Lacy Evans
New Member
a whale is a fish
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Whale of a Translation
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Seems like Lacy just can't handle it. Keeps rambling on about a whale being a fish. Sorry.
Abe Lincoln said, "If you call a dog's tail a 'leg', then how many legs would the dog have?"
He answered, "Four. You can CALL his tail a leg all you want, but it doesn't change the fact."
Miriam Webster: Whale = "any of various large warm-blooded, fishlike mammals that breathe air, bear live young . . . "
So when the AV1611 translators came across the Greek word "ketos" (which meant and means and still means fish) WHY did they use the English word "whale"? In the OT they used "fish" - why not use the same word in the NT?
BTW, the correct answer to this is way way deeper than "a whale is a fish". Let's deal with the subject!
Abe Lincoln said, "If you call a dog's tail a 'leg', then how many legs would the dog have?"
He answered, "Four. You can CALL his tail a leg all you want, but it doesn't change the fact."
Miriam Webster: Whale = "any of various large warm-blooded, fishlike mammals that breathe air, bear live young . . . "
So when the AV1611 translators came across the Greek word "ketos" (which meant and means and still means fish) WHY did they use the English word "whale"? In the OT they used "fish" - why not use the same word in the NT?
BTW, the correct answer to this is way way deeper than "a whale is a fish". Let's deal with the subject!
Lacy Evans
New Member
I didn't call a "tail" a "leg". I called a "fish" a "fish"
I went on a quest today at my middle school library. (I have a large collection of English dictionaries at home but I was at work) I looked up "fish" in about a dozen different dictionaries. ALL of them (Except my class set of dictionaries for VERY LOW READERS) had something like "An aquatic animal" for either the first or second definition. A fish is an animal that lives in the water. Many English words have multiple definitions! It's true! Get a Dictionary and see for yourself!
A starfish is a fish. A dolphin is a fish. A crab is a fish. A shrimp is a fish. A crawdad is a fish. Seamonkeys are fish! An Octopus is a fish. A Clam is even a fish!
Some people ramble. That's for sure. But the Bible says "fish" and the Bible says "whale" and guess what? A whale is a fish!
Lacy
PS.
W.E. Vine, M.A. An Expository of New Testament Words p 1221 says:
WHALE
KETOS- denotes a huge fish, a sea-monster.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
A better question would be:Why are you going by a dictionary instead of God's word(KJB)? If God said whale,bet the farm on it..
If "ketos" can only mean fish..why did the NASB
translate it "sea monster"?
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (NASB)
My Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
by Gingrich and Danker only has "sea monster"
as the definition for "ketos".
What's up with that?
-kman
translate it "sea monster"?
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (NASB)
My Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
by Gingrich and Danker only has "sea monster"
as the definition for "ketos".
What's up with that?
-kman
We have come to expect this kind of quality, well reasoned response from KJVOs.
It is not my man made copout. I don't believe it. You are the one who believes the manmade copout.
I have injected no poison. I faithfully proclaim the truth of God as revealed in his word.
Which verse in Acts 13 says anything about texts and translations???? Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is and actually use Scripture rather than just calling out some passage.
The reality is that Acts 13 says nothing about the KJV, which came from England. I did not know your geography was that bad. Furthermore, Acts 13 says nothing about texts and translations in any sense of the word. This is pure twisting and distorting of God's word to support your manmade copout (your words, not mine). I am a Bible-believer. The difference between you and I is that I use the Bible to support my position. You do not. You use the words of men.
And you misused the word loose. To loose is to let something go. You meant to accuse me of losing, which is something far different. However, you didn't even get that right. Until you use the Bible to support your position, I will never lose to you.
I refuse to quit so long as the word of God is being attacked by the likes of you. I will quit when you repent of your false doctrine and propogation. The Bible believers will win. Hopefully you will join them one day.
God didn't say whale. When God was revealing his word, "whale" was not even a word. God said "dag" in Jonah and "ketos" in Matthew. If you want to talk about what God said, then be honest and talk about what he said. Don't talk about what some translator told you he said.
A quick display of logic being used to defend untruths by Lacy, Anti, et.al.
Truths prove A does not equal B.
I want to believe that A DOES equal B.
Therefore, A equals B.
Problem is, it just doesn't work that way.
Larry is right. This is much ado about nothing. There are far worse problems with KJV and KJVO than this. Trouble is, they won't let it die, so the problem is magnified and the truth of God assailed.
Truths prove A does not equal B.
I want to believe that A DOES equal B.
Therefore, A equals B.
Problem is, it just doesn't work that way.
Larry is right. This is much ado about nothing. There are far worse problems with KJV and KJVO than this. Trouble is, they won't let it die, so the problem is magnified and the truth of God assailed.
