# Theological Idioms in the Bible



## Jake (Mar 2, 2020)

One thing that has puzzled me as someone who did not grow up on the KJV but uses it now are idioms which appear to be more theological in meaning than the text that they translate. Here are some examples that appear in several places in the KJV (each time the first quote is from the KJV)

"God forbid" -- seems to imply an active use of God's name in the passage where it is not in Greek or Hebrew
-Genesis 44:17: "And he said, God forbid that I should do so" ("Far be it" in NASB)
-Romans 7:13: "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid." ("May it never be!" in NASB)

"God save the king!" -- also it does not appear that "God" appears in Hebrew for this phrase
-II Samuel 16:16: "And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king." ("_Long_ live the king! _Long_ live the king!" in NASB)
-This only occurs in the Old Testament, but it is frequent there

"gave up the ghost" -- This is an interesting one, because it is used in some places where pneuma or ruach are present, but in some cases it seems to use a more general word for death that doesn't mention the spirit. Example:
-Lamentations 1:19: "my priests and mine elders gave up the ghost in the city" ("perished" in NASB)

My questions:

Is my instinct right that the KJV is adding theological language where it doesn't exist in the passage?
Is this an appropriate use of thought-for-thought translation, it is simply not idioms we use today?
Don't these phrases risk making it seem like the Bible is teaching more than it is in these passages?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jake (Mar 3, 2020)

Bump. Apparently I didn't make a compelling enough title to get people to respond.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> Bump. Apparently I didn't make a compelling enough title to get people to respond.



Actually, it was an excellent post.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> One thing that has puzzled me as someone who did not grow up on the KJV but uses it now are idioms which appear to be more theological in meaning than the text that they translate. Here are some examples that appear in several places in the KJV (each time the first quote is from the KJV)
> 
> "God forbid" -- seems to imply an active use of God's name in the passage where it is not in Greek or Hebrew
> -Genesis 44:17: "And he said, God forbid that I should do so" ("Far be it" in NASB)
> ...


I agree that undue poetic license was used in these places.

In II Samuel 16, they do provide the literal translation, "Let the king live," in the margin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Mar 3, 2020)

I agree as well. I don't know if it should, but the "God forbid" one has bothered me for a while as invoking God or making people seem to swear something when they didn't. But perhaps it's implied (because who else would cause it to not come to pass).

Another one that bothered me was when people would tell me they prefer to use the correct biblical term: "sodomite". The city's name does not appear in the Greek, it seems to be a very English term. Or other terminology such as "mites" or "pounds" (as in Luke 19:13) for currency. Not that this is necessarily bad but wouldn't that be like a modern translation using "euros" or "dollars" (which I'm certain would raise some criticism).

Interestingly, there was, in the mid-1600s, an effort toward getting a commission together from Scotland to work on altering the KJV because some of the Scottish were having trouble with the English idioms and words and they felt the translation was lacking in some areas. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ALVVAAAAYAAJ
pg 322, 344.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 3, 2020)

It's worth noting that the Geneva Bible reads the same way in each of these instances, except for Lamentations 1:19. Tyndale has "God forbid" in Genesis 44 and Romans 7.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Mar 3, 2020)

RE use of God Forbid in the NT: It may be noted that this phrase also appears in Wycliffe's 1382 translation, and then retained by Tyndale and all subsequent translations down to the KJV. It is presumed to have been commonly used in early English when one wanted to express dissent in the strongest possible terms, with is akin to what the intent of μὴ γένοιτο is in koine Greek.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 3, 2020)

I took a look at Lamentations 1:19. The Hebrew root literally means "to breathe out." In Greek and Hebrew, breath and spirit are the same word, so it's easy to see how they got "gave up the ghost/spirit." Our English "expire" is very similar (comes from the Latin "to breathe out," having "spiritum" as the root).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 3, 2020)

It's clear and compelling evidence that the KJV is an "essentially literal" or "essentially word-for-word" translation, without being pedantic or frankly too obscure. The KJV contains limited instances of what may (anachronistically) be called "dynamic equivalence" translation. It also strives (i.e. the translators strove, along with the revisers for almost 300yrs) to put the ancient text into a readable form that could capture the hearers of it, and put them in close contact with the "very word of God." And it was intended to be connected to the past and previous translations, as Phil D. and others point out.

The _philosophy _of translation that stands behind the KJV, and similar translations, is that which makes it (and the rest) distinct from and superior to the philosophy of many of the more recent offerings from various publishers. The opinion that modern people need the utmost catering, and cannot be pressed-upon to listen (and possibly work) to understand the innately unfamiliar (of a different culture, different time, etc.) is one that, paradoxically, objectively favors _not_ the reader/hearer, but the translator and interpreter.

To be so treated is infantilizing. And, those who control the publishing also control the message generated. The more "dynamism" in the translation, the more it is "tuned" to the current spirit of the age. It now is more likely to be instinctively taken by the modern audience in that "familiar" manner of speech. And so they say, "Oh, I get it, that sounds just like I would say such a thing." How better to mold the thinking of religious people in subtle ways? Soften sin? Turn faith into works?

So the old English audience thought, every once in a while, when the text rendered the royal salute to the Davidic monarch in the same way the English commoners and nobility saluted theirs. And... it subtly reinforced the notion that: England had a king/queen, and so had the blessing of heaven on that form of rule that mimicked the Bible and God's people of old. Perhaps even leading some to say, "They said 'God save the king,' and so do we, a wonderful religiously positive confirmation of our habits."

I'm not roundly criticizing the choice of the KJV translators/revisers. I'm pointing out that the temptation to misjudge and misapply the text is never far away; and may be more easily possible right at the places where_ a most apt rewording _was thought best. And if the translation is _largely _reworded away from the original, this only magnifies the likelihood of mistakes.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Jake (Mar 3, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> I took a look at Lamentations 1:19. The Hebrew root literally means "to breathe out." In Greek and Hebrew, breath and spirit are the same word, so it's easy to see how they got "gave up the ghost/spirit." Our English "expire" is very similar (comes from the Latin "to breathe out," having "spiritum" as the root).



I was actually surprised to see in the many times "gave up the ghost" occurred that it does generally seem to be in connection with taking the last breath. It's certainly an idiom and not exactly what the text literally says in my opinion, but it's closer than I thought when I first starting looking into it. This was less obvious to be in Lamentations 1:19 than say John 19:30 which is why I included that example.


----------



## Jake (Mar 4, 2020)

To summarize what I have learned:

This is a pattern that exists in most other early English translations
The phrases represent translating phrases into English vernacular of the day.
I'm also not sure "gave up the ghost" is in quite the same category as my other two examples. Thanks for your comments everyone!

I think this makes it more understandable as to the "why." I'm okay with translating a phrase from the original language into one that makes sense in our language and generally appreciate this about the KJV which is not quite as strictly literal as say the NASB.

However, I still think I am concerned about adding "God" to the text in places it is not found in the original languages. I feel like this is misleading. I guess you could maybe argue that the phrases behind "God forbid" or "God save the king" imply God would be present, but this seems like at the least a good place for italics, which doesn't seem to be used (at least not consistently; I didn't check every instance of these popular phrases in the KJV).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (Mar 4, 2020)

I would guess that perhaps those phrases didn't sound like theological language in the 1600s, and so it didn't feel to the translators like they were inserting theological statements. In hindsight, we can see that they should have realized that inserting the word_ God_ is always theological—or ought to be, according to the third commandment.

But that's just a guess. Perhaps they did take all that into account and had some other reasoning. For the most part, they did excellent work, but I too agree that it appears to have been imperfect.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 2, 2020)

Hello Jake,

Here is an interesting take on your thought that having “God” in the text in places is misleading: *Μη γενοιτο is a prayer.* Hear Dan Wallace on the matter: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/god-forbid-or-may-it-not-be-in-romans-34-et-al

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Jake,
> 
> Here is an interesting take on your thought that having “God” in the text in places is misleading: *Μη γενοιτο is a prayer.* Hear Dan Wallace on the matter: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/god-forbid-or-may-it-not-be-in-romans-34-et-al



This is a very interesting site. Is it yours?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 15, 2020)

Hello Neil,

No, it's not. The site is run by a person who prefers to remain anonymous - I don't even know.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Neil,
> 
> No, it's not. The site is run by a person who prefers to remain anonymous - I don't even know.



OK, thank you. There is a lot of very informative material there, definitely worth a bookmark.


----------



## Logan (Apr 15, 2020)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> OK, thank you. There is a lot of very informative material there, definitely worth a bookmark.



I would read everything on a site that says "The KJV is demonstrably inerrant" with at least a grain of salt.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 15, 2020)

"God forbid" is a perfectly good rendering of the original. The verb is in the optative mood which indicates a strong wish or prayer (e.g. "God save the Queen"). In translating *μη γενοιτο*, the AV only makes explicit the subject that was implied in Greek (very common in translation). Even the NIV recognizes this in Luke 20:16: "When the people heard this, they said, "God forbid!"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2020)

Logan said:


> I would read everything on a site that says "The KJV is demonstrably inerrant" with at least a grain of salt.



Of course, and I dont believe the KJV is inerrant, and from a summary reading I found a few things on the site which I instantly disagreed with. But on the whole it's a very informative site with a lot of interesting material.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 15, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> RE use of God Forbid in the NT: It may be noted that this phrase also appears in Wycliffe's 1382 translation, and then retained by Tyndale and all subsequent translations down to the KJV. It is presumed to have been commonly used in early English when one wanted to express dissent in the strongest possible terms, with is akin to what the intent of μὴ γένοιτο is in koine Greek.



The New Testament of the KJV consists of Tyndale's translation taken into the KJV almost wholesale. So, that would explain why some of those phrases exist.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 15, 2020)

Logan said:


> I would read everything on a site that says "The KJV is demonstrably inerrant" with at least a grain of salt.



Or, perhaps, a 50-pound sack of salt.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 15, 2020)

The point in question was the translation of _Μη γενοιτο_. And I think the remark by Dr. Wallace answered that. We all know that there are those who love to dump on the AV, just as those who likewise do with the modern versions (which versions have merit). A grain of salt I can abide, a fifty lb. sack, well, we all have our loads to carry.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

