Matt Postiff's Blog

Today's question was presented in lengthy form, but boils down to this: Why do some Bible verses use the word "straw" to describe what is fed to animals? Straw has little sustenance value. Isiaah 11:7 says that the lion will eat straw like the ox. This translation grates on the nerves of a farmer, for every farmer knows that you do not feed straw to an ox; you feed the ox dried hay or grass or perhaps oats, but not the yellow, dried stalks of wheat. It seems unlikely that the Bible is suggesting a low-calorie diet for the animals; straw can be used to dilute the energy content of the animal's diet or "dry it out" and provide some forage. But a diet completely of straw is infeasible.

I believe the most concise answer is that the Hebrew term "teben" (soft b, like a v, like "teh-ven") in some contexts refers to "cattle fodder" and would be better translated as "hay" or "feed."

I puzzled over this perhaps 20 years ago but did not come to a satisfactory conclusion because I had more important things to do at the time (and still do!). I thought then and still have some of this thinking left in me now, that the translators are a bit ignorant when it comes to animal husbandry. Growing up myself on a small ranch/farm, I am well aware of the difference between straw and hay, at least in our context of mainly wheat straw and grass/alfafa/timothy hay. Indeed, straw does not have much if any nutritional value. It is used for bedding in stalls, or as a ground cover for muddy areas or to protect areas of newly planted grass.

I suspect that the Hebrew term has what is called "wider semantic domain" than our more specific English terms for hay or straw. It seems that it must refer to the portion of the plant above ground, sometimes what is left behind after harvesting grain = straw and other times the whole plant = grass/alfalfa/etc.

I would advocate the translation of such "feed" passages as "hay" or "grass" or something similar. I think the translators have simply gotten it wrong in this case, badly so, and nearly universally so as indicated by a brief perusal of several translations in passages like Isaiah 11:7, 65:25.

Other passages use straw in a way that is clearly not food: Isaiah 25:10. And others are somewhat ambiguous but could refer to bedding/comfort instead of food: 1 Kings 4:28, Gen. 24:32.

Note "hay" in 1 Cor. 3:12 and Prov. 27:25. And then "mowings" in Psalm 72:6, Amos 7:1, and James 5:4.

Today's question:

With Prov 12:26 I am surprised how much the translations differ. What do you think would be the best translation and what do you think is the most likely meaning of this verse?

You have entered into a bit of the difficulty of translating concise Hebrew, especially without much context like we have in the Proverbs.

In my judgment, NKJV, NIV, and NET have it right. The HCSB is OK.

ESV and NASB don't seem right. I understand where they get "guide" and the overall idea of their translation, but the the second word is not correctly translated as "to his neighbor." The prefix on that word is more like "from," so it is more like "from his neighbor" or "out of his neighbor." There seems to be a careful "spying out" of who the good friends are, chose from among the whole lot of neighbors you could choose from.

The KJV seems to be the worst of the bunch. "More excellent" leans heavily upon that same prefix on the second word. There is a Hebrew idiom that uses that kind of construction to indicate a comparative idea (better than, more excellent than). But if a man has another righteous neighbor, this comparison would not work.

The verse seems to be saying "The way of the wicked misleads, but the righteous search out their neighbor for the wicked way so that the righteous are not mislead."

This is generally right. The way of the wicked is an errant path, and the righteous person wants to avoid that path, so they remain attentive to their associations.

The KJV-only doctrine and practice has come to my attention several times lately. Frankly, I wish I could put the entire question to bed once and for all and finally help Christians, pastors, and churches who are caught up in this false teaching to be delivered from it.

Be sure to know that if you like the KJV or have grown up with it and want to continue using it, that is your privilege. But you cannot force that preference on others who can rather benefit from a modern English version that is more readable, more accurate, and more understandable.

Following are some briefly-stated reasons why I cannot recommend the KJV.

