In regard to Bible versions and translations, the late Pete Ruckman was ever fond of saying, "Always correct the original languages [and, therefore by default, all English translations of them] with the King's English [meaning the King James Version]." I find this maxim altogether agreeable in spirit; even if it seems dyslexic in letter. The only thing I can say of the original languages is, "It's all Greek, to me;" but English is certainly not what it used to be.
In the early seventeenth century of our Lord, when the King James Version was published, English was a relatively static, mathematically- precise form of communication. It is not so today. Ebonics, slang, slothfulness, mischievous perversion, legal wile, and avarice (to name a few) have done what they could to make the language unreliable, in the centuries since. As a result of this fecundity, dead languages such as Latin are more precisely descriptive than English-- and that because they're dead.
Take a moment to appreciate this fact: In latter years, English has been rendered all- but- impotent, by fertility. In the contemporary parlance, this is comprehended as viral fecundity. When a computer's operating system has become so compromised by viral infections as to be unreliable, the operator is compelled to reset its cognition to the last operable setting-- even when that requires a return to factory defaults.
I consider the King's English the necessary reset in English- based biblical scholarship whenever clarity is desirable. All other readily- available English versions of the scriptures I'm aware of (Who has time to read them all?) were translated at times when the English language was in such a dynamic state of flux as to make them confusing, no matter how many dictionaries from various years are consulted. Scholarship should attain to clarity rather than surrendering to confusion.
One subject presently begging for clarification (on at least a daily basis) is "the mark of the beast," written of by the apostle John, in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 13:18, John writes, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
As previously stated, English is not what it was at the time of the King James Version's publication. Many terms found in the King's English are defined differently today, while others are altogether improperly defined by current dictionaries. Take, for instance, "jealous." Odds are at least even (50/50) that the dictionary you use defines "jealous"-- at least in part-- as "envious." This is a perversion of a word allowed by popular slothfulness; not a proper definition of the term. Jealousy and envy are, in fact, diametrically opposed: as terms; and as states of existence. One cannot be jealous of what one does not own. Likewise one cannot be envious of oneself or one's own possessions.
To say otherwise is to make "the LORD, whose name is Jealous," (Exodus 34:14) a hypocritical transgressor for commanding his would- be people, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17) Conversely, the perversion of these two terms justifies the Jews who "delivered [Jesus to Pilate to be murdered] for envy." (Mark 15:10) After all, if jealousy is envy, it was (as they claimed) godliness in the Jews that compelled them to murder Jesus (and the prophets before and after him).
The writer of Hebrews espouses this misconception, when he writes, in chapter 9, "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these ["the blood of calves and of goats" (verse 19)]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [the blood of Jesus (verse 12)] than these." (Hebrews 9:23) In essence, what this means is: the Hebrews who murdered Jesus did God and his children a necessary favor in cleaning God's filthy house in heaven with the only detergent strong enough to do the job properly: the blood of his only begotten son, full of grace and truth; sent via air mail, marked "Return to Sender; address unknown."
In the day when Thomas Wolfe wrote 'You Can't Go Home Again,' the word "demon" was defined as "genius;" not "devil," as it's currently defined. This is the reason there isn't one instance, in the King's English, of usage of the term "demon." What effect does such corruption of English have on our comprehension of scripture, as it's translated in the ca. 1611 King James Version, versus the changes our language has suffered in the four centuries since? Stated simply: The demonic devils are geniuses; and the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is green with envy.
So, when we read, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count...." we might need to ask: "What is wisdom? What is understanding? And what does it mean to count?" Solomon wrote "Wisdom is the principal thing;" (Proverbs 4:7) which is to say, wisdom is the currency of princes. The wealth of princes is their people. By investing the currency of wisdom properly in judging his people rightly, a prince may attain to the great wealth of a good people. This applies to princes in heaven (see the warnings to the angels of the churches in Revelation 2 & 3) and on earth. Also, wisdom runs roughly parallel with understanding, though the latter term indicates an "educated" form of wisdom: one informed by knowledge; not apprehended by superstition; not expressed as mystery. To demonstrate this subtlety, we can again pick on Solomon.
Shortly after assuming "the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father," (1 Chronicles 29:23) Solomon went to Gibeon to offer a holocaust of a thousand burnt offerings and "call upon the name of the LORD." The LORD answered Solomon by saying, in effect, "I'm your genie in a bottle, Baby. Make a wish, and I'll grant it. [Just please stop killing all these poor, innocent critters.]" The scribe who scribed 1 Kings 3:9 records Solomon's reply thus: "Give... thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?" 2 Chronicles 1:10 records the request this way: "Give me now wisdom and knowledge [which is to say an understanding heart], that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?" So you see how wisdom and knowledge combine to make understanding.
