parbar weftward, foure at the caufey, and two at Parbar."

1769 "17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two. 18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar."

You are obsessing over "causeway" in place of "causfey?" (By the way, that is one word, not "words.")

"Causey, from the Latin calciare meaning "to stamp with the heels, to tread." A raised way formed as a mound across a hollow, especially low wet ground; a raised footway by the side of a carriage road liable to be submerged in wet weather. More fully called "causeyway," and now "causeway," "causey" being now less used."

Learning about the English language, especially by those who claim it as their native tongue, is not a sin. Refusing to learn certainly is, though.

 

I too have this Zondervan KJV in very large print. Excellent notes. I appreciate the correction at Heb 10:23, etc. However, I wonder why they "corrected" the KJV1769's "Spirit" in the OT, with the lower case? this is puzzling. Also "fetched" is "fet" in the 1873. There are other instances where they exchanged the suffix "ed" with "t". example "stopped" to "stopt" 2 Chr 32:4. Does anyone know?

 

Because "fet" is the past tense of "fetch." And "t" rather than "ed" indicates an aorist instead of a simple past tense.

Remember, Scrivener was trying to return the KJV text as close as possible to the edition of 1611. The 1611 read "fet" so Scrivener, in an attempt to maintain the proper understanding of the tense, returned the reading to that of 1611.

 

Because "fet" is the past tense of "fetch." And "t" rather than "ed" indicates an aorist instead of a simple past tense.

Remember, Scrivener was trying to return the KJV text as close as possible to the edition of 1611. The 1611 read "fet" so Scrivener, in an attempt to maintain the proper understanding of the tense, returned the reading to that of 1611. </font>[/QUOTE]Very interesting, thanx.

 

They convey the same idea. What is the problem?

 

Oh, so now they just have to convey the same idea, what a marvelous double standard

If the NIV changed that word, we would be talking about the hissing of the serpent

 

I fail to see the problem. What is your objection? Don't you think the two verses, although worded differently, convey the same idea?

 

Perhaps you do not see the sarcasm in the "question" of Dr. Bob. I know him too well to think that he actually has a problem understanding the text.

He is making a rather direct point regarding the supposed "differences" between the KJV and the MVs

 

Yes, I know, and I was asking him why he made such a big deal of it. And why you seemed to think that different words conveying the same meaning somehow constitutes a "marvelous double standard" on my part.