Corn in Genesis 42:25

Bible Versions Your Questions Answered ^ | 2001 | David W Daniels

[CCWoody]

oxen anyone?

[Alex Murphy]

I hereby confer, upon the one known as drstevej, the honorary title of

FR Meteorologist

including all the powers, rights, authorities, and responsibilities accorded therein.

And may God have mercy upon your soul.

[drstevej]

Pshaw, I'm humbled... but Sir Door Gunner is the deserving one. See Post #106!

[Alex Murphy]

drstevej is the one in charge of the morning farm reports. I'm just the staff meteorologist.

[drstevej]

***oxen anyone?***  - C C Woody

[DoorGunner]

This post (question) is an excellent example of the "straw man" fallacy. The problem is not an apparent anachronism concerning the word "corn." Rather, it is the fact that, to read the actual "King James Version" one needs to learn "Early Modern English," so that one can effectively translate the KJV into something 21st century Americans can comprehend.

DG

[Alex Murphy]

Rather, it is the fact that, to read the actual "King James Version" one needs to learn "Early Modern English," so that one can effectively translate the KJV into something 21st century Americans can comprehend.

You are entirely right. Some of us present have those credentials, rusty though they may be. While I won't comment on the accuracy of the KJV translation, I will say - with emphatic certainty - that there's nothing holy or inspired about the vernacular of that era, nor of any other.

[drstevej]

***there's nothing holy or inspired about the vernacular of that era, nor of any other.***

Nor of the English language!

[RnMomof7]

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.

Do you mean there is no Strong's for languages like ancient egyptian?

[DoorGunner]

Some of us present have those credentials,

Yes. I grew up using the KJV, so I am used to it, and more or less like it. Many parts, though, must be nearly incomprehensible, to those without that experience.

DG

[RnMomof7]

Where are the golden plates?



* Scholars were able to reach back a further two thousand years in

one thousand would have been enough: from 1100 AD to around 0.

* time to examine biblical texts that had lain undisturbed in the
* desert caves during all of the intervening centuries. The scholars
* discovered that the Hebrew manuscript copies of the most
* authoritative Hebrew text, Textus Recepticus, used by the King James

The term "Textus Receptus" is usually only applied to the collection
of *Greek* NT manuscripts the KJV translators used. This is not per se
important, but I find it interesting that the discovery of the DSS
shall now serve a different purpose, to wit defending the KJV's choice
of manuscripts (well, they hadn't that much choice, but that's a
different story).

* translators in 1611, were virtually identical to these ancient Dead
* Sea Scrolls. After carefully comparing the manuscripts they

No. Not to all of them. The scroll 1QJes_a shows many deviations,
1QJes_b does not. The new insight is indeed, and this is what the
author probably wants to say, that the consonant text underlying the
Masoretic text must be several hundred years older than formerly
believed. But one sees as well that alternate text forms have survived
until Jesus's time, and been kept in the same library. Perhaps, the
standardisation on one and only one text, with the extreme care taken
when copying, did not start before the destruction of the Temple.

* discovered that, aside from a tiny number of spelling variations,
* not a single word was altered from the original scrolls in the caves
* from the much copied A.D. 1100 manuscripts used by the Authorized
* King James Version translators in 1611.

"not a single word" would be an interesting allegation to check. I
have not the material here to provide counterexamples but would really
be surprised if it were true even for 1QJes_b.

* [...]

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

My goodness! An irrelivant thing like "corn" can get 30 posts quick while your posts on more serious subjects only get maybe 3 or 4.

You must have hit a nerve!

Meanwhile, I'll just pour me another shot of John Barleycorn.

[Alex Murphy]

An irrelivant thing like "corn" can get 30 posts quick while your posts on more serious subjects only get maybe 3 or 4.

There's really a simple explanation for it. When you apply heat long enough, corn tends to explosively expand.