When is an oak tree not an oak tree?

[franklinmonroe]

Notice Isaiah 6:13 (KJV) --

But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof.​

When is an oak tree not an oak tree? When it's a teil tree, of course. The underlying Hebrew word is 'elah (Strong's #424) identified as being the terebinth tree (but can also be a proper name). Elsewhere in the AV this word is translated as "oak" (11 times, and once as "elm").

What exactly is a teil tree, you ask? Well, teil seems to be an archaic term for the tilia (Easton's Bible Dictionary), commonly called a 'lime tree' in England (not related to the citrus fruit); and in North America and also in some parts of Europe it is called a 'linden tree' (originally an adjective meaning "made from lime-wood") or the 'basswood tree'. A deciduous tree with smooth grayish bark and light colored wood; some specimens live quite long lives (well over 900 years). It is also found in great variety in Asia; but the teil (tilia) tree is NOT native to the middle east.

But most 'modern' versions render 'elah as "terebinth", and so did some very early versions for example --

and it schal be conuertid, and it schal be in to schewyng, as a terebynte is, and as an ook, that spredith abrood hise boowis; that schal be hooli seed, that schal stonde ther ynne. (Wycliffe 1380)

Neuertheles, the tenth parte shal remayne therin, for it shal conuerte and be fruteful. And likewise as the Terebyntes and Oketrees bringe forth their frutes, so shal the holy sede haue frute. (Coverdale 1535)

And should a tenth part thereof yet remain, it will again be swept away: [yet] like the terebinth and the oak, which, when they cast their leaves, retain their stems, so remaineth the holy seed, its stem. (Leeser 1853)

But a tenth part shall still be therein, and it shall return and be eaten; as the terebinth and as the oak whose trunk [remaineth] after the felling: the holy seed shall be the trunk thereof. (Darby 1890)

Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be {subject} to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump. (NASB 1995)​

What then is a terebinth tree? The terebinth is a species of Pistacia, a somewhat small deciduous tree or large shrub common in the Mediterranean that is a source of tanning material and yielded probably the earliest-known form of turpentine. I am not a botanist, but this information seemed to be geniune and can be checked against other reliable sources. Is the terebinth tree the same as a teil tree? No. Isaiah likely never saw a tilia tree in his life.

And yet there shall be a tenth upon it, and again it shall be for a spoil, as a turpentine tree, and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk. (Brenton's 1851 translation of LXX)​

When the king's revisors were faced here with both 'elah and 'allown (Strong's #437, translated in the KJV as "oak" in all 8 occurrences), they had to make a decision as to which Hebrew word they might render as "oak" (as it would not make sense to have "oak" twice). They seemed to have followed the Bishops' Bible here. So, in Isaiah 6:13 'elah does not get to be an "oak tree" but instead becomes the "teil tree".

 

[rdwhite]

...When it is still an acorn!!

 

[Salamander]

Notice Isaiah 6:13 (KJV) --

But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof.​

When is an oak tree not an oak tree? When it's a teil tree, of course. The underlying Hebrew word is 'elah (Strong's #424) identified as being the terebinth tree (but can also be a proper name). Elsewhere in the AV this word is translated as "oak" (11 times, and once as "elm").

What exactly is a teil tree, you ask? Well, teil seems to be an archaic term for the tilia (Easton's Bible Dictionary), commonly called a 'lime tree' in England (not related to the citrus fruit); and in North America and also in some parts of Europe it is called a 'linden tree' (originally an adjective meaning "made from lime-wood") or the 'basswood tree'. A deciduous tree with smooth grayish bark and light colored wood; some specimens live quite long lives (well over 900 years). It is also found in great variety in Asia; but the teil (tilia) tree is NOT native to the middle east.

But most 'modern' versions render 'elah as "terebinth", and so did some very early versions for example --

and it schal be conuertid, and it schal be in to schewyng, as a terebynte is, and as an ook, that spredith abrood hise boowis; that schal be hooli seed, that schal stonde ther ynne. (Wycliffe 1380)

Neuertheles, the tenth parte shal remayne therin, for it shal conuerte and be fruteful. And likewise as the Terebyntes and Oketrees bringe forth their frutes, so shal the holy sede haue frute. (Coverdale 1535)

And should a tenth part thereof yet remain, it will again be swept away: [yet] like the terebinth and the oak, which, when they cast their leaves, retain their stems, so remaineth the holy seed, its stem. (Leeser 1853)

But a tenth part shall still be therein, and it shall return and be eaten; as the terebinth and as the oak whose trunk [remaineth] after the felling: the holy seed shall be the trunk thereof. (Darby 1890)

Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be {subject} to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump. (NASB 1995)
​

What then is a terebinth tree? The terebinth is a species of Pistacia, a somewhat small deciduous tree or large shrub common in the Mediterranean that is a source of tanning material and yielded probably the earliest-known form of turpentine. I am not a botanist, but this information seemed to be geniune and can be checked against other reliable sources. Is the terebinth tree the same as a teil tree? No. Isaiah likely never saw a tilia tree in his life.

