pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Okay, no more desires. No more shopping, no more sex, no more...
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
Suppose I want to stand on my feet?
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Was my soul depleted? Why? How do you lead somebody "in" a path? Was it muddy?
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Shadow of death? Is death a solid object that casts a shadow?
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
What kind of a table is God making? A Lebanon cedar coffee table? Are my enemies looking on? Why is the cup overfilled, wasting wine (or water)?
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

Here is a much better rendition of this famous psalm (from the NET Bible -- the New English Translation -- with translators' notes)

The Lord is my shepherd,
I lack nothing.
He takes me to lush pastures,
he leads me to refreshing water.
He restores my strength.
He leads me down the right paths
for the sake of his reputation.
Even when I must walk through the darkest valley,
I fear no danger,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff reassure me.
You prepare a feast before me
in plain sight of my enemies.
You refresh my head with oil;
my cup is completely full.
Surely your goodness and faithfulness will pursue me all my days,
and I will live in the Lord’s house for the rest of my life.

  1. Psalm 23:1 sn Psalm 23. In vv. 1-4 the psalmist pictures the Lord as a shepherd who provides for his needs and protects him from danger. The psalmist declares, “The Lord is my shepherd,” and then extends and develops that metaphor, speaking as if he were a sheep. In vv. 5-6 the metaphor changes as the psalmist depicts a great royal banquet hosted by the Lord. The psalmist is a guest of honor and recipient of divine favor, who enjoys unlimited access to the divine palace and the divine presence.
  2. Psalm 23:1 sn The Lord is my shepherd. The opening metaphor suggests the psalmist is assuming the role of a sheep. In vv. 1b-4 the psalmist extends the metaphor and explains exactly how the Lord is like a shepherd to him. At the surface level the language can be understood in terms of a shepherd’s relationship to his sheep. The translation of vv. 1-4 reflects this level. But, of course, each statement also points to an underlying reality.
  3. Psalm 23:1 tn The imperfect verbal form is best understood as generalizing; the psalmist highlights his typical or ongoing experience as a result of having the Lord as his shepherd (habitual present use). The next verse explains more specifically what he means by this statement.
  4. Psalm 23:2 tn Heb “he makes me lie down in lush pastures.” The Hiphil verb יַרְבִּיצֵנִי (yarbitseni) has a causative-modal nuance here (see IBHS 445-46 §27.5 on this use of the Hiphil), meaning “allows me to lie down” (see also Jer 33:12). The point is that the shepherd takes the sheep to lush pastures and lets them eat and rest there. Both imperfect verbal forms in v. 2 are generalizing and highlight the psalmist’s typical experience.
  5. Psalm 23:2 tn Both genitives in v. 2 indicate an attribute of the noun they modify: דֶּשֶׁא (desheʾ) characterizes the pastures as “lush” (i.e., rich with vegetation), while מְנֻחוֹת (menukhot) probably characterizes the water as refreshing. In this case the plural indicates an abstract quality. Some take מְנֻחוֹת in the sense of “still, calm” (i.e., as describing calm pools in contrast to dangerous torrents), but it is unlikely that such a pastoral scene is in view. Shepherds usually watered their sheep at wells (see Gen 29:2-3; Exod 2:16-19). Another option is to take מְנֻחוֹת as “resting places” and to translate, “water of/at the resting places” (i.e., a genitive of location; see IBHS 147-48 §9.5.2e).sn Within the framework of the metaphor, the psalmist/sheep is declaring in v. 2 that his shepherd provides the essentials for physical life. At a deeper level the psalmist may be referring to more than just physical provision, though that would certainly be included.
  6. Psalm 23:3 tn The appearance of the Hebrew term נַפְשִׁי (nafshi), traditionally translated “my soul,” might suggest a spiritualized interpretation for the first line of v. 3. However, at the surface level of the shepherd/sheep metaphor, this is unlikely. When it occurs with a pronominal suffix נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) is often equivalent to a pronoun, especially in poetry (see BDB 660 s.v.נֶפֶשׁ 4.a). In this context, where the statement most naturally refers to the physical provision just described, the form is best translated simply “me.” The accompanying verb (a Polel form [factitive use] of שׁוּב [shuv]), if referring to the physical provision just described, carries the nuance “refresh, restore strength.”
  7. Psalm 23:3 tn The imperfect verbal forms in v. 3 (יְשׁוֹבֵב [yeshovev] and יַנְחֵנִי [yankheni]), like those in vv. 1-2, highlight what is typical of the shepherd/sheep relationship.
  8. Psalm 23:3 tn The attributive genitive צֶדֶק (tsedeq) is traditionally translated “righteousness” here, as if designating a moral or ethical quality. But this seems unlikely, for it modifies מַעְגְּלֵי (maʿgele, “paths”). Within the shepherd/sheep metaphor, the phrase likely refers to “right” or “correct” paths, i.e., ones that lead to pastures, wells, or the fold. While צֶדֶק usually does carry a moral or ethical nuance, it can occasionally refer to less abstract things, such as weights and offerings. In this context, which emphasizes divine provision and protection, the underlying reality is probably God’s providential guidance. The psalmist is confident that God takes him down paths that will ultimately lead to something beneficial, not destructive.
  9. Psalm 23:3 tn The Hebrew term שֵׁם (shem, “name”) refers here to the shepherd’s reputation. (The English term “name” is often used the same way.) The statement לְמַעַן שְׁמוֹ (lemaʿan shemo, “for the sake of his name”) makes excellent sense within the framework of the shepherd/sheep metaphor. Shepherds, who sometimes hired out their services, were undoubtedly concerned about their vocational reputation. To maintain their reputation as competent shepherds, they had to know the “lay of the land” and make sure they led the sheep down the right paths to the proper destinations. The underlying reality is a profound theological truth: God must look out for the best interests of the one he has promised to protect, because if he fails to do so, his faithfulness could legitimately be called into question and his reputation damaged.
... notes continued below