There is an incredible amount of siliness here.
I think the most astounding is the continued use
of English dictionaries to prove Greek writing.
This always amazes me among SOME KJVOs --
an apparent inability to think logically because the
desire to defend a certain translation is stronger
than logic.
I think the most astounding is the continued use
of English dictionaries to prove Greek writing.
This always amazes me among SOME KJVOs --
an apparent inability to think logically because the
desire to defend a certain translation is stronger
than logic.
Lacy Evans
New Member
"And only one [day] for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-'till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But Glory Doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a wird, "Humpty Dumpty said in rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
There has always been a class of "Humpty-Dumpty" priests who feel 'called' to take the Word out of the common man's hands and be 'responsible' for telling us what the word "really means."
Inpenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me please," said Alice, "what that means?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased.
Here's the "original" word, says Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone. "Here are the many choices for what the word means. Only I get to choose what they mean. Then I might be gracious enough to enlighten you."
Inpenetrability indeed!
Lacy
Lacy traces an imaginary circle above his right ear with his index finger and shakes the West Texas sand off of his sandals.
[ October 10, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-'till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But Glory Doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a wird, "Humpty Dumpty said in rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
There has always been a class of "Humpty-Dumpty" priests who feel 'called' to take the Word out of the common man's hands and be 'responsible' for telling us what the word "really means."
Inpenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me please," said Alice, "what that means?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased.
Here's the "original" word, says Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone. "Here are the many choices for what the word means. Only I get to choose what they mean. Then I might be gracious enough to enlighten you."
Inpenetrability indeed!
Lacy
Lacy traces an imaginary circle above his right ear with his index finger and shakes the West Texas sand off of his sandals.
[ October 10, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]
Lacy,
YOu have missed the entire point of this part of Alice. In fact, this story works agianst your position.
Humpty Dumpty is exactly right ... words means whatever the author intends them to mean, nothing more and nothing less. If Humpty uses a word in a manner different than its normal usage, he will not communicate with those who hear him. However, that is his right.
In this instance, the words of Scripture means what the Scriptural authors intend for them to mean, not what a dictionary tells us they mean. When you or anyone else appeals to an English dictionary to define a biblical word, you have resorted to the wrong court. The court of appeal is a Greek or Hebrew lexicon.
This is not about someone telling you what a word means. You can look it up for yourself. It is your side who is playing the part of Humpty here.
YOu have missed the entire point of this part of Alice. In fact, this story works agianst your position.
Humpty Dumpty is exactly right ... words means whatever the author intends them to mean, nothing more and nothing less. If Humpty uses a word in a manner different than its normal usage, he will not communicate with those who hear him. However, that is his right.
In this instance, the words of Scripture means what the Scriptural authors intend for them to mean, not what a dictionary tells us they mean. When you or anyone else appeals to an English dictionary to define a biblical word, you have resorted to the wrong court. The court of appeal is a Greek or Hebrew lexicon.
This is not about someone telling you what a word means. You can look it up for yourself. It is your side who is playing the part of Humpty here.
I just got knocked off the Internet, so I watched a
killer whale being born on Animal Planet. What a
wonder! Beautiful! How our God has made them
so gorgeous to begin with, how He implanted the
ability for them to immediately surface and breathe,
how He made them to know to nurse. Fabulous.
killer whale being born on Animal Planet. What a
wonder! Beautiful! How our God has made them
so gorgeous to begin with, how He implanted the
ability for them to immediately surface and breathe,
how He made them to know to nurse. Fabulous.
God didn't say 'whale'. He said the Greek word for 'fish'. The KJV translators mistranslated the word and created an error between the OT and the NT in the story of Jonah.
I could accept the word 'whale' with an explaination if that explaination wasn't of the nature that KJVO's provide. The choice of the word 'whale' was made by 17th century CoE scholars, not God.
What an incredible indictment of KJVOnlyism coming from you!!!
The KJV is not the language of the common man. The average reader requires some authority outside of themselves to tell them what some words and phrases mean. It is KJVO that is taking the Word progressively out of the common man's hands while condemning those who would give it back to him.
NeilUnreal
New Member
I think Carroll was making a point about the difference between symbols and referents in technical discourse vs. colloquial discourse. In other words, he was talking about the same subject as this thread without taking a side either way*.
So I see issue as one of whether the translation is to be taken technically or colloquially. For Biblical scholars, the technical meanings of the words are primary. For Christians approaching the text as scripture, the colloquial meaning is probably of more importance.
Hence, whale? fish?, who cares? The point is Jonah got a wake-up call that was also a great allegory of the resurrection of Christ.
-Neil
*The conversation between Alice and the Knight explores similar issues.
So I see issue as one of whether the translation is to be taken technically or colloquially. For Biblical scholars, the technical meanings of the words are primary. For Christians approaching the text as scripture, the colloquial meaning is probably of more importance.
Hence, whale? fish?, who cares? The point is Jonah got a wake-up call that was also a great allegory of the resurrection of Christ.
-Neil
*The conversation between Alice and the Knight explores similar issues.
Interesting site below. Has nothing to do with KJV..but is giving a definition of "ketos" from Ancient Greek Literature.
It has as the main definition "Sea Monsters/Whales".
Also has examples of the word being used in ancient greek writings:
http://www.theoi.com/Pontos/Ketea.html
Edit:
Unbelievable!! Even the Virtual Corkscrew
Museum thinks Ketos means whale!
"Ketos" (the Greek word for whale)
http://www.bullworks.net/virtual/reviews/franmara.htm
[ October 10, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: kman ]
It has as the main definition "Sea Monsters/Whales".
Also has examples of the word being used in ancient greek writings:
http://www.theoi.com/Pontos/Ketea.html
Edit:
Unbelievable!! Even the Virtual Corkscrew
Museum thinks Ketos means whale!
"Ketos" (the Greek word for whale)
http://www.bullworks.net/virtual/reviews/franmara.htm
[ October 10, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: kman ]
RaptureReady
New Member
And what your teaching is?
And what your teaching is? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it is. I and others have repeatedly shown your from God's word that things other than the KJV can rightly be called the word of God and should be treated as authoritatively. If you have read along here, you should have known this already. The Bible never teaches that only the KJV is the word of God. The Bible never teaches that only one Greek manuscript is the word of God. Your side has backed up this assertion by repeated failure to show from the Bible (our final authority) that the KJV is the only word of God. In contrast, we have repeatedly shown you where Christ and the apostles quoted from things other than the KJV. We have shown you where the Bible affirms that things other than the KJV are the word of God. About this teaching there can be no legitimate question. To question it is to show a complete and obvious disregard for the authority of Scripture.
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
kman,
The link you provide is very important to understanding the meaning of the Greek term. Matthew uses this word because that is the term found in the LXX in 2:1 (note it is 1:17 in the English translations). The LXX comes from Alexandria (interesting point for KJVonly's--Matthew used an Alexandrian reading of the OT, not the Hebrew itself), and the Greek cultural influence would have been strong even in the Jewish community there. Here we have an intercetion of Hebrew culture and Greek culture.
This is not the only place where this is true. I am a part of a discussion group that meets on Friday's in St. Louis called Theology Digest. We discuss foreign language articles, and the group publishes English digests of the originals. One of the members of this group is the (Fred) Danker you quoted above. Yesterday we discussed two of the prepositions in the Lost Son parable/story of Luke 15 ("against" heaven and "before" you). Fred pointed out that the parable of the Lost Son has definately been thought of by Luke (a very Greek thinker) alongside of Homer's story of the Odyssey. The two cultures do overlap, and because we are not in either another element of "noise" between us and the original text is presented.
No simplistic understanding will do when it comes to translation. We need scholars and lexicographers to help us define the words--we aren't talking about reading the newspaper or even Lewis Carroll. And if we care about what the Bible actually says, then we will be willing to do whatever leg work is required.
Grace and Peace, Danny
BTW, Pastor Larry--it's good to be on the same side for once!
The link you provide is very important to understanding the meaning of the Greek term. Matthew uses this word because that is the term found in the LXX in 2:1 (note it is 1:17 in the English translations). The LXX comes from Alexandria (interesting point for KJVonly's--Matthew used an Alexandrian reading of the OT, not the Hebrew itself), and the Greek cultural influence would have been strong even in the Jewish community there. Here we have an intercetion of Hebrew culture and Greek culture.
This is not the only place where this is true. I am a part of a discussion group that meets on Friday's in St. Louis called Theology Digest. We discuss foreign language articles, and the group publishes English digests of the originals. One of the members of this group is the (Fred) Danker you quoted above. Yesterday we discussed two of the prepositions in the Lost Son parable/story of Luke 15 ("against" heaven and "before" you). Fred pointed out that the parable of the Lost Son has definately been thought of by Luke (a very Greek thinker) alongside of Homer's story of the Odyssey. The two cultures do overlap, and because we are not in either another element of "noise" between us and the original text is presented.
No simplistic understanding will do when it comes to translation. We need scholars and lexicographers to help us define the words--we aren't talking about reading the newspaper or even Lewis Carroll. And if we care about what the Bible actually says, then we will be willing to do whatever leg work is required.
Grace and Peace, Danny
BTW, Pastor Larry--it's good to be on the same side for once!