[tonybones2112]

I was doing some verse comparison in different versions and came across this one.

Job 6:6

(AV 1611) Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

Pretty plain and straightforward, fairly bleak commentary. I thought I would check what the new standard in bible versions had to say on this verse and found it to be more or less just a reading from an older translation:

(English Standard Version) Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the juice of the mallow?

(Jewish Publication Society 1917) Can that which hath no savour be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the juice of mallows?

I don't know what the "juice of mallows" tastes like, having never eaten a mallow or indeed knowing what one is. I decided the reading and wording was archaic and obsolete and moved on to the classic reading of The National Council Of Churches:

(Revised Standard Version) Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?

That one sent me scambling for one of Julia Child's cookbooks but with little effect. Of course our literal friends over at the Universal Salvation Dept. offered a much more sinister take on this verse:

(Concordant LIteral Version) Is insipid food being eaten without salt? Or is there taste in the ooze of purslane?

The Watchtower maintains Jehovah's spirit has been lierally present at Brooklyn HQ since 1975, the devious rationalization of the failed prophecy of of His return in 1975. I thought I would check into the version translated with His literal presence, and my sides almost split:

(New World Translation) Will tasteless things be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?

I was tempted to look further into the NWT for the presence of The Three Musketeers and their role in the doctrine of the Trinity and also check out if the roll Ezekiel ate in Ezekiel 3:1 and 3:2 was a Tootsie Roll, but I am too busy laughing. I leave this to others to investigate

Grace and peace

Tony

[Samuel]

The only juicy marshmallow I ever ate, was one I burned to a slime on a fire. After I thoroughly almost burned a hole through my tongue, I really wished I hadn't ate it. I don't know whether it had any taste or not, I really couldn't taste anything for a few days.

[Samuel]

Found this on the internet, doesn't sound too appetizing to me. ??



Purslane - Description of:

A succulent, sprawling plant of lawns and meadows; flowers inconspicuous, 1/5 inch wide, five yellow petals tucked between the branches, mid-summer to fall; fruit capsules up to 1/4 inch long, filled with tiny, round, black seeds; leaves paddle-shaped, succulent, stalkless 1/2 to 2 inches long, alternate or opposite; stem reddish, succulent, branching, creeping, 4-10 inches long.

Purslane is one of my favorite summer vegetables, with a mild, sweet-sour flavor and a chewy texture. Its reddish stem, nearly as thick as a computer cable, creeps along the ground, rarely getting taller than a pint of milk. The stalkless leaves are paddle shaped, about as long as a small paper clip.

[Luke]

I love a good marshmallow! tastes great

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Luke

I love a good marshmallow! tastes great

Yes Luke, as do I but I did not know they had juice, this is sinister. I sense a conspiracy.

Grace and peace

Tony

[Fredoheaven]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Found this on the internet, doesn't sound too appetizing to me. ??



Purslane - Description of:

A succulent, sprawling plant of lawns and meadows; flowers inconspicuous, 1/5 inch wide, five yellow petals tucked between the branches, mid-summer to fall; fruit capsules up to 1/4 inch long, filled with tiny, round, black seeds; leaves paddle-shaped, succulent, stalkless 1/2 to 2 inches long, alternate or opposite; stem reddish, succulent, branching, creeping, 4-10 inches long.

Purslane is one of my favorite summer vegetables, with a mild, sweet-sour flavor and a chewy texture. Its reddish stem, nearly as thick as a computer cable, creeps along the ground, rarely getting taller than a pint of milk. The stalkless leaves are paddle shaped, about as long as a small paper clip.

I just don't know if you are only joking, because here in the Philippines that plant is a favorite dish for our pigs...ngee...

Good day!!!

[Samuel]

That description is not mine, its from somebody else where I found the photo. I would probably think it to be Pig food also, in fact I would rather it was Pig food.

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

I was doing some verse comparison in different versions and came across this one.

Job 6:6

(AV 1611) Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

Pretty plain and straightforward, fairly bleak commentary. I thought I would check what the new standard in bible versions had to say on this verse and found it to be more or less just a reading from an older translation:

(English Standard Version) Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the juice of the mallow?

The KJV translators anticipated that they would not get all the names for things correct, as they said in their preface:

There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once,114 (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?

The book of Job has some especially difficult language because of its age. It has taken four centuries to discover the meanings of some of the obscure words from other ancient documents.

I think we should cut the KJV translators some slack. They did the best they could.

[Luke]

Something stinks, and it isn't slimy mallow juice

[bibleprotector]

If God has not got His Word to us where every word is correct today, then he must have failed His own promises.

“Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.” (1 Kings 8:56).

If the King James Bible translators really

Originally Posted by solabiblia

anticipated that they would not get all the names for things correct

why do they call their work, “one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”?

Clearly, they did expect to do well, even though there were difficulties.

But what we find is a complete revisionary interpretation of the translators’ own words. (The translators were not modernists, and were not meaning what the modernists say that the translators meant.)

They admitted that “There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once”, and that the “Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment”. Do we expect that the studies of the 1611 men were in vain, that their judgment so incompetent that they failed to present the very words of God?

No, they did well, as many believers since have testified. The translators even encouraged “the Reader to seek further”. Not because they thought they were wrong, but to confirm that they were right.

In this seeking further, we are supposed to come to conclusions and judgment, just as the long process of translation from 1604–1611 came to its conclusion, that is, it was finally settled by the collective judgment of the translators what should stand as the correct sense. The right words with the right meanings are there, evident for all to read.

We are told by “Solabiblia” (where is that one Book which is his standard?) that

Originally Posted by solabiblia

The book of Job has some especially difficult language because of its age.

The Word of God has not become more difficult over time. James had no problem in James 5:11 when speaking to scattered believers in his day.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

It has taken four centuries to discover the meanings of some of the obscure words from other ancient documents.

This has become a process designed to confute truth as it stands. The more “discoveries” of “meanings” of words that might be found which contradict the historically received understanding, the worse the translation will be.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

I think we should cut the KJV translators some slack.

Which would mean not virtually vilifying them for (implied) “meanness” of translation. ( = a false accusation against the KJB.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LWrzwU33HQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aJyDN2oEsI