There is no ambiguity to the words and phrases to those of us who read modern English, not 17th Century, often misunderstood, Englishe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
  1. Note 10 Psalm 23:3 tn The imperfect verbal forms in v. 3 (יְשׁוֹבֵב [yeshovev] and יַנְחֵנִי [yankheni]), like those in vv. 1-2, highlight what is typical of the shepherd/sheep relationship.
  2. Note 11 Psalm 23:3 tn The attributive genitive צֶדֶק (tsedeq) is traditionally translated “righteousness” here, as if designating a moral or ethical quality. But this seems unlikely, for it modifies מַעְגְּלֵי (maʿgele, “paths”). Within the shepherd/sheep metaphor, the phrase likely refers to “right” or “correct” paths, i.e., ones that lead to pastures, wells, or the fold. While צֶדֶק usually does carry a moral or ethical nuance, it can occasionally refer to less abstract things, such as weights and offerings. In this context, which emphasizes divine provision and protection, the underlying reality is probably God’s providential guidance. The psalmist is confident that God takes him down paths that will ultimately lead to something beneficial, not destructive.
  3. Note 12 Psalm 23:3 tn The Hebrew term שֵׁם (shem, “name”) refers here to the shepherd’s reputation. (The English term “name” is often used the same way.) The statement לְמַעַן שְׁמוֹ (lemaʿan shemo, “for the sake of his name”) makes excellent sense within the framework of the shepherd/sheep metaphor. Shepherds, who sometimes hired out their services, were undoubtedly concerned about their vocational reputation. To maintain their reputation as competent shepherds, they had to know the “lay of the land” and make sure they led the sheep down the right paths to the proper destinations. The underlying reality is a profound theological truth: God must look out for the best interests of the one he has promised to protect, because if he fails to do so, his faithfulness could legitimately be called into question and his reputation damaged.
  4. Note 13 Psalm 23:4 tn The Hebrew term צַלְמָוֶת (tsalmavet) has traditionally been understood as a compound noun meaning “shadow of death” (צֵל [tsel] + מָוֶת [mavet]; see BDB 853 s.v. צַלְמָוֶת). Other scholars prefer to vocalize the form צָלְמוּת (tsalmut) and understand it as an abstract noun (from the root צָלַם, tsalam) meaning “darkness.” An examination of the word’s usage favors the latter derivation. It is frequently associated with darkness/night and contrasted with light/morning (see Job 3:5; 10:21-22; 12:22; 24:17; 28:3; 34:22; Ps 107:10, 14; Isa 9:1; Jer 13:16; Amos 5:8). In some cases the darkness described is associated with the realm of death (Job 10:21-22; 38:17), but this is a metaphorical application of the word and does not reflect its inherent meaning. If the word does indeed mean “darkness,” it modifies גַיְא (gayʾ, “valley, ravine”) quite naturally. At the metaphorical level, v. 4 pictures the shepherd taking his sheep through a dark ravine where predators might lurk. The life-threatening situations faced by the psalmist are the underlying reality behind the imagery.
  5. Note 14 Psalm 23:4 tn The imperfect verbal forms in v. 4, as in vv. 1-3, highlight what is typical in the psalmist’s experience.
  6. Note 15 Psalm 23:4 tn The Hebrew term רָע (raʿ) is traditionally translated “evil” here, perhaps suggesting a moral or ethical nuance. But at the level of the metaphor, the word means “danger, injury, harm,” as a sheep might experience from a predator. The life-threatening dangers faced by the psalmist, especially the enemies mentioned in v. 5, are the underlying reality.
  7. Note 16 Psalm 23:4 tn The Piel of נָחַם (nakham), when used with a human object, means “comfort, console.” But here, within the metaphorical framework, it refers to the way in which a shepherd uses his implements to assure the sheep of his presence and calm their nerves. The underlying reality is the emotional stability God provides the psalmist during life threatening situations.
  8. Note 17 Psalm 23:5 sn In v. 5 the metaphor switches. (It would be very odd for a sheep to have its head anointed and be served wine.) The background for the imagery is probably the royal banquet. Ancient Near Eastern texts describe such banquets in similar terms to those employed by the psalmist. (See M. L. Barre and J. S. Kselman, “New Exodus, Covenant, and Restoration in Psalm 23, ” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, 97-127.) The reality behind the imagery is the Lord’s favor. Through his blessings and protection he demonstrates to everyone, including dangerous enemies, that the psalmist has a special relationship with him.
