Versions of the 23rd Psalm first line

[michael_legna]

Tell me michael_legna, are you a Roman Catholic ?

Yes.

May I ask you what your denomination is?

[ebia]

Don't be sorry ebia.  It's not your fault if you can't recognize "gold."    

On top ofthis there are many well known errors in the Authorized Version, such as Jesus and the Disciples plucking ears of corn, when corn wasn't brought from the Americas for another 1500 years.  

Good posts otherwise, Michael, but I've got to pick you up on this one - it's not an error in translation, but a problem of Americans reading an English translation.   The English use the word "corn" to describe any cereal crop (wheat, barley, oats, etc).  What the Americans call corn, the English call maize.   Only very recently has English usage started to change towards the American usage.

[Lance]

Tell me michael_legna, are you a Roman Catholic ?

Yes.
May I ask you what your denomination is?

I have thought so for a while now but I don't hold it against you.  
It explains your aversion to the AV.  It's that "awful" Epistle Dedicatory in the front.  I am sure that if that had not been included, the RC Church would have taken the AV as its own.  As it was, they were forced to reject it.  It also explains your attitude to scripture interpretation.  I have seen really clever men deterred for interpreting the word because they have been taught by their church that only the priest can interpret the word.  I used to listen to "Eternal Word Television Network" [EWTN] radio and some of the scripture interpretations on there [to justify their dogma], defied belief.

Extract from the Epistle Dedicatory :
"that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil"

Popish persons could hardly embrace that.  I was baptized into The Church of England but foremost, I am a Christian.

[ebia]

Extract from the Epistle Dedicatory :
"that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil"

Given that this was written at a time when both sides of the reformation argument were doing appalling things to each other in the name of God, its best forgotten by both sides.

I was baptized into The Church of England but foremost, I am a Christian.

And you take the 39 articles seriously as something more than an historical document?

[Lance]

Yes I do ebia.  The 39 articles contain valuable truths both for the time they were written and for eternity.  They reveal many of the false interpretations of the RC Church [and others] at the time they were written.  Unfortunately, many still remain to be corrected.  Many people would agree that the church has got itself into a fine mess but the written fundamentals have never been repealed.

Anybody interested to know what the articles say can find them at http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

[michael_legna]

Don't be sorry ebia.  It's not your fault if you can't recognize "gold."    

On top ofthis there are many well known errors in the Authorized Version, such as Jesus and the Disciples plucking ears of corn, when corn wasn't brought from the Americas for another 1500 years.  

Good posts otherwise, Michael, but I've got to pick you up on this one - it's not an error in translation, but a problem of Americans reading an English translation.   The English use the word "corn" to describe any cereal crop (wheat, barley, oats, etc).  What the Americans call corn, the English call maize.   Only very recently has English usage started to change towards the American usage.

I don't know who tried to pass this approach off to you but it doesn't make sense.  The Greek word is stachus (Strongs 4719) which is translated a head of grain.  The Douay Rheims which was translated prior to the KJV but in the same era refers to plucking the ears but doesn't add corn to the translation.  I think the KJV just got it wrong.  If they had just ears or just the corn of the grain they might be able to pass this off as a colloquial but not when they have "ear of corn" together, especially when another translation (such as the Rheims) which was relied on heavily by the translators, got it right ahead of them.

Besides this was just an example, we both know there are many errors of translation in the KJV.  That is not to disuade anyone from using it, all translations are the efforts of men so are bound to contain errors, we just have to be ready to recognize that fact.

[JudgeNot]

If the Word is written in your heart, you will recognize it as true.
Surely someone has said that before me.  

If not - please give the credit to God.

[Lance]

I sometimes wonder if you guys give your wife a psychology test before kissing her good night.  LOL

[ebia]

Don't be sorry ebia.  It's not your fault if you can't recognize "gold."    

On top ofthis there are many well known errors in the Authorized Version, such as Jesus and the Disciples plucking ears of corn, when corn wasn't brought from the Americas for another 1500 years.  

Good posts otherwise, Michael, but I've got to pick you up on this one - it's not an error in translation, but a problem of Americans reading an English translation.   The English use the word "corn" to describe any cereal crop (wheat, barley, oats, etc).  What the Americans call corn, the English call maize.   Only very recently has English usage started to change towards the American usage.

I don't know who tried to pass this approach off to you but it doesn't make sense.  The Greek word is stachus (Strongs 4719) which is translated a head of grain.  The Douay Rheims which was translated prior to the KJV but in the same era refers to plucking the ears but doesn't add corn to the translation.  I think the KJV just got it wrong.  If they had just ears or just the corn of the grain they might be able to pass this off as a colloquial but not when they have "ear of corn" together, especially when another translation (such as the Rheims) which was relied on heavily by the translators, got it right ahead of them.

Seriously, I grew up on an English arable farm, and it would never have occured to me that an ear of corn was refering to maize rather than the ear (head, whatever you want to call it) of wheat or barley.  It's not a colloquialism, it's a full scale difference in language between UK English and American English.

Besides this was just an example, we both know there are many errors of translation in the KJV.  That is not to disuade anyone from using it, all translations are the efforts of men so are bound to contain errors, we just have to be ready to recognize that fact.

I'm not disputing the fact that there are plenty of errors in the A.V., but this isn't one of them - it simply isn't an error in British English.

[Lance]

2.   All the world is God's own field,
   fruit as praise to God we yield;
   wheat and tares together sown
   are to joy or sorrow grown;
   first the blade and then the ear,
   then the full corn shall appear;
   Lord of harvest, grant that we
   wholesome grain and pure may be.

Click here for the music and words

[Lance]

Corn, in botany. The name corn is given to the leading cereal crop of any major region. In England corn means wheat; in Scotland and Ireland, oats. The grain called corn in the United States is Indian corn or maize (Zea mays). The part of the United States where most of the corn is grown, including Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, is known as the Corn Belt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
 
Click here for the words and music

[ebia]

Don't be sorry ebia.  It's not your fault if you can't recognize "gold."    

On top ofthis there are many well known errors in the Authorized Version, such as Jesus and the Disciples plucking ears of corn, when corn wasn't brought from the Americas for another 1500 years.  

Good posts otherwise, Michael, but I've got to pick you up on this one - it's not an error in translation, but a problem of Americans reading an English translation.   The English use the word "corn" to describe any cereal crop (wheat, barley, oats, etc).  What the Americans call corn, the English call maize.   Only very recently has English usage started to change towards the American usage.

I don't know who tried to pass this approach off to you but it doesn't make sense.  The Greek word is stachus (Strongs 4719) which is translated a head of grain.  The Douay Rheims which was translated prior to the KJV but in the same era refers to plucking the ears but doesn't add corn to the translation.  I think the KJV just got it wrong.  If they had just ears or just the corn of the grain they might be able to pass this off as a colloquial but not when they have "ear of corn" together, especially when another translation (such as the Rheims) which was relied on heavily by the translators, got it right ahead of them.

Seriously, I grew up on an English arable farm, and it would never have occured to me that an ear of corn was refering to maize rather than the ear (head, whatever you want to call it) of wheat or barley.  It's not a colloquialism, it's a full scale difference in language between UK English and American English.
I'd be moderately surprised if the translators were even aware of maize - even now its a rare crop in England as there isn't enough sunshine for it to grow well.

Besides this was just an example, we both know there are many errors of translation in the KJV.  That is not to disuade anyone from using it, all translations are the efforts of men so are bound to contain errors, we just have to be ready to recognize that fact.

I'm not disputing the fact that there are plenty of errors in the A.V., but this isn't one of them - it simply isn't an error in British English.

[JudgeNot]

I sometimes wonder if you guys give your wife a psychology test before kissing her good night.  LOL

What??!!  You don't???  

[Lance]

How romantic JudgeNot.     LOL

[michael_legna]

I'm not disputing the fact that there are plenty of errors in the A.V., but this isn't one of them - it simply isn't an error in British English.

I will take your word for it, but I can't imagine going into an English market and asking to buy and ear of corn and being sold wheat or barley.  Still the English language is a stange beast so I guess it is possible.