Members cbailey Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 [color=green]Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.[/color] - Matthew 9:17 KJV Why does the KJV translate [i]askos[/i] as bottle? It takes all the sense out of the passage... Help please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JJJ4given Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 779 askov askos as-kos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cbailey Posted November 22, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 [quote="JJJ4given"] 779 askov askos as-kos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 [color=#a30000]"Bottle" doesn't have to always mean glass. Ever heard of a water bottle? I'm pretty sure the KJV translators were way smarter in their knowledge of Biblical languages and the translation thereof than most anyone on earth today. Just for clarification, I do not believe in double inspiration and do not believe that God "breathed again" in 1611. I believe the KJV is the best English translation out there and is the most faithful to the TR but I do have suspicions of folks who come on here and start off their time here by questioning the KJV translators. I think they had more knowledge and experience than we do.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JJJ4given Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 In old english a bottle means: flask. Flask means: bottle. So strictly at that time it meant a container. Our language is what has changed. Not the scriptures. Do you believe when it says "gay" in the Bible that it means happy/benevolent? Let me throw a camel at you: What do you think of the MVs throwing out verses entirely? Or implying that they weren't in the original? In old english the word "container" didn't exist. They used the best word they had. "Bottle" which meant container and was the best translation of the word for their time! The context of what Jesus Christ is getting across here is very clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members loyaldefender Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 cbailey posted [quote] Why does the KJV translate askos as bottle? It takes all the sense out of the passage... Help please! [/quote] Then from cbailey's next post. [quote] I would suggest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Pastor Matt Posted November 22, 2006 Administrators Share Posted November 22, 2006 [quote="cbailey"] [color=green]Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.[/color] - Matthew 9:17 KJV Why does the KJV translate [i]askos[/i] as bottle? It takes all the sense out of the passage... and... was not just 'a container' but more to the point 'a glass bottle' [/quote] Someday you will get your chance to ask. :idea: I do not see anywhere in Matthew 9:17 that states they were [b]glass[/b] bottles. Websters 1828 Dictionary: Bottle: 1. A hollow vessel of glass, wood, leather or other material, with a narrow mouth, for holding and carrying liquors. Why are you stating they were glass? Again, where does it say glass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Psalms18_28 Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 -- I looked up wineskin in KJV, and there isn't a single one. I guess they weren't familar to that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dwayner79 Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 BroMatt is right, and the very thing you are concerned with the KJV translators is the very same thing you have done. You have taken a 21st century cultural meaning of the word 'bottle' instead of reading the KJV with the understanding that it was written to a different culture. The Webster's definition shows that clearly. So while bottles was a fine translation in 1611, wineskins is probably better for our culture, but so long as you understand the KJV was written 400 years ago, then you can avoid issues like this. I would imagine if a TR translation were done today this would be one of the words they would translate differently. Not because the KJV translators were wrong, but because the meaning of words change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tim Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 :goodpost: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ezra517 Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 CBailey, If you were to die in the next 10 seconds where do you believe your soul would spend eternity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dwayner79 Posted November 22, 2006 Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 Ezra517 I think it a bit premature to ask that. Just because someone questions the proper translation of a passage of scripture does not make them lost. This question seems unwarranted, off-topic, and basically rude. :? Edit: [url=http://onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?p=212134#212134]Here is cbaileys testimony[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cbailey Posted November 22, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 [quote="JJJ4given"] In old english a bottle means: flask. Flask means: bottle. So strictly at that time it meant a container. Our language is what has changed. Not the scriptures. Do you believe when it says "gay" in the Bible that it means happy/benevolent? [/quote] Well that is a very good point there JJJ4given. Great to see that my post hasn't upset you or gotten your ire. It was not meant to do either. I'm just making my way through the KJV and I'm more familiar with 'modern' English translations. Do you have a good Old English Dictionary to suggest which might help me understand these word choices? Clearly our language has changed and it can and is difficult to understand the word choices from the 1600's. [quote] Let me throw a camel at you: What do you think of the MVs throwing out verses entirely? Or implying that they weren't in the original? [/quote] Yeah that 'is' a camel... I think that far too many Christians from different denominations exercise far to much conjecture with the Bible in my humble opinion. I've experienced that first hand in Catholicism and I'm 'not' a big fan of it but I am open to scholarship and I try not to be too fearful of such but I do 'test everything' as the Good Book says. [quote] In old english the word "container" didn't exist. They used the best word they had. "Bottle" which meant container and was the best translation of the word for their time! The context of what Jesus Christ is getting across here is very clear. [/quote] Good points all. Thanks for the help. You've been great! God Bless you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cbailey Posted November 22, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 [quote="BroMatt"] [quote="cbailey"][color=green]Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.[/color] - Matthew 9:17 KJV Why does the KJV translate [i]askos[/i] as bottle? It takes all the sense out of the passage... and... was not just 'a container' but more to the point 'a glass bottle' [/quote] Someday you will get your chance to ask. :idea: [/quote] Oh, that was a good shot. :wink: [quote] I do not see anywhere in Matthew 9:17 that states they were [b]glass[/b] bottles. Websters 1828 Dictionary: Bottle: 1. A hollow vessel of glass, wood, leather or other material, with a narrow mouth, for holding and carrying liquors. [/quote] hmmmm.... I need to get one of these Websters 1828 Dictionaries... Are they available? [quote] Why are you stating they were glass? Again, where does it say glass? [/quote] Perhaps I'm doing a little 'cultural projection' myself? :oops: The modern meaning of 'bottle' is primarily 'glass' or 'plastic' and not 'wood' or 'leather'... Wow, language is a moving object isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cbailey Posted November 22, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2006 [quote="dwayner79"] BroMatt is right, and the very thing you are concerned with the KJV translators is the very same thing you have done. You have taken a 21st century cultural meaning of the word 'bottle' instead of reading the KJV with the understanding that it was written to a different culture. The Webster's definition shows that clearly. So while bottles was a fine translation in 1611, wineskins is probably better for our culture, but so long as you understand the KJV was written 400 years ago, then you can avoid issues like this. I would imagine if a TR translation were done today this would be one of the words they would translate differently. Not because the KJV translators were wrong, but because the meaning of words change. [/quote] I agree with you whole heartedly. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.