  9. Note 18 Psalm 23:5 tn The imperfect verbal form in v. 5a carries on the generalizing mood of vv. 1-4. However, in v. 5b the psalmist switches to a perfect (דִּשַּׁנְתָּ, dishanta), which may have a generalizing force as well. But then again the perfect is conspicuous here and may be present perfect in sense, indicating that the divine host typically pours oil on his head prior to seating him at the banquet table. The verb דָשַׁן (dashan; the Piel is factitive) is often translated “anoint,” but this is misleading, for it might suggest a symbolic act of initiation into royal status. One would expect the verb מָשָׁח (mashan) in this case; דָשַׁן here describes an act of hospitality extended to guests and carries the nuance “refresh.” In Prov 15:30 it stands parallel to “make happy” and refers to the effect that good news has on the inner being of its recipient.
  10. Note 19 Psalm 23:5 tn The rare noun רְוָיָה (revayah) is derived from the well-attested verb רָוָה (ravah, “be saturated, drink one’s fill”). In this context, where it describes a cup, it must mean “filled up,” but not necessarily to overflowing.
  11. Note 20 Psalm 23:6 tn The noun חֶסֶד (khesed; v. 6) has been the subject of several monographs. G. R. Clark concludes that חֶסֶד “is not merely an attitude or an emotion; it is an emotion that leads to an activity beneficial to the recipient.” He explains that an act of חֶסֶד is “a beneficent action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties, by one who is able to render assistance to the needy party who in the circumstances is unable to help him- or herself.” (See G. R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible [JSOTSup], 267.) HALOT 336-37 s.v. defines the word as “loyalty,” or “faithfulness.” Other appropriate meanings might be “commitment” and “devotion.”
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
  1. Note 21 Psalm 23:6 tn The use of רָדַף (radaf, “pursue, chase”) with טוֹב וָחֶסֶד (tov vakhesed, “goodness and faithfulness”) as subject is ironic. This is the only place in the entire OT where either of these nouns appears as the subject of this verb רָדַף (radaf, “pursue”). This verb is often used to describe the hostile actions of enemies. One might expect the psalmist’s enemies (see v. 5) to chase him, but ironically God’s “goodness and faithfulness” (which are personified and stand by metonymy for God himself) pursue him instead. The word “pursue” is used outside of its normal context in an ironic manner and creates a unique, but pleasant word picture of God’s favor (or a kind God) “chasing down” the one whom he loves.
  2. Note 22 Psalm 23:6 tn Heb “all the days of my life.”
  3. Note 23 Psalm 23:6 tn The verb form וְשַׁבְתִּי (veshavti) is a Qal perfect (with vav [ו] consecutive), first common singular, from שׁוּב (shuv, “return”) and should be translated, “and I will return.” But this makes no sense when construed with the following phrase, “in the house of the Lord.” The term שׁוּב (shuv) appears only here with the following phrase בְּבֵית (bevet). The form should be emended to וְשִׁבְתִּי (veshivti; an infinitive construct from יָשַׁב [yashav, “live”] with pronominal suffix) or to וְיָשַׁבְתִּי (veyashavti; a Qal perfect with vav [ו] consecutive, first common singular, from ישׁב [see BHS, note c]). In either case one could then translate, “and I will live [in the house of the Lord].” The phrase “in the house” frequently follows the verb יָשַׁב in the OT.
  4. Note 24 Psalm 23:6 tn Heb “the house of the Lord.” The phrase may be purely metaphorical here, referring to the royal palace where the royal host of v. 5 holds his banquet and lives. If one takes the phrase more literally, it would refer to the earthly tabernacle (if one accepts Davidic authorship) or the later temple (see Judg 19:18; 1 Sam 1:7, 24; 2 Sam 12:20; 1 Kgs 7:12, 40, 45, 51).
  5. Note 25 Psalm 23:6 tn The phrase אֹרֶךְ יָמִים (ʾorekh yamim, “length of days”) is traditionally translated “forever.” However, this phrase, when used elsewhere of people, usually refers to a lengthy period of time, such as one’s lifetime, and does not mean “forever” in the sense of eternity. (Cf. Deut 30:20; Job 12:12; Ps 91:16; Prov 3:2, 16; Lam 5:20.) Furthermore, the parallel phrase “all the days of my life” suggests this more limited meaning. Psalm 21:4, where the phrase is followed by “forever and ever,” may be an exception, though the juxtaposition of the phrases may be an example of intensification, where the second phrase goes beyond the limits of the first, rather than synonymity. Even if one takes both expressions as referring to eternal life, the language is part of the king’s hyperbolic description of the Lord’s blessings and should not be taken literally.
If you want to read this psalm and notes online, the link is Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 23 - New English Translation

