When is an oak tree not an oak tree?

...When it is still an acorn!!

 

[Personal attack deleted]


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/600-699/nb676.htm

"This version was completed in 1611, long before botany became an
exact science. Like several others, it was a translation by scholars who
were not botanists, had never visited the Holy Land, did not realize that
the native plants in that region were far different from plants in northern
Europe, and made the mistake of identifying some of those mentioned
in the Scriptures with familiar plants in England."

This statement forgets the translators were relating the figuratives of the Hebrew in relative terms to the English.

We find the comparative of the teil to the oak in the conjunction "and as".

The teil being familiar to the English in relation to the oak in they both cast forth their leaves. The ideal being to say that the translators were not botanists to make the claim they made a "mistake" is the same ignorant and childish behaviour of those who refuse to look at the Bible with objection.

We find perfection to what is being referred to and to make the understanding available to all by references that show how the terms explain the metaphorical sense.

It always helps to understand the efforts of the KJB translators to make things of the Bible known to those who are otherwise culturally and logistically ignorant of other locales and those things indigenous to those specific areas.

 

Who mentioned hating the word of God? My salvation does not depend upon if it was a teil, a turpentine, or an oak.

 

I appreciate that Sal recognises that "dynamic equivalence" is sometimes acceptable in translation work.

 

Of course it is, otherwise no one but Hebrews and Greeks would have the word of God. But to think that misleading interpretations which confuse the one who most needs a word from God are somehow "better" is utter non-sense!

Those who persistently find fault with the KJB and the way it has given an altogether different culture a perfect veiw to undertsnad what is the length, breadth, width, depth and height of all the Lord has to give must either hate the word of God or are very ignorant of what God has already given.:sleeping_2:

 

And I gave the link and used a quote from the LINK!

Tell thenext muslim you meet how a hotdog is accepted meat contrary to what others believe about buns.

Refer to the quote above and justify a hotdog to a muslim.:laugh:

You're stretching the strawman beyond exasperation.

 

Are you saying then that translations need to fit the language and culture of the day?
Or did that only apply in 1611?

 

I have said, many times, that the language of the Bible already has within its pages the completed Canon of Scripture in the English langugae for all who have the resources available to understand what thus saith the LORD.

What "applied" in 1611 is relevent to all generations in the English language.

The word of God should not fit the current "styles" of the world, rather the world needs be conformed to the express image of His Dear Son!

Once English reached its pinacle, and the language we find in the KJB, it is left to no doubt what thus saith the Lord, well, except when modern versions alter the meaning by using misleading wordings.

My KJB is perfectly definable, without consulting modern verbage which has altered the language to make it "fit" the vernacular of a wicked world.

When I want to know what the Bible says, I do consult many comentaries, but to be certain I use a dictionary, or two, maybe three, to be sure of the contextual definition whether they agree with the commentator or not. Of course the Spirit being my guide into all truth.:godisgood:

I don't have to split hairs over trees in the Bible to know what the intent of its Author wants to get across to me or anyone else.:godisgood:

Are you implying that something happened in 1611 other than the giving of our PERFECT Bible?

 

So is the image of the Son as described in the English language of 1611? And besides that, I thought is was the Christian is comformed to the image of the Son. Why in the world would the word of God need to be conformed to the image of Son if the Son is God and there for the Biblie is His words? Makes no sense to me.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. This just struck me funny.

 

Um, thou hast hi-jacked nothing, um, "Nuh-ting!" as Sgt. Schultz would say.

You probably should go back and re-read what you erroneously replied to? Yep, seems so.


The only "mistake" is by those who think they have something against the KJB or its translators.

The interpretation isn't limited to only a mid-eastern tree, rather the very trees referred to are ones that lined the gate entranceway. These very trees would have been ornamental, they very easily were imported for such use.

It really amazes me how insignificant "information" is used to attack the KJB and the miserable failure to prove something without a comprehensive study of the very thing these "object" to.

The world is to be conformed to the express image of Jesus Christ, afterall, God so-loved the world!:godisgood:

That conforming begins at salvation, at least it does with everyone who has ever been saved!

 

Study, Brother, STUDY.

 

Beza, Kimchi, Jarchi. Those names ought to be familiar to anyone who takes Bible study seriously. Oh, yeah, and then there's that Jewish Historian dude.:laugh:

Isaiah was referring to the door posts of a specific structure, one which had tree-lined entrances to it's gates.

 

This first response is still the best response to the thread title and OP, through two pages.

"Two Pages! Two pages! Can I hear three? How about four? Will someone give me four?? Don't let this one get away too cheaply! ..."

Ed

 

Try John Gill for starters.