QUESTION 4: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't 
            we need a modern translation to eliminate them?

ANSWER: Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible 
but No, we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.

EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very 
true. An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day 
speech and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic 
word is found in I Corinthians 10:25.

"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no 
question for conscience sake."

The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common 
speech with the word "market place." Indeed we can be certain that 
"shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market 
place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed 
from common use.

Well then, shouldn't we publish a new translation which 
removes "shambles" and inserts the more common "market place"?

No, what we should do is turn to the Bible, our final 
authority in all matters of faith and practice and see what the Bible 
practice is concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a 
perfect Bible will want to follow the Bible's practice concerning 
archaic words.

In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for 
handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11.  "Now there was a 
man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of 
Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.

2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, 
and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a 
goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher 
than any of the people.

3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said 
to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go 
seek the asses.

4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the 
land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through 
the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the 
land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to 
his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father 
leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.

6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a 
man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh 
surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our 
way that we should go.

7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what 
shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and 
there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?

8 And the servant answered Saul aga^n, and said, Behold, I 
have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I 
give to the man of God, to tell us our way.

9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, 
thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now 
called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. 
So they went unto the city where the man of God was.

11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young 
maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer 
here?"

Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9, we are not 
only confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for 
handling it.

We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for 
the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5). They decide to go to see 
Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).

In verse 11 we are going to run into an a¨chaic word. But, 
before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to 
tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now 
called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer." Thus we see that, 
between the time that this event took place and the time that the 
incident was divinely recorded the word "Seer" had passed from common 
use to be replaced with "Prophet." "Seer" was now archaic.

BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word 
appeared.

"And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young 
maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer 
here?"

Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer." 
It does not say, "Is the prophet here?"

Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but 
did not change the holy text!

So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations 
such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the 
congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called 
`shambles' is now called `market place'." But we should leave the 
archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are 
not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words 
than God has.

So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic 
words in the Bible but No we do not need a modern translation to 
eliminate them. God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want 
us doing it.

../