This should give you an idea of expert Bible translation. It is not an easy task, even for professionals whose career has been devoted to this art. Thank God there are experts in ancient Hebrew and modern English in meaning, grammar, and content.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You have decided that you should be in public doing the work of a Bible Corrector.

I discovered long ago that the KJVO myth is man-made & false.
What has escaped your intelligence is that by setting yourself up as an Authority TO CORRECT the KJV, you are found to be, in reality, = casting your personal doubt on the bible which proves you are trying to create the same doubt about the Word of God, which has caused you to be doing what you are now doing... in public.
No, I point out PROVEN GOOFS & BOOBOOS in the KJV, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. (Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts.)

And the KJV is NOT "the Bible". It's an English translation of the Bible, one of several.


The devil loves bible correctors.
He's one himself.
He once told Eve.....>"Hath God said"?

With all due respect, Sir, you're incorrect. What satan did was tell Eve that God's word wasn't true, not that it was incorrect.

But, far as pointing out errors in the KJV, that's because the pushers of the KJVO myth tell the lie that it's perfect, and, to try to keep people from believing that false doctrine, we point out the KJV's goofs, proving it's NOT perfect. What's wrong is WRONG !
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The old KJV; for centuries it helped many souls find salvation. In America, it can be bought in a dollar store for $1. This is not something trivial; it is a great thing.

It is also free online along with many other translations. On Biblegateway.com there are many accompanying reference notes. That is a greater thing.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,128
5,686
49
The Wild West
✟472,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Wasn't widely used by whom? If you mean not by Eastern Orthodox churches, I get it. But it was always the standard in Protestant churches.

Anyway, it's already been mentioned that the claim that the KJV isn't understandable by moderns is overrated as a consideration, so what's left? While there may be a sort of romance attached to the beauty of the KJV, the opposite is true of most of the newer translations.

I keep a copy of a couple of them just to see how that kind of translation looks when some issue arises. But even the highly-respected NIV causes my soul to freeze over when I'm reading that dumbed-down, starkly matter-of-fact, paraphrase of the elegant King James Version.

I've gotten carried away, so please accept my apologies for doing that. :sorry:

The KJV is widely used and preferred by many Anglophone Eastern Orthodox clergy for the New Testament translation. It is only in the Old Testament where they prefer not to use it; the Eastern Orthodox lectionary is based on the Septuagint.

The Orthodox Study Bible uses the NKJV as its New Testament, and the NKJV is probably the most popular alternative to the KJV in the Eastern Orthodox church because Orthodox priests greatly respect the NT translation of the KJV and assume the NKJV is simply the KJV in modernized language (alas its not).
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,128
5,686
49
The Wild West
✟472,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I have been using my time "sheltering" at home to read the Bible extensively, using several translations: the NIV, the NRSV, and the NET. All of them are excellent and written to be clearly understood in today's English.

