Two Different Renderings For The Same

[Rippon]

Perhaps this has been dealt with before. But the search function isn't as good as it used to be.

The KJV renders the same Hebrew words differently in two passages. Why? Is one rendering superior to the other? Are both equally good? Why is there a difference between the two when the original is the very same?

Isaiah 35:10 : And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

Isaiah 51:11 : Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Perhaps this has been dealt with before... The KJV renders the same Hebrew words differently in two passages...

Indeed, I have posted several lengthy OT passages of the KJV to demostrate that those translators did not render the original Hebrew into English the same way in both places (even when the context was precisely the same).

But the search function isn't as good as it used to be...

Amen to that!

Why? Is one rendering superior to the other? Are both equally good? Why is there a difference between the two when the original is the very same? ...

It seems that the differences in English word order ("Zion" before and after "singing", and "joy" before and after "gladness") are a reflection of the actual Hebrew word order. The difference of English word choices (like "ransomed" rather than "redeemed", or "sighing" as opposed to "mourning") seems to be mostly from the whim of the translators (as they stated in the AV preface that they would use a variety of English words). There are very subtle things in Hebrew that are beyond my ability to detect; perhaps a Hebrew scholar could tells us if there is some textual justification for these differences.

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (Isaiah 35:10)

Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away. (Isaiah 51:11)

 

[Deacon]

Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing

Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way.

…we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?

...Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.
But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

Quoted from the
Preface to the Authorized King James Version

Underlining mine

Rob

 

[TC]

Although you focus on the KJV here, don't other versions do the same thing in places?

 

[Rippon]

Although you focus on the KJV here, don't other versions do the same thing in places?

Give some examples. Did you check the two Isaiah passages in other translations?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Isaiah 35:10 above, and Isaiah 51:11 below --

And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, And come to Zion with singing, With everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness, And sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

So the ransomed of the LORD shall return, And come to Zion with singing, With everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness; Sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (NKJV)
_______________

Those who have been ransomed by the LORD will return to Jerusalem,* singing songs of everlasting joy. Sorrow and mourning will disappear, and they will be overcome with joy and gladness.

Those who have been ransomed by the LORD will return to Jerusalem,* singing songs of everlasting joy. Sorrow and mourning will disappear, and they will be overcome with joy and gladness.

Footnote:* Hebrew Zion. (1996 NLT)
_______________

and the ransomed of the Lord will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The ransomed of the Lord will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away. (NIV)
_______________

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return
and come to Zion with singing;
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;
they shall obtain gladness and joy,
and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return
and come to Zion with singing;
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;
they shall obtain gladness and joy,
and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (ESV)
_______________

And the ransomed of the LORD will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion, With everlasting joy upon their heads. They will find gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

So the ransomed of the LORD will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion, And everlasting joy {will be} on their heads. They will obtain gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away. (NASB)
_______________

And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (RSV)
_______________

and the ransomed of Jehovah shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads: they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads: they shall obtain gladness and joy; [and] sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (ASV)
_______________

And the ransomed of Jehovah return, And have entered Zion with singing. And joy age-during on their head, Joy and gladness they attain, And fled away have sorrow and sighing!

And the ransomed of Jehovah turn back, And they have come to Zion with singing, And joy age-during [is] on their head, Gladness and joy they attain, Fled away have sorrow and sighing, (Young)
_______________

And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return, and come to Zion with singing; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads: they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

So the ransomed of Jehovah shall return, and come to Zion with singing; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads: they shall obtain gladness and joy; sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (Darby) ​

 

[robycop3]

Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing

Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way.

…we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?

...Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.
But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

Quoted from the
Preface to the Authorized King James Version

Underlining mine

Rob

Thanx, Deacon!

Actually, "ransom" comes from the old french "rancoun", which came from the Latin "redemptio", 'to REDEEM'.

Nowadays we look at 'to ransom' as meaning 'to meet a kidnapper's demands to win his captive's freedom', but it also meant to settle a debt back in KJ's day. I see no prob at all at saying 'ransomed' in one sentence and 'redeemed' in the next since they mean basically the same thing in the sense of usage in Isaiah.

 

[Tater77]

Although you focus on the KJV here, don't other versions do the same thing in places?

Yes they do. As the English language has no shortage of synonyms :smilewinkgrin:

When arguing with a KJVO over a translational difference they will pick a definition based on a certain reading and stick to it saying the word has one meaning only in order to support their position.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I see no prob at all at saying 'ransomed' in one sentence and 'redeemed' in the next since they mean basically the same thing in the sense of usage in Isaiah.

Yes, it seems that 'ransomed' and 'redeemed' were about as synonymous as two 17th century words could ever be; Webster's 1828 dictionary uses each one to define the other.

However, I'm not sure that the same can be said for 'sighing' and 'mourning', or the other differences between the KJV renderings.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Yes they do. As the English language has no shortage of synonyms ...

Of course some do sometimes; and perhaps in some of those occassions they should be criticized for doing so. But in fact, in the majority of the versions I checked (see previous post) they do not; that is, the translations use only the same English words.

And rightly so, in my opinion. I would expect the exact same English words to be used in tranlsation when representing the same original language words found in precisely the the same context. In these few situations, I feel the translators should forego their usual liberty to select from a variety of synonyms. I have not yet discovered a greater benefit from the application of different English words that would justify the obsuring of the identical nature of underlying texts.

 

[Tater77]

Of course some do sometimes; and perhaps in some of those occassions they should be criticized for doing so. But in fact, in the majority of the versions I checked (see previous post) they do not; that is, the translations use only the same English words.

And rightly so, in my opinion. I would expect the exact same English words to be used in tranlsation when representing the same original language words found in precisely the the same context. In these few situations, I feel the translators should forego their usual liberty to select from a variety of synonyms. I have not yet discovered a greater benefit from the application of different English words that would justify the obsuring of the identical nature of underlying texts.

You are very correct and have a good point. Just because you can use a synonym doesn't mean you should. It just depends on how wordy and eloquent a translation wants to be I guess.

I cant sit here and say they are wrong from a scholarly point of view, but as a Christian I think there should be consistency in certain areas especially if it concerns Doctrine.