1. Doctrinal statements that include the KJV as the only acceptable translation do not and cannot back up their claims from Scripture. Every statement in our doctrinal statement should be able to have a parenthesis after it with one or more verses from Scripture. If you cannot justify a belief from the Bible, then you need to remove it from the doctrinal statement. Never have I seen a statement like "The KJV is the only acceptable translation in the English language (citation of a Bible verse). There is no verse that can be put inside the parentheses to justify that belief.
2. We should know that KJV-onlyism cannot be justified from Scripture because the apostle Paul did not have a KJV; nor did the apostle John. The KJV did not come into existence until one thousand and five hundred years AFTER the New Testament was completed. KJV-onlyism cannot be a doctrine that all Christians have always held. If Paul didn't believe it or have to believe it to be faithful to God, neither do I.
3. Archaic vocabulary is a big reason I do not recommend the KJV. The verb "wot" is used in 10 verses in the KJV. It means nothing to an English reader today. It should be translated "know." Nine verses use "wont" which is not the same as "want." It means something that "used to be" or something that was usual or customary. No one today uses the word "wont." "Agone" is used once and, as it is not a word in the English language today, it should be translated as "ago." Who knows what "anon" means? What about besome, betimes, bethink, bewray, bolled, bowels, or choler? Why is the word "college" used in 2 Kings 22:14 and 2 Chronicles 34:22 and what does it mean? One online glossary I found has over 70 such words; one had over 300!
4. The KJV is old. This is not a sufficient reason in and of itself to discontinue use of the KJV. But it is important to realize that the KJV in common use today comes from 1769. The English language has changed since then; manuscript evidence has been found since then; and translation and language tools have improved since then. We can do better today.
5. The translation was made by men and as such is fallible. All translations can be improved.
6. The KJV translators themselves would most certainly tell us to continue working on and improving the translation that we use. Read their preface and you will understand what I'm talking about (if you can understand it)
7. The KJV we have today is not the KJV. The 1611 KJV would be almost unreadable for most who claim the KJV as their only translation. It was updated by Benjamin Blayney in 1769 to the form we have today. I have a replica 1611 KJV in my office, and it would be a chore to translate from that every morning in my reading time.
8. The KJV-only doctrine in its most dangerous form elevates this single English translation to the level of inspired Scripture. Not only is this a departure from the orthodox doctrine of Bibliology in which only the original manuscripts partake of direct inspiration, it also generates other serious problems. For instance: does every language have such an "inspired" text like the KJV? Which text is it? How do you know?
9. The KJV in the New Testament is based on one edition of Erasmus' Textus Receptus. Which edition of his text is the right one is an important question that must be asked. But it is almost irrelevant, because there are errors in the TR, just like there are in any single manuscript.
10. Those who hold KJV-onlyism are typically, though not always, very divisive. I do not want that cancer doing damage in the church that I pastor, nor in other churches in our circles. Scripture tells us to note those who cause divisions and avoid them (Romans 16:17).
11. The KJV-only doctrine often promotes fear or anger among its followers that all other translations are perversions that are purposefully attempting to remove parts of God's word, or deny the deity of Christ, for example. And while some so-called translations may do so (like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation), there is no need to be fearful or angry at all non-KJV translations. There are several excellent translations that should not elicit reactions of fear or anger. Such emotions are not becoming of Christians.

So, I recommend to put your KJV away, and get a NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, or HCSB. And read it often!

Read a little more on this issue at a prior post.

Why do I not recommend the KJV? Archaic and strange words are a key reason.

Romans 9:25—As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

This is supposed to be Hosea.

Ephesians 1:19—And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power.

This should be toward us.

Philippians 1:22—But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

This should be I do not know.

Matthew 2:17—Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying...

Matthew 3:3—For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias...

These should be Jeremiah and Isaiah, respectively.

I often look at the KJV in my studies, and I'm not trying to "bash" it. I'm just saying that it is not helpful for the modern English reader to have to slog through such archaisms to understand the Word of God. The 1769 revision stands in serious need of an update. Actually the NKJV has provided that update and could simply be called the KJV for this era. There are several other very good translations available which provide today's English reader with a more accurate and understandable translation of the Bible.

For a list of many other archaic or little-known words in the KJV, visit this site or this one.

Here's a quick hit-and-run on the NIV translation. I was reading the Greek text of John 16:16 this morning, and ran across this difference between the 2011 NIV and its predecessor.

Jesus went on to say, "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me." (Joh 16:16 NIV-2011)

In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me. (Joh 16:16 NIV-1984)

I have to wonder why the words "Jesus went on to say" are added in the new translation. They are completely unnecessary, particularly because they were translated from whitespace in the Greek. It seems the added words give us less insight into the passage and more insight into the translator's minds, namely that they desired to emphasize the paragraph break between verses 15 and 16.