Micah 1:6, Translation Error in KJV?

[InTheLight]

The all knowing God will "discover" the foundations of Samaria according to the KJV.

Micah 1:6

KJV
Therefore I will make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard: and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof.

NKJV
“Therefore I will make Samaria a heap of ruins in the field,
Places for planting a vineyard;
I will pour down her stones into the valley,
And I will uncover her foundations.

NIV
“Therefore I will make Samaria a heap of rubble,
a place for planting vineyards.
I will pour her stones into the valley
and lay bare her foundations.

 

[Amy.G]

No. It's not an error. It's just the King's English.

galah gaw-law'
a primitive root; to denude (especially in a disgraceful sense); by implication, to exile (captives being usually stripped); figuratively, to reveal:--+ advertise, appear, bewray, bring, (carry, lead, go) captive (into captivity), depart, disclose, discover, exile, be gone, open, X plainly, publish, remove, reveal, X shamelessly, shew, X surely, tell, uncover.

 

[InTheLight]

No. It's not an error. It's just the King's English.

galah gaw-law'
a primitive root; to denude (especially in a disgraceful sense); by implication, to exile (captives being usually stripped); figuratively, to reveal:--+ advertise, appear, bewray, bring, (carry, lead, go) captive (into captivity), depart, disclose, discover, exile, be gone, open, X plainly, publish, remove, reveal, X shamelessly, shew, X surely, tell, uncover.

OK. Were not the words "uncover" or "reveal" words that were commonly used in the 1600's? Why not use one of those words instead?

 

[Amy.G]

OK. Were not the words "uncover" or "reveal" words that were commonly used in the 1600's? Why not use one of those words instead?

Don't know. But it wasn't an error.

 

[rsr]

Why not use one of those words instead?

Probably because the Bishops Bible said "discover," as did the Geneva and the Great Bible, and they saw no need to change it.

 

[Logos1560]

In his introduction to his 1833 translation, Noah Webster noted that the word discover now usually means "to find, see, or perceive for the first time," but that in its usage in the KJV the intended meaning was "uncover, make bare, or expose to view." At Micah 1:6, Webster pointed out that "the all-seeing God had nothing to find or see for the first time" and that "the sense of the word is to uncover, to lay bare" (p. ix). At his entry discover in his 1828 Dictionary, Webster observed that "we discover what before existed, though to us unknown." Can the eternal, all-knowing God discover what before existed?

Waite’s Defined KJB indicated that discover (Deut. 22:30) used with the meaning given {“reveal, expose, uncover”] is archaic (p. 296). Cloud’s Way of Life Encyclopedia gave one meaning for it: “uncover” (p. 105). Connecting Micah 1:6 and Zephaniah 2:14, Barry Goddard indicated that the definition of discover was “uncover” (KJB’s Definition). At Deuteronomy 22:30, the King James Easy-Reading Bible gave the explanatory word “uncover” for discover (p. 319). Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary indicated that the use of the word discover to mean “to reveal; disclose; expose” or “ to uncover” is archaic (p. 522).

 

[Logos1560]

Probably because the Bishops Bible said "discover," as did the Geneva and the Great Bible, and they saw no need to change it.

The KJV translators evidently saw the need to change uses of "discover" or "discovered" in some other verses in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Coverdale’s, Great, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles have “discovered” at Isaiah 47:3 while the KJV updated it to “uncovered.”

Again the Geneva and Bishops’ rendering “discover” (Lev. 18:7, 8, 9, 11, 15) was changed to “uncover” in the KJV.

Coverdale’s Bible illustrated an obsolete or archaic usage with its rendering “discovered” at Luke 12:2 while Tyndale’s and Bishops’ have “uncovered” and the Geneva and KJV have “revealed.”

Coverdale’s, Great, and Bishops’ have “discover” and Geneva has “discovered” at Proverbs 11:13 where the KJV has “revealeth.”

 

[Logos1560]

There may be a couple cases where the KJV kept archaic uses of "discover" from the Bishops' Bible where the Geneva Bible already had "uncover" or a clearer rendering.


Deut. 22:30 uncover (Geneva, NKJV) discover (KJV)

1 Sam. 14:8 shew (Geneva) discover (KJV) show (NKJV)

1 Sam. 14:11 shewed themselves (Geneva) discovered themselves (KJV) showed themselves (NKJV)

 

[Yeshua1]

There may be a couple cases where the KJV kept archaic uses of "discover" from the Bishops' Bible where the Geneva Bible already had "uncover" or a clearer rendering.


Deut. 22:30 uncover (Geneva, NKJV) discover (KJV)

1 Sam. 14:8 shew (Geneva) discover (KJV) show (NKJV)

1 Sam. 14:11 shewed themselves (Geneva) discovered themselves (KJV) showed themselves (NKJV)

So the geneva had this rendered better than the perfect translation had?

 

[HankD]

No, I doubt it is an "error" but has to do with the dynamics of a living language (in 1611) and in particular AD1611 Jacobean-Elizabethan period English which, like our 21st Century Standard English changes/changed ever so slightly day by day.

Also among the 60-70 translators there were no doubt regional and cultural semantic differences which try as they might to avoid probably showed up in the text.