The thought occurred to me: why do people still use the "King James" Bible? It was translated into English over 400 years ago and was based on questionable sources by today's standards. There is no question that the English is beautiful, but that is not in concert with the way the source documents were written. The "books" were written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke), and Koine Greek, the common languages of the times. None of the original texts were written in some archaic language.

The King James is not written in the common English language used today; in fact, it's just the opposite. Do people feel some sort of pseudo-holiness when they read it? Why do some people regard it alone as "God's word" and criticize those better, more modern, more accurate translations? Is there some fallacious belief that the Lord wants His word to be difficult to understand and open to all kinds of misinterpretations?

Does anyone believe that Luke actually this wrote in the language of his day:
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee"? Isn't the meaning far clearer to people living today when translated as "But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."?

Or Deuteronomy 13:17, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Unicorns? Really? ("Unicorn" is also mentioned elsewhere in the KJV)

Do people really believe that when Jesus spoke to thousands of people, he spoke in a language that was not easily understood?

Of course, there many more examples of why the King James Bible is a flawed translation that is totally unlike the source documents. So why do people rigidly adhere to its use?

The KJV remains the most popular Bible translation in English because of the beauty of its prose, and the fact that it was written to meet the liturgical needs and balance the requirements of the churches of the two realms King James presided over, the Episcopal and Liturgical Church of England, and the Presbyterian, somewhat aliturgical Church of Scotland. The former had used the Bishop’s Bible, and the latter the Geneva Bible.

The KJV purposefully excluded commentary of the sort one finds in the Geneva Bible, so that it would not offend either the Presbyterians or the Anglicans. It was also extremely well translated, contrary to what you say: the translators consulted not only the Greek majority text (the minority text the NIV uses was not yet known in 1600, and many people have serious doctrinal concerns about it) and the Hebrew and Aramaic Masoretic Text, but also, the Vulgate, which was translated into Latin from the same sources used by the KJV in the fourth century by St. Jerome, the Syriac Peshitta, which likewise translated the same sources as the KJV, the Old Testament of which being finished in the Second Century and the New Testament in the Fourth, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, which is strongly preferred by the Orthodox, and even the relatively obscure (in 1600) Coptic and Ge’ez Bibles!

So, the translation was impressively thorough. For Anglican use, the Authorized Version, as the KJV is properly called, includes the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, because the Church of England reads from them in Mattins and Evensong. The NIV and many other modern language bibles lack these.

The NIV also has a huge problem: now, I really liked the old NIV, but a few years ago Zondervan replaced this with a new edition based on “Today’s NIV” published in the late Noughties, and the new NIV is heavily driven by the demands of the liberal mainline churches (ECUSA, ELCA, PCUSA, my former denomination, the UCC, the rebellious, pro-schism conferences of the UMC, the American Baptist Convention and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ), with gender neutral language inserted even where not indicated by the source materials. And stylistically, the new NIV is not impressive.

It is a real tragedy because the old NIV, which Zondervan has completely withdrawn from sale and circulation, uses beautiful language and is stylistically the most elegant contemporary language Bible I have seen. It would have made a great pairing with the 2019 Book of Common Prayer published by the traditional Anglican Church in North America, and the 2006 Lutheran Service Book published by the LCMS.

The Gideons had for a long time used the NIV, but for reasons of popular demand, have switched completely back to the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
As is the case with many translations => except the King James version <= it is continually updated and revised because of a) the increased scholarship regarding the Bible, b) the change in contemporary English language, and c) the change in thinking of its readers.

The King James was written 400+ years ago in a language no longer in use, for a society that is no longer in existence.

Modern translations try to achieve a balance between word-for-word translations (which is actually impossible because of the differences in the source languages and the receptor language) and a thought-for-thought translation. Believe it or not, we are approximately 2000 years removed from when the last books of the canon of Scripture were written. We live in an entirely different culture; our thought processes are entirely different than those of the cultures in the times the "books" were written. Modern translations try to convey to us what the Scriptures meant to those people in order to give us an understanding of what Scripture means, as well as accurate translation of the texts. This is where the King James fails: it is written in an archaic language, meant to be understood by people who don't live or think the way we do.

There is nothing sacred about the King James translation! It may sound beautiful, unlike the original texts which were written in the common languages of the time: Koine Greek and Aramaic, but that's about it as far as credentials go.
 
Upvote 0