KJV OT vs. NT?

oops double post

Two 'eds are better than one!

 

Oops, tripple post

Two 'eds are better than one!

 

Psa 27:3 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
Though an hoste pitched against me, mine heart should
not be afraide: though warre be raised against me,
I will trust in this.

'hoste' is pronounced like 'ost', starts with
a vowel sound, is preceded by 'an'
(the 'e' is also silent, but changes the sound
of the 'o').

Here is a joke about EdSutton & myself using that:

As my English friends say:

Two 'eds are better than one!

 

"Well, I'm not Bro. Williams, but I will answer this for you. Properly, "an" is sometimes, and as often as not, correct before a word beginning with the letter "h", and has been for many years. However, current usage is following this less and less, these days, so that today, "a" is more often used before words beginning with the letter "h", than was the case in the past. I try and use "an" always, when it is correct, before an "h" word, but even I do not always catch myself, in this. Correct usage includes "an high priest", for example, in Heb. 9:11; "an host", where the reference is to an army, as in Ps. 27:3; (although one can have "a host" of excuses); "a hot" iron (I Tim. 4:2); "an heavy" heart (Prov. 25:20); "an heavy" burden (Ps. 38:4); "a heavy" yoke (I Ki. 12:11); and "a hearty" Amen!

BTW, in some instances, either "a" or "an" is equally correct.

Isn't the English language just so wonderfully simple and unconfusing?" :BangHead: :laugh: :laugh:

Signed, Language Cop
>
>
>
>

"Language Cop needs to get in the bed! He is starting to exhibit his 'ornery streak'!"

Ed

 

The use of "an" before the H probably came from the English habit of dropping the H when saying something. In England heavy becomes eavy and home becomes ome when the words are pronounced.

Even in American English "an" is used in front of words where the h is silent. In America we have "a home" and "an hour."

 

Good answer both of you guys. I'm please that you took the time to read and understand my question.

I was aware of the silent h sound exception for the object of the indefinate article "an" however I'm somewhat surprised that the KJ translaters used it as much as they did though and I quite honestly don't understand why they did. Do either of you know why they did other than because they could? Also, are there any other silent sounds besides h that this rule can apply to?

Thanks and have a great day.

Tom

 

Tom, my guess is that the KJV translators didn't use "an" just because they could, but rather that they wrote it just the way they said it. And no, no other silent sounds come to mind where this rule applies.

Have a GREAT day in the Lord!

 

Just got a chance to check this thread again... these thirds are really messing with my BB time...

Anways, I appreciate the honest answers concerning "a" and "an", sorry I couldn't be the first to answer, but the answers seen are sufficient.

Thomas, I would suggest a comparison between similar time fram writings. I don't have any on hand myself, but I would be curious to know if the "an" and "a" issue was handles the same way in those writings as well.

 

Thank you Brother Ed for citing the Geneva Bible,
a Bible from 1587 -- a similiar time to the KJV1611
which also has 'an host'.

I got my Geneva Bible from

http://www.e-sword.com/

for a donation.

 

Would that by chance be "an 'and" or "a hand," Bro. Williams?

Just kidding!

Have a GREAT day in the Lord!

 

Bro Williams, I accept the responses that I have received and the "h" sound exception is in my grammar book.

To be honest, I have reciently started re-learning English grammar on my own. The main reason is because I want to learn Greek but it seems silly to me to try to learn another language and translate it back to English if you don't really understand English. Anyway, this study I have been doing has really paid off in that I'm paying attention to the English words with a higher degree of detail.

When it is all said and done , the translators (modern and KJ) really had to make a lot of decisions when doing their work.

Thank you,
Tom

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV was not always consistent about whether it used "an" or "a" before the same word. In 1611, there was probably no standard grammar rule about its use just as there were not standard spellings of many words. The 1611 edition sometimes spelled the same word more than one way.

Editors of later KJV editions seem to have attempted to make the text of the KJV more consistent in its use of "an" or "a," but they perhaps overlooked some uses.

For example, later editors changed “a hundred” (Exod. 38:9, Jud. 20:10, 1 Kings 7:2) to “an hundred” while they kept “a hundred” once (Isa. 37:36). They revised “a house” (1 Chron. 17:5) to “an house” while “a house” was left at other verses (Exod. 12:30, Lev. 14:34, etc.). They changed “a hill” (Isa. 30:17) to “an hill” while “a hill” was kept once (Josh. 24:33). Later editors also left the inconsistencies of “an hairy” (Gen. 25:25) and “a hairy” (Gen. 27:11), “a harp” (1 Sam. 10:5) and “an harp” (1 Sam. 16:16, 23), “a heap” (Isa. 17:11) and “an heap” (Isa. 25:2), “an hammer” (Jud. 4:21) and “a hammer” (Jer. 23:29), “an highway” (Isa. 11:16) and “a highway” (Isa. 19:23), “an holy” (Exod. 19:6) and “a holy” (Isa. 30:29), and “an house“ (Mark 3:19) and “a house“ (Mark 3:25).

You asked for another example besides words that start with "h." The 1611 edition had "an whore" at Proverbs 23:27, but later editiors changed it to "a whore."

 

How did we get into a discussion of when "a" and "an" are appropriate? Is it really germane to this discussion?

 

Many times the differences may be due to a difference in the source text. Sometimes there may be some other reason. For example, there are differences in the KJV N. T.'s quotation of the same O. T. verse in different N. T. verses. It may be possible that sometimes the variation comes from the KJV following different pre-1611 English Bibles. Other times it may be because the early English translators including the KJV translators sometimes seemed to like to vary their renderings.

Observe the differences when an Old Testament verse (Deut. 32:35) was quoted in two different N. T. books:

Rom. 12:19 Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.
Heb. 10:30 Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.


Again, notice the variation in two quotations of the same verse (Psa. 95:11) in the same context:

Heb. 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.
Heb. 4:3 As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest.

The same words from Genesis 15:6 are given the following variations: "It was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3), "It was imputed unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:22), and "It was accounted to him for righteousness" (Gal. 3:6).

From Proverbs 10:12, the same words are translated differently in James 5:20 (shall hide a multitude of sins) and 1 Peter 4:8 (shall cover the multitude of sins).

 

Very good Brother Logos1560. Thank you.

Ed notes the first page of the New Testament shows
the KJV translators used MORE THAN ONE SOURCE
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:

Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition, source#1)
And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

Footnote in the form of a sidenote:
||Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias.

Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition, source#2)
And Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

 

Any yet sometimes the quotations are remarkably similar.
Here is a portion of Isaiah quoted by three separate NT authors.

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” And he said,
“Go, and say to this people: “
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
Isaiah 6:8-10 ESV

Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“ ‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
Matthew 13:14-15 ESV

For again Isaiah said,
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart,
and turn, and I would heal them.”
John 12:39b-40 ESV

…they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
“ ‘Go to this people, and say,
You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
Acts 28:25b-27 ESV

Rob

 

Imagine yourself, One Day in the Life of a translator...

If you were the translator of the New Testament Greek Text,
Would you feel it was your role to adjust the text so that the Old Testament text read similar to the New Testament text?

Rob