So, what did the King James' translators mean when they used the word "count?" According to the law of first mentions, it should always mean what it means in Genesis 15:6-- "...[Abram] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Simply stated, this implies the translators defined the term "count" as an imputation of sorts. As I apprehend the doctrine, this is-- at least roughly-- so. There are many instances of this term's use throughout the doctrine, rendering an exhaustive investigation of them all prohibitive, here, but let's look at a couple more to verify, to the extent practicable, our contextual understanding of this somewhat enigmatic term's meaning.
In preparation for the first Passover, Moses (speaking for "the LORD" of verse 1 of Exodus 12) says, "And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb." (Exodus 12:4) This, at first blush, seems to indicate the "count for the lamb" as a 'head- count,' of those assembled to partake; though it, in fact, refers to the blood on the door(s) of the house(s) wherein a given lamb was consumed (or even, by implication, the blood on the door of a house where various lambs were consumed.)
Verse 7 of the same chapter states: "And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses [notice the plural], wherein they shall eat it [singular]." This means that, if more than one household were to partake of one lamb, this would have to be ascertained before it's being butchered: so the blood-- or the "count for the lamb"-- could be applied to the doors of all the houses to which a particular lamb was distributed.
Also consequential to numbering the count beforehand, waste was minimized. Verse 10 says: "And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire." So, in this case, the "count" is: an accounting reached in the understanding of the butchers; and recounted by the blood on the doors of the houses to which the lambs were distributed.
In application, therefore: a large household might require three lambs [one for each blood- streak on the door] to feed all it's members; or parts of three lambs might be consumed in one house [again: one blood- streak for each] in minimizing it's own waste and/or that of neighboring houses. Again: this usage of the term "count" implies an imputation, a reckoning, or an understanding.
Sometimes, when the King James' translators used the term "count," it was intended to convey a written record, or account, of a matter. One such instance which is not perhaps readily apparent as such is found in Moses' directions concerning the anticipated offering of firstfruits, found in Leviticus 23: "15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD."
Again, at first blush, this usage of the term in question seems to imply a discipline of numbering, though this is not so. My guess is: the most convenient way of keeping track of fifty days' passage would have been to scribe a mark for each day-- the way a prisoner tracks the number of the days of their incarceration on the wall of their cell. Even with a calendar, however: one mark (at the very least) would need to be scribed (or otherwise indicated) at the beginning of the tally: in order to assure, without any possibility of error, one had correctly observed the passage of fifty days. Do we not even so, today?
Another instance of this term being utilized to indicate the scribing of a written account comes from 1 Kings 3, in the recount of Solomon's one- thousand- beast holocaust mentioned previously. Just before the new king requests "an understanding heart to judge," he says, "thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude." (1 Kings 3:8) Solomon thus clearly delineates numbering (which we call counting) from counting. This is pretty simple: if it can't be numbered, it can't be written, either. This sort of thing is referred to by the apostle Paul as "endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying." (1 Timothy 1:4)
Where does all this lead us in our understanding of Revelation 13:18? Let's look at it, again: "Here is wisdom [which, in application, is superstition to a man without knowledge]. Let him that hath understanding [that is to say: a firm grasp of the wisdom of the doctrine and knowledge to apply it] count [that is: write; acknowledge; reckon; impute; comprehend; apply; etc.] the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
Mark this: counting, in King's English, is always an operation executed by the understanding; never by the abacus. Conversely, whenever the King James' translators referred to what we call counting, they called it telling [Cashiers at banks are still called 'tellers,' for instance.]; numbering; taking a number; etcetera: never counting. When John writes, "Let him that hath understanding count," he's saying the same thing Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)
Likewise, when John writes of "the number of the beast," he's likely writing of what we would term the beast's count. This opens a whole new can of worms; one which I don't want to get into, presently. This blog is already too long for anyone to read. However, just as Christ is made up of many members, it seems the beast must also be a body of 666 members. Are they 666 churches? Are they 666 men? 666 nation- states? 666 religions? 666 corporations? 666 computers? 666 robots? Suffice to say, if the mark of the beast is properly counted, it will be counted to 666 somethings, according to the apostle John as he's translated by the King James translators. According to the Word of God, speaking in Matthew 25:31 - 46, these somethings will be what he refers to as the "goats" of the "nations."
No comments:
Post a Comment