Does archaic language hurt our understanding of this verse?

Not arguing against updates and revisions, but stand by my claim that the 1611 KJV is readable by most people who would give it any effort and were willing to be instructed.

Once the letters and spelling are updated I contend it is an relatively easily readable version. I know that 5th graders and younger are fully capable of reading KJV once the basic letter and spelling updating is done as in the 1762, 1769, and other editions.

 

I admit that some words and phrases may be difficult but whose fault is that? Don't blame the book - we have too take ksome accountability here. Why not raise our standards instead of taking the language of a King James Bible and bringing it down to our level. Dr. EF Hills likens the language of a King James Bible as a "divine English" - I agree. Just compare the preface and the text - they are different.

If I have issues I look up the word in an English dictionary and then compare spiritual with spiritual or do both?

I've read the modern versions and I see just as many "difficult" words and phrases in them also. This has been shown and studies ahave been done to show this.

Anybody here know what the "slime of the purslain" is? The ole King James has it as the "white of an egg"! Take your pick - there are many more examples.

We have to admit that we don't read like we used to - why should w? We have Powerpoint presentations, TV, visuals, etc. :BangHead:

God bless :thumbs:

 

Yes, you are probably right, but if one follows the topic anyone could make that assumption, especially considering Nebuchednezzar refused to even tell his own majicians the dream. That is exactly how the devil works: making unreasonable demands while holding back pertinent info.

I will have to say that in light of the "evidence" that this could go either way, but knowing the wiles of the devil, I will have to say that trickery and deceit are abounding but grace doth much more abound, wouldn't you agree?

I make my case as follows: to make a determination of any verse, one must consider not only what is said, but the time frame as well as the motive behind any statement from a heathen such as Nebuchednezzar.

I failed to consider that before I "ran my mouth", still, no mention of his knowing the dream and then demanding the revealing of it was deception.

The proving of Daniel and his God takes the forefront yet still!
:sleep: (dreaming)

 

Laugh! I fully understood this passage right after I got SAVED!

Chastity is to be conversed from ther many differing ways of communicating what one really is on the inside.

I preach REGULARLY on what your attire communicates to a lost world!

Chastity isn't just something you just tell others you are, but what others see that you really are by the way you portray yourself.

 

Not really. I believe you're leaving the Lord out of the big picture.

I admit I hastily responded, but I did see that the rendering is according to what Nebuchednezzar decreed, it is just he hadn't made that decree until AFTER his majicians asked for the dream so they might interpret.

You're making mountains out of molehills, friend, the real emphasis on the passage is not the devil's decree, but that God is God above all!!:godisgood:

 

Can you explain why the context does not permit that interpretation?

 

I don't think it is clear. Commentators like Calvin, Henry and Barnes didn't. The 1960 Reina Valera Bible uses olvidar "to forget."

"His dream had slipped out of his mind, and he could not possibly recollect it, but he was confident he should know it if he heard it again." Matthew Henry

Think about taking a test or memorized scripture; often you know something well but cannot remember it without prompting.

Whatever it means, the phrase is not crucial to the message of the passage.

 

He cannot remember his dream comes to mind.

Now I'll read the passage and other posts.:wavey: :smilewinkgrin:

 

Calvin's explaining the phrase as involving a memory lapse indicates that at the time of the translation of the KJV this was how the phrase was understood by the translators. Modern readers are not misreading an old English phrase but reading it exactly as the translators intended them to.

 

I'm sorry but was Calvin one of the translators of the KJV? How do you assume that Calvin's understanding was the same as the translators? Wasn't the KJV translated in England by British subjects? Wasn't Calvin Swiss? May there be differences in phrasing between their languages? Isn't anything we read of Calvin's a translation in its own right? Even granting the same understanding of the phrase, doesn't mean it was the correct understanding, does it?

Seems a lot of variables in play to make an assumption like you made.

Dave

 

The OP contended that the KJV phrase was archaic, causing modern readers to misunderstand the intended meaning.

It is unlikely that "the thing has gone from me" was ever intended to mean anything other than the king's memory failed. I have cited a leading commentator of the time who explained it that way. This is not merely a case of an English phrase no longer being understandable to modern readers. Twenty-first century readers of the KJV are reading it just like seventeenth century readers probably did. Is there evidence that the translators intended another meaning?

Modern versions may well have the correct meaning, if so, the problem with the KJV is not archaic language.

 

According to Strong's, the word translated as "the thing" was the Aramaic millah which meant either word or thing. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's statement could have meant either that his word had gone from him or that the dream had been forgotten. I agree with the thought that what Nebuchadnezzar meant is not the important part of the story. What is important is the power of God in both knowing the dream and delivering its interpretation through Daniel. And although I am one who thinks that some archaic word usage can be confusing, I really don't think this is one of those instances. I think the confusion here lies with the fact that the Aramaic millah could have had either meaning.

 

I have done a little more observing on the verse, the punctuation mark of a colon denoted a decree was being made; that makes the verse emphatically clear to anyone who knows what the use of a colon does.

I haven't said a thing about "one version only" and I know if I did, the trollups would soon crawl from their lairs and spue forth more of their slimy drool.:tonofbricks: Ok slimy bricks!

Nothing is worthy of the term "archaic" in the verse at all.

 

There are three questions in the OP, with the first and last interrelated. Several plausible explanations of the verse have been presented in this thread. It may be either that the king forgot or did not forget his dream.

The answer to the second question is probably "No". First, it is not clear that this phrase really qualifies as 'archaic'. Second, after a meaning has been accepted (either that the "thing" is a decree or the dream) the phrase itself does not affect the understanding of the verse.

It seems that the discussion is shifting to a debate on whether "archaic language" affects our understanding of any scripture.

Confirmed archaic English words would not be understood by contemporary readers without assistance external to the text; if an external source exists then the archaic language can be understood. It becomes a matter of preference and convenience... why force the modern reader to locate an outside source and expend effort deciphering the archaic language if all this can easily be avoided? Why not replace the archaic phrase with understandable words similar to the peripheral source?

What does it matter if some words are substituted for other words in an English translation provided the current meaning still coincides with the meaning of the original language? The choice of which word(s) are placed into the English is subjective from the start. It only matters if there is an attempt being made to establish a particular English word(s) as the exclusive translation.

I read the KJV (grew up on it). It can be understood now with a little effort. But if the Lord delays His return, the KJV will be more difficult to read and understand for those born 200 years from now. Would we even recognize English in 700 years from now? (Try to read something in 14th-Century English to get the idea.) Will English be a dead language in 3611?

God has recently used the KJV to bring souls to saving knowledge (maybe today!) in spite of its vintage language. I believe God has used many things to prick the human conscience, including the Catholic crucifix. That doesn't mean we should all wear one.

 

The colon might give an indication as to a translator's understanding in this passage, but punctuation of the English is irrelevant to the determination of the inspired writer's original meaning.

(For those that don't know: punctuation is a relatively modern devise and does not exist in ancient biblical languages.)