|
|
-
Question #4 -
QUESTION:
Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we need a
modern translation to eliminate them?
ANSWER: Yes and
No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No, we do not
need a modem translation to eliminate them.
EXPLANATION:
That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true. An archaic
word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech and has
been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is
found in I Corinthians 10:25.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that
eat, asking no question for conscience sake:"
The word "shambles" is archaic. It
has been replaced in common speech with the word "market
place", Indeed we can be certain that "shambles"
was a much more accurate description of the ancient market place
(and many around the world today). It has none the less passed
from common use.
Well then, shouldn't we publish a new
translation which removes " shambles" and inserts the
more common "market place"?
No, what we should do is turn
to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith
and practice and see what the Bible practice
is concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a perfect
Bible will want to follow the Bible's practice
concerning archaic words.
In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice
for handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now
there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror,
the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite,a mighty man
of power.
2 And he had a son whose name was
Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among
the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his
shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.
3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father
were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the
servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.
4 And he passed through mount Ephraim,
and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not:
then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were
not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they
found them not.
5 And when they were come to the land
of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come, and let
us return; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take
thought for us.
6 And he said unto him, Behold now,
there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man;
all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither;
peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.
7 Then said Saul to his servant, But,
behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is
spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the
man of God: what have we?
8 And the servant answered Saul again,
and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel
of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man
went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the
seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a
Seer.)
10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well
said; come let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of
God was.
11 And as they went up the hill to the
city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said
unto them, Is the seer here?"
Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9
we are not only confronted with an archaic word, but with the
Bible practice for handling it.
We find Saul and one of his father's servants
searching for the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5).They
decide to go to see Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding
the asses (verses 6-8).
In verse 11 we are going to run into an archaic
word. But, before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative
(verse 9) to tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that
"he that is now called a Prophet was
beforetime called a Seer".Thus we see that,
between the time that this event took place and the time that the
incident was divinely recorded the word " Seer" had
passed from common use to be replaced with "Prophet".
"Seer" was now archaic.
BUT, look carefully at verse
11 where the archaic word appeared.
"And as they went up the hill to the city,
they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto
them, Is the seer here?"
Please note that the verse retains
the outdated word "seer". It does not
say "Is the prophet here?".
Thus we see that God Himself
through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit
used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word
but did not change the holy text!
So we see that, the Bible practice
for handling situations such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25
when preaching is to tell the congregation something to the effect
that "What beforetime was called 'shambles' is now called
'market place"'. But we should leave the archaic word
in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are
not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic
words than God has.
So, the answer to the question is, "Yes,
there are archaic words in the Bible but No we do
not need a modem translation to eliminate them. God
didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want us
doing it.
Back
to The Answer Book Index
|
|
|
