[CKG]

Does anyone know why the NKJV uses the word "terebinth" instead of "oak" as in the KJV?

Judges 6:11

KJV - And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.

NKJV - Now the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon threshed wheat in the winepress, in order to hide it from the Midianites.

Hi CKG,

I don't know for certain, and I was not able to find much info about this. However, there is a bit of info regarding "terebinth" in regards to this verse at this link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...ngs=H424&t=KJV

God bless,
Brian

Obviously, Bible readers all over the world were getting confused because they didnt understand what an "oak" tree was,so, to avoid any further confusion the translators used the much more modern and commonly used word "terebinth"

Changing (oops,I mean "updating") a few words here and there also helps with the copywright and subsequent cashflow from sales of a particular version of "Gods word"

fundy

[MC1171611]

About par for the course...my dad mentioned a modern perversion that had changed the word "porches" in the KJB to "porticos" or some such. Who other than a student of 19th century English Literature would know what a "portico" is??

I'm new here as I have some questions about Bible translating. My profession is agriculture.

The Hebrew word translated as Oak can mean other trees as well. I notice that the translators of the Septuagint chose the word Terebinth τερέμινθον, which is the native wild Pistachio tree. My experience is that the growth patter of the Terebinth, and it's softer leaves as opposed to an Oak's prickly leaves would make it a better chose for a meeting place, and I dare say that was what the translators of the Septuagint had in mind. Perhaps the TR having been translated in an area where there aren't any Terebinth trees growing was a reason for chosing Oak rather than Terebinth?

Tim

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by TimV

I'm new here as I have some questions about Bible translating. My profession is agriculture.

The Hebrew word translated as Oak can mean other trees as well. I notice that the translators of the Septuagint chose the word Terebinth τερέμινθον, which is the native wild Pistachio tree. My experience is that the growth patter of the Terebinth, and it's softer leaves as opposed to an Oak's prickly leaves would make it a better chose for a meeting place, and I dare say that was what the translators of the Septuagint had in mind. Perhaps the TR having been translated in an area where there aren't any Terebinth trees growing was a reason for chosing Oak rather than Terebinth?

Tim

Well since the "TR" is the New Testament, in Greek, I think that's somewhat irrelevant. However, the Septuagint is a farce since there's no proof it was even available until well after the New Testament was penned. In fact, there's really no reason, other than lack of faith in God's word, to even use the Septuagint as more than historical reference.

Also, being in agriculture, I'm sure you could understand that an "oak" tree is not a "pistachio" tree. So either 1) you think the King James Bible is wrong, and therefore you have set yourself up as an authority over God's word, or 2) you're playing Devil's advocate, which isn't a very profitable hobby, especially on a board such as this.

In fact, there's really no reason, other than lack of faith in God's word, to even use the Septuagint as more than historical reference.

Did the KJV translators have a lack of faith in God's word? They admitted the Septuagint "was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction", but they also said despite this it was used by the Apostles and early church and "the word of God".

I naturally meant the AV.

If this is a forum for people who think the KJV of 1611 is exactly synonymous with the Word of God, then I doubt anyone here has the learning to answer the question that was my reason for registering, namely how many Byzantine texts have the word tree as opposed to book in Rev. 22:11, because the answer would take work, and not blind faith.

Also, being in agriculture, I'm sure you could understand that an "oak" tree is not a "pistachio" tree. So either 1) you think the King James Bible is wrong, and therefore you have set yourself up as an authority over God's word, or 2) you're playing Devil's advocate, which isn't a very profitable hobby, especially on a board such as this.

Being in Agriculture and speaking several languages, including Afrikaans (dual US/SA citizenship) I can think of a third option: 3) That the Hebrew word means either oak or pistachio or another large tree, so we can hold to either word without option 1) or 2).

Incidentally, the Afrikaans Ou Vertaling, which is the Afrikaans equivalent of the KJV uses a term for Terebinth-South Africans knowing a bit more about Mideastern botany than those Church of England divines. But perhaps God only speaks English?

Moderator/s: I would please like to know now whether membership in this forum is dependent on believing that every word in the KJV is literally God's word, and there is no possibility of better translations of the Greek and Hebrew underlying texts.
Thanks
Tim

Originally Posted by TimV

I'm new here as I have some questions about Bible translating. My profession is agriculture.

The Hebrew word translated as Oak can mean other trees as well. I notice that the translators of the Septuagint chose the word Terebinth τερέμινθον, which is the native wild Pistachio tree. My experience is that the growth patter of the Terebinth, and it's softer leaves as opposed to an Oak's prickly leaves would make it a better chose for a meeting place, and I dare say that was what the translators of the Septuagint had in mind. Perhaps the TR having been translated in an area where there aren't any Terebinth trees growing was a reason for chosing Oak rather than Terebinth?

Tim

If,( and I am not an expert in Hebrew) the Hebrew word is ambiguous in its translation possibilities, and Oak trees did indeed grow in the geographical ares that the events in the book of Judges took place, then the use of the word "Oak" to describe the tree under which the angel sat cannot to be proven to be a WRONG translation, as indeed, the angel COULD have sat under an OAK tree...just as described in the Bible.


Isn't this simply another example of the intelligentsia attempting to prove themselves superior in intellect to those venerable men who translated Gods Word into English for us? and as I said earlier, an attempt to set the copyright of the next big buck turning per-version.

fundy

[MC1171611]

The site holds that the King James Bible is 100% perfect, and any attempt at deviating from it based on "The Hebrew" or "The Greek" is counter-productive and nothing but a cause of cancer in the body of Christ. The King James Bible is God's final, definitive written word for mankind in English: being produced in the Philadelphian Church Age (the church that was praised for keeping the words of God) is but one of the evidences of the Blessings of God on it. Any translation in any language from any other time period should be carefully considered before accepting it as pure.

You will find little support for other English "Bibles" here, other than BrianT and the party line-spewing "Maverick."