Lusteth

[menageriekeeper]

Deu 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, (KJV)


While having and interesting conversation with my neighbor, who had never actually read this verse, she noticed the word lusteth.

I have read the passage several times and never paid attention to the usage. Other translations use the word "desire" (NAS) or "wish" (NIV). The ESV goes further and says "appetite craves".

All this brought up this question:

Even though the rest of the passage goes on to speak of more material things, does the usage indicate other more, umm, there's no polite way to put it. Is it a license to commit what at other times would be considered adultry or fornication? Only bought and paid for?

And there seems to be a precedence because as I was looking for the above reference, my memory having failed me, I came across this:

Deu 12:13 Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place that you see,
Deu 12:14 but at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.
Deu 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. (ESV)



Which also seems to directly contradict the Law, given a certain set of circumstances.



So, were the Children of Isreal given an "out" on certain laws on particular occasions?

 

[Johnv]

Even though the rest of the passage goes on to speak of more material things, does the usage indicate other more, umm, there's no polite way to put it. Is it a license to commit what at other times would be considered adultry or fornication? Only bought and paid for?

No. The phrase translated in the KJV as "lusteth after" is the Hebrew word 'avah. The word simply means "to covet" or "to desire". It can refer to sexual coveting (lusting) but does not usually.

The fact that the word "lusting" appears in the KJV isn't remarkable. "Lust" in 17th century early modern English sometimes meant "to crave sexually", and sometimes it meant "to desire" in the more generic sense. Today, the word is almost exclusively sexual in content, but it was not to in the early 1600's. Therefore, do not read a sexual connotation into the verse, for none exists in its original context.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Let's not forget the Mosaic Law, it's shows us we fail. Even as a Christian I fail, to my shame, but I have a Saviour. We must keep the Law in it's context. A greater has come.

As Christians we know very well what is wrong but we still do the wrong. Praise God for His Mercy and Grace.

Paul talks about how all things are lawful but not always beneficial. We find these things out at our own expense.

In me dwells no good thing. Apart from the Holy Spirit, which we must yield to.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Today, the word is almost exclusively sexual in content, but it was not to in the early 1600's.

That is what I figured and is one of the reasons I have moved to using a more modern translation. (gasp) Just that day, we used the first Bible that came to hand and it was a KJV.

Off to call my neighbor! Thanks!

 

[Jerome]

Deu 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. (ESV)

Which also seems to directly contradict the Law, given a certain set of circumstances.

Please explain what law you see contradicted here.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Deu 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. (ESV)

Which also seems to directly contradict the Law, given a certain set of circumstances.

Please explain what law you see contradicted here.

Dietary Laws. The stuff in blue in the quote. My understanding is that slaughtering/bloodletting was to be done outside the city walls. However I don't have a reference for that. It might just be something my mind drug up that doesn't truely apply here.

 

[Jerome]

:thumbs:

...and in the news:

...the native Na'vi people of planet Pandora face encroachment and military threat from human invaders who lust after the valuable mines beneath...

...Steve Jobs announced the device at an Apple event, provoking more lust for eager Apple die hard fans. The cost of the new device start at about $499 for the...

...say her dogs fought one another in play, not for some blood-lust sport, and that if anything, she was victimized by the people with whom she hung out...

The fact that the word "lusting" appears in today's newspapers isn't remarkable. "Lust" in contemporary English sometimes means "to crave sexually", and sometimes it means "to desire" in the more generic sense.

 

[RAdam]

That is what I figured and is one of the reasons I have moved to using a more modern translation. (gasp) Just that day, we used the first Bible that came to hand and it was a KJV.

Off to call my neighbor! Thanks!

This is a position I've never understood. The english language is constantly evolving. That modern english bible you pick up today will eventually have obsolete language and you'll have to cast it aside for another version.

Secondly, in most other countries one must need to speak multiple languages to get by. In America we refuse to learn just a few archaic words or obsolete definition of the older version of our own language.

I've always thought the old language was a plus for the KJV. You know in 40 years those meanings will be the same and you have easy references to figure out what they were.

Note: I don't beleive hte KJ translators were inspired or any of those other extreme KJV only arguments so don't blast me for that or derail the discussion.

 

[Johnv]

This is a position I've never understood. The english language is constantly evolving.

True, but the KJV isn't written in Modern English, the language we speak today. It was written in a combination of Middle English and Early Modern English, both of which are dead languages.

That modern english bible you pick up today will eventually have obsolete language and you'll have to cast it aside for another version.

So what? That's what happenned with the Geneva, Bishops, Tyndale, and all prior English lineage translations. Yet there seems to be resistence to doing this with the KJV, and no logical reason can be provided.

Secondly, in most other countries one must need to speak multiple languages to get by. In America we refuse to learn just a few archaic words or obsolete definition of the older version of our own language.

Most other countries have translations of scripture into their current language, often done in the last 50 or so years. Yet KJV advocates often voice resistance to having an English bible using current English.

 

[menageriekeeper]

In America we refuse to learn just a few archaic words or obsolete definition of the older version of our own language.

Yes well, if you'll notice in my OP I said *I* had never paid much attention to the use of the word in this passage, it was my neighbor, who for all you know might not be a Christian at all. Those of us who were raised with the KJV easily understand the language (even if we don't understand the underlying Greek or Hebrew).

Those who were raised in a different denomination in a different country, and not saved until rather late in life, as my neighbor was, are NOT going to be able to just jump in and make those determinations.

I'm not a lazy American who is an under-educated product of a public education. I asked the question for confirmation that the answer I had originally given was correct. Good thing I don't get offended easily.

You brother, need to think a little harder before you speak.

 

[RAdam]

I didn't say you in particular were lazy, I said Americans in general are lazy. This is exhibited in the fact that people make such a big deal about the KJV's language.

 

[Johnv]

I didn't say you in particular were lazy, I said Americans in general are lazy. This is exhibited in the fact that people make such a big deal about the KJV's language.

It's actually the KJVOists who generally make a big deal about the KJV's language, elevating it to an artificial level. Non-KJVOists don't make a big deal about the KJV's language. They simply recognize the fact that the KJV is written in a language we no longer use, and prefer a translation that is written in Modern English.

 

[Logos1560]

In older English, "lusteth" was used in both a positive and negative sense. Now it may only be used and understood in the negative sense.

By the way, the 1560 Geneva Bible had "desireth" at this verse.

Deut. 14:26 heart desireth (Geneva) soul lusteth after (KJV) heart desires (NKJV)

 

[franklinmonroe]

I think I'm gonna go buy me a strong drink. (Hey, its Scriptural!)

 

[menageriekeeper]

What? Are you snowed in and can't get to church to pay your tithes?

:laugh: