Posted on 03/27/2003 7:25:56 PM PST by Commander8
QUESTION: Why does Gen. 42:25 refer to corn, when corn is a new world crop? Europeans did not know of its existence until the 16th Century. Surely that must be a mistranslation by the KJV translators, because the Jews would have not known about corn.
(Excerpt) Read more at chick.com ...
Come Back GRANT SWANK !!!!!!!
Corn was a generic term used to represent "Any kind of edible grain". My sources for this are many, including my King James Bible Companion, Notes from "The Evidence Bible" and science books that I have read in the past. Corn was often referring to the seeds. If the Bible had said MAIZE, which was the actual word for what we commonly refer to as "Corn", then you might have a legit arguement. As it stands, this is just one of those poor attempts to discredit the King James Bible.
This is also going to come as a shock to some: Language changes with time too.
Generally, if you want to get the real meaning of anything, you need to learn the language it was originally written in.
This is also going to come as a shock to some: Language changes with time too.
This as well is going to shock some: American English differs from British English. From dictionary.com:
3. Chiefly British. Any of various cereal plants or grains, especially the principal crop cultivated in a particular region, such as wheat in England or oats in Scotland.
SD
Yes. The Book of Mormon gets a lot of guff like this ("at Jerusalem," e.g.)
The issue on that count, Illbay, is that the "original manuscripts" aren't available to independent, third-party translators to verify whether the Book of [5th Amendment] was in fact translated correctly or not.
The original translation of said book was reported as being performed via supernatural means and unverifiable methods. Whether the Book of [5th Amendment] contains the word-for-word, idea-for-idea translation of the source documents, or (as has been postulated by some re the Book of Abraham) the source document was used only as a medium by which to supernatually "translate", i.e. communicate a wholly different message than the source document itself expresses via pedestrian translation efforts, there is no way for the common man to verify the veracity of said book, unlike other religious documents.
Now, it might very well be an accurate transmission of an inspired document written many centuries ago. But for any given party (not present at the time of translation) to accept it as such, without at least empirical proof of the accuracy of the translation, is a big leap of faith.
Unlike the golden plates??
There are very old manuscripts found and there are no significant variences ..Unlike other "edited" "Holy Books" it does not seem that there were changes made to accommdate political or social norms
Irrelevant. The fellow said "where are the original documents", not "where are some hand-copies documents that are only three hundred years newer than the originals.
Second, there are plenty of inconsistencies, as the Dead Sea Scrolls have abundantly shown.
I'd add that the languages those manuscripts are written in a translatable language, meaning that we (and our detractors) have a means of verifying if there have been any "significant variences" in transmission from one era to another. There are more surviving, and translatable, ancient copies of New and Old Testament documents (some dating back to within a single generation of their purported writing) than for any other ancient work. Unless I'm mistaken, the next-best-supported document, in terms of survived manuscripts, is Homer's The Illiad. As far as I know, no one questions the reliability of the Illiad's translated message, because they can always go make another one from the survived manuscripts if they did.
The same is true of our ability to do likewise with the Old and New Testaments, insuring the accurate transmission of the original message. One may not like or agree with the message, but it's intellectual suicide to argue that the single-best-documented ancient text in all of history cannot be translated correctly.
In the case of the Book of [5th Amendment], the golden plates may indeed exist - I'm not arguing that point. I'm simply saying there's no way to verify if they were translated accurately. According to the only "original source" translator, the plates were removed from this plane of existence, taken away by an angel. Any revisions made to the published versions were therefore made without access to, or verification with, the complete source documents written in the original language.
Bonus points will be awarded if you can cite any 3rd party published document containing pictures of the source documents (all pages), and a side-by-side word-for-word translation of said documents into English, that exactly matches the Book of Abraham.
Points will be deducted, however, if the opposition can provide a published document containing pictures of the source documents (all pages), and a side-by-side word-for-word translation of said documents into English, that fail to match the Book of Abraham in both wording and plot.
Just to be fair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.