And yet there shall be a tenth upon it, and again it shall be for a spoil, as a turpentine tree, and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk. (Brenton's 1851 translation of LXX)​

When the king's revisors were faced here with both 'elah and 'allown (Strong's #437, translated in the KJV as "oak" in all 8 occurrences), they had to make a decision as to which Hebrew word they might render as "oak" (as it would not make sense to have "oak" twice). They seemed to have followed the Bishops' Bible here. So, in Isaiah 6:13 'elah does not get to be an "oak tree" but instead becomes the "teil tree".

[Personal attack deleted]


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/600-699/nb676.htm

"This version was completed in 1611, long before botany became an
exact science. Like several others, it was a translation by scholars who
were not botanists, had never visited the Holy Land, did not realize that
the native plants in that region were far different from plants in northern
Europe, and made the mistake of identifying some of those mentioned
in the Scriptures with familiar plants in England."

This statement forgets the translators were relating the figuratives of the Hebrew in relative terms to the English.

We find the comparative of the teil to the oak in the conjunction "and as".

The teil being familiar to the English in relation to the oak in they both cast forth their leaves. The ideal being to say that the translators were not botanists to make the claim they made a "mistake" is the same ignorant and childish behaviour of those who refuse to look at the Bible with objection.

We find perfection to what is being referred to and to make the understanding available to all by references that show how the terms explain the metaphorical sense.

It always helps to understand the efforts of the KJB translators to make things of the Bible known to those who are otherwise culturally and logistically ignorant of other locales and those things indigenous to those specific areas.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Who mentioned hating the word of God? My salvation does not depend upon if it was a teil, a turpentine, or an oak.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

[Personal attack deleted]




This statement forgets the translators were relating the figuratives of the Hebrew in relative terms to the English.

We find the comparative of the teil to the oak in the conjunction "and as".

The teil being familiar to the English in relation to the oak in they both cast forth their leaves. The ideal being to say that the translators were not botanists to make the claim they made a "mistake" is the same ignorant and childish behaviour of those who refuse to look at the Bible with objection.

We find perfection to what is being referred to and to make the understanding available to all by references that show how the terms explain the metaphorical sense.

It always helps to understand the efforts of the KJB translators to make things of the Bible known to those who are otherwise culturally and logistically ignorant of other locales and those things indigenous to those specific areas.

I appreciate that Sal recognises that "dynamic equivalence" is sometimes acceptable in translation work.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... "This version was completed in 1611, long before botany became an
exact science. Like several others, it was a translation by scholars who
were not botanists, had never visited the Holy Land, did not realize that
the native plants in that region were far different from plants in northern
Europe, and made the mistake of identifying some of those mentioned
in the Scriptures with familiar plants in England."

This statement forgets the translators were relating the figuratives of the Hebrew in relative terms to the English.

First, I would NOT say that it is necessarily a "mistake" to use that which is familiar in translation. I would not say it, and I did not say it.

Second, you seem to imply that specific terms ought to be substituted by the translators with relative terms whenever a passage can be taken as 'figuerative'. I would hope that you would agree that the translators should render literally (as much as it is possible) even in metaphoric or poetic passages.

And it was possible: the AV translators had many other tree types available to them; they even had already rendered this Hebrew word once as "elm" (also a leaf-casting tree). To assert that "teil" is an adequate replacement for "oak" is tantamount to saying that "giraffe" is likely an acceptable substitute for "lamb" (they both have four legs!). What is the unique justification for "teil" in its' single occurrence?

 

[Salamander]

I appreciate that Sal recognises that "dynamic equivalence" is sometimes acceptable in translation work.

Of course it is, otherwise no one but Hebrews and Greeks would have the word of God. But to think that misleading interpretations which confuse the one who most needs a word from God are somehow "better" is utter non-sense!

Those who persistently find fault with the KJB and the way it has given an altogether different culture a perfect veiw to undertsnad what is the length, breadth, width, depth and height of all the Lord has to give must either hate the word of God or are very ignorant of what God has already given.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

First, I would NOT say that it is necessarily a "mistake" to use that which is familiar in translation. I would not say it, and I did not say it.

And I gave the link and used a quote from the LINK!

Second, you seem to imply that specific terms ought to be substituted by the translators with relative terms whenever a passage can be taken as 'figuerative'. I would hope that you would agree that the translators should render literally (as much as it is possible) even in metaphoric or poetic passages.

Tell thenext muslim you meet how a hotdog is accepted meat contrary to what others believe about buns.

And it was possible: the AV translators had many other tree types available to them; they even had already rendered this Hebrew word once as "elm" (also a leaf-casting tree). To assert that "teil" is an adequate replacement for "oak" is tantamount to saying that "giraffe" is likely an acceptable substitute for "lamb" (since they both have four legs). What is the justification for "teil" in this unique occurrence?

Refer to the quote above and justify a hotdog to a muslim.:laugh:

You're stretching the strawman beyond exasperation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Of course it is, otherwise no one but Hebrews and Greeks would have the word of God. But to think that misleading interpretations which confuse the one who most needs a word from God are somehow "better" is utter non-sense!

Are you saying then that translations need to fit the language and culture of the day?
Or did that only apply in 1611?

 

[Salamander]

Are you saying then that translations need to fit the language and culture of the day?
Or did that only apply in 1611?

I have said, many times, that the language of the Bible already has within its pages the completed Canon of Scripture in the English langugae for all who have the resources available to understand what thus saith the LORD.

What "applied" in 1611 is relevent to all generations in the English language.

The word of God should not fit the current "styles" of the world, rather the world needs be conformed to the express image of His Dear Son!

Once English reached its pinacle, and the language we find in the KJB, it is left to no doubt what thus saith the Lord, well, except when modern versions alter the meaning by using misleading wordings.

My KJB is perfectly definable, without consulting modern verbage which has altered the language to make it "fit" the vernacular of a wicked world.

When I want to know what the Bible says, I do consult many comentaries, but to be certain I use a dictionary, or two, maybe three, to be sure of the contextual definition whether they agree with the commentator or not. Of course the Spirit being my guide into all truth.:godisgood:

I don't have to split hairs over trees in the Bible to know what the intent of its Author wants to get across to me or anyone else.:godisgood:

Are you implying that something happened in 1611 other than the giving of our PERFECT Bible?

 

[4His_glory]

The word of God should not fit the current "styles" of the world, rather the world needs be conformed to the express image of His Dear Son!

So is the image of the Son as described in the English language of 1611? And besides that, I thought is was the Christian is comformed to the image of the Son. Why in the world would the word of God need to be conformed to the image of Son if the Son is God and there for the Biblie is His words? Makes no sense to me.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. This just struck me funny.

 

[Salamander]

So is the image of the Son as described in the English language of 1611? And besides that, I thought is was the Christian is comformed to the image of the Son. Why in the world would the word of God need to be conformed to the image of Son if the Son is God and there for the Biblie is His words? Makes no sense to me.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. This just struck me funny.

Um, thou hast hi-jacked nothing, um, "Nuh-ting!" as Sgt. Schultz would say.

You probably should go back and re-read what you erroneously replied to? Yep, seems so.


The only "mistake" is by those who think they have something against the KJB or its translators.

The interpretation isn't limited to only a mid-eastern tree, rather the very trees referred to are ones that lined the gate entranceway. These very trees would have been ornamental, they very easily were imported for such use.

It really amazes me how insignificant "information" is used to attack the KJB and the miserable failure to prove something without a comprehensive study of the very thing these "object" to.

The world is to be conformed to the express image of Jesus Christ, afterall, God so-loved the world!:godisgood:

That conforming begins at salvation, at least it does with everyone who has ever been saved!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The interpretation isn't limited to only a mid-eastern tree, rather the very trees referred to are ones that lined the gate entranceway. These very trees would have been ornamental, they very easily were imported for such use...

What gated entrance? Isaiah 6:11-13 (KJV, verse 13 concludes the chapter) --

Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
And the LORD have removed men far away, and [there be] a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof.​

The "it" of verse 13 seems to mean a remnant of the Jewish nation.

 

[Salamander]

What gated entrance? Isaiah 6:11-13 (KJV, verse 13 concludes the chapter) --

Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
And the LORD have removed men far away, and [there be] a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof.
​

The "it" of verse 13 seems to mean a remnant of the Jewish nation.

Study, Brother, STUDY.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Study, Brother, STUDY.

You are refusing to go on record with an answer to a simple question?

 

[Salamander]

Beza, Kimchi, Jarchi. Those names ought to be familiar to anyone who takes Bible study seriously. Oh, yeah, and then there's that Jewish Historian dude.:laugh:

Isaiah was referring to the door posts of a specific structure, one which had tree-lined entrances to it's gates.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The interpretation isn't limited to only a mid-eastern tree, rather the very trees referred to are ones that lined the gate entranceway...

I do not have access to the commentaries you seem to have. Please just cite the applicable passages here. Thanks

 

[EdSutton]

...When it is still an acorn!!

This first response is still the best response to the thread title and OP, through two pages.

"Two Pages! Two pages! Can I hear three? How about four? Will someone give me four?? Don't let this one get away too cheaply! ..."

Ed

 

[Salamander]

I do not have access to the commentaries you seem to have. Please just cite the applicable passages here. Thanks

Try John Gill for starters.

 

[franklinmonroe]

This first response is still the best response to the thread title and OP, through two pages...

Daniel (rdwhite) may have noticed the later portion of the LXX translation "and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk." Of course the rendering of "acorn" accords well with the "seed" of this tree metaphor.

Besides the difference in the tree types, did you notice the vast variety of renderings of other portions of Isaiah 6:13? Another example, is while the Second Authorized Version agrees with the KJV for "teil" (teyle) tree, it differs in the first phrase significantly --

Yet in it shall succeede ten kinges, and it shall returne and be afterwarde wasted: [But] as the Teyle tree and the Oke in the fall of their leaues haue yet the sappe remayning in them, [euen so] the holy seede shalbe the stay therof. (Bishops' 1568)​