This shows the importance of preserving the texts in original language compilations.

The Elizabethan-Jacobean period lasted maybe 75 years or so - the original language texts have gone on frozen in time for thousands of years and are sometimes called "dead languages".

One thing about dead languages is that they never change and there are multitudes of grammars, lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries and etc from which to draw upon to understand the lost nuances and shades of meanings of the ancient texts.

Even today we have a usage of the prefix "dis" which shows that it still remains/retains its nuance of reversing something.

Example "disprove" to show something is not true; to un-prove it.

discover : to un-cover something (like the foundation blocks of Samaria).

HankD

 

[Van]

The issue is that all or almost all English translations translate the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words willy nilly, sometimes with discover and then revealed or uncover. Sometime in the future, we will get a translation that is as consistent as possible, but in the mean time we will have threads discussion the merits of inconsistency.

 

[HankD]

The issue is that all or almost all English translations translate the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words willy nilly, sometimes with discover and then revealed or uncover. Sometime in the future, we will get a translation that is as consistent as possible, but in the mean time we will have threads discussion the merits of inconsistency.

Obtain and use several translations with alternative choices in the margin and/or footnotes:

Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

To the Reader - 1611 KJV AV Translators.


HankD

 

[Van]

Huh?? If the same Greek word is translated uncover in most places, it should be translated uncover everywhere it can be. There is no merit in translating the same word discover, then uncover, then reveal. Words do have a range of meanings and therefore more than one English word is sometimes required. But never for the same meaning, as in discover, uncover and reveal.

 

[HankD]

Huh?? If the same Greek word is translated uncover in most places, it should be translated uncover everywhere it can be. There is no merit in translating the same word discover, then uncover, then reveal. Words do have a range of meanings and therefore more than one English word is sometimes required. But never for the same meaning, as in discover, uncover and reveal.

Hi Van,

Sometimes the context of a passage has enough weight to change the nuance of a word although its the same word used elsewhere with a different meaning and the translator(s) must decide.

It's not uncommon, words in differrent languages often do not have identical English nuances. In some, rarely.

e.g.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

Luke 22:15 And he (Jesus) said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:​

In both these passages the words "lust" and "desire"
have the same koine root: epithumeo.​

02442 epiqumew

long for, desire; covet; lust for: UBS Greek Dictionary.​

HankD​

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Van,

Sometimes the context of a passage has enough weight to change the nuance of a word although its the same word used elsewhere with a different meaning and the translator(s) must decide.

It's not uncommon, words in differrent languages often do not have identical English nuances. In some, rarely.

e.g.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

Luke 22:15 And he (Jesus) said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:​

In both these passages the words "lust" and "desire"
have the same koine root: epithumeo.​

02442 epiqumew

long for, desire; covet; lust for: UBS Greek Dictionary.​

HankD​

true, as contex would be the deciding factor in just which word was to be used, as there are varying nuances to many different words, as some are in the same "family", but have shades of meanings!

 

[Yeshua1]

Huh?? If the same Greek word is translated uncover in most places, it should be translated uncover everywhere it can be. There is no merit in translating the same word discover, then uncover, then reveal. Words do have a range of meanings and therefore more than one English word is sometimes required. But never for the same meaning, as in discover, uncover and reveal.

Might run into the problem NIV team had in the 1984, where they took Sarx as sinful nature, not flesh all the time, which meant that they did not use context to decide if that was what paul meant each time!

 

[HankD]

Might run into the problem NIV team had in the 1984, where they took Sarx as sinful nature, not flesh all the time, which meant that they did not use context to decide if that was what paul meant each time!

Probably two words (one a qualifier) would be OK in this case of sarx : mortal flesh (which implies being subject to death).

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Probably two words (one a qualifier) would be OK in this case of sarx : mortal flesh (which implies being subject to death).

HankD

Think the 2011 revision does a much better job handling translating 'sarx" into english...

what was amusing to me is that some reviewers took the 1984 Niv to task for being a "calvinistic" translation, as they woul dtranslate it as sin nature, flesh sin desires, yet the niv is NOT the version of Choice for calvinists, that seems to be the esv now!

 

[HankD]

Think the 2011 revision does a much better job handling translating 'sarx" into english...

what was amusing to me is that some reviewers took the 1984 Niv to task for being a "calvinistic" translation, as they woul dtranslate it as sin nature, flesh sin desires, yet the niv is NOT the version of Choice for calvinists, that seems to be the esv now!

"mortal flesh" doesn't necessarily imply "sinful flesh".

The probem is with us the amateur theologians and the following passage:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

I think everyone would agree with the fact that Jesus (the Logos) became flesh, a human being subject to death but not that He became sinful flesh, although we have this passage:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.​

Although He "knew no sin".​

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

"mortal flesh" doesn't necessarily imply "sinful flesh".

The probem is with us the amateur theologians and the following passage:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

I think everyone would agree with the fact that Jesus (the Logos) became flesh, a human being subject to death but not that He became sinful flesh, although we have this passage:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.​

Although He "knew no sin".​

HankD

that is why Jesus came in the "likeness" of our human flesh, but not the 'sameness/exactness", or else he would be a sinner methinks!

hge is the EXACT image of God, but thankfully not of me or you!