Perhaps they did not know what they meant. wouldn't be the first time.

Another idea I have is the audience; while I do not know two much about the intended audience of the King James, the Anglo-Saxon one was aimed at widening the reading of the Bible by putting it into simple language, to avoid people needing to know latin.... It still is extraordinary the differences though. The following, for example (i chose this bit because it has got the Moriah thing in it also).

"God wolde þa fandian Abrahames gehiersumnesse, and clipode his naman, and cwæð him þus to: 'Nim þinne ancennedan sunu Isaac, þe þu lufast, and far to þam lande Visionis hraðe, and geoffra hine þær uppan anre dune.'"

Translated literally, this gives:

"God wanted now to test Abraham's obedience, and called his name, and spoke to him thus: 'take your only-begotten son Isaac, who you love, and go to the land of Visionis quickly, and sacrifice him there upon the one mountain'"

(If you read anglo-saxon, sorry for assuming you didn't...its just I have yet to meet anyone who has any interest in the language whatsoever).

Compare this to the same passage from the King James:

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of"

The difference is amazing.... Why, for example, completely rearrange the beginning? Or remove thhe 'which I will tell you of'. Personally I think the last sentence makes much more sense in the King James....

what do you think it means?
My idea was that possible (this is unsupported speculation) there was some want to maintain accuracy (lol) and integrity in the translation, and as such took some notice of the hebrew, putting Moriah rather than Visionis, as is usedin both the Vulgate and the anglo-saxon version. This falls down though, with the thought that if they were really taking note of the hebrew, they should have noticed some of the far bigger changes that had been made.
Only speculation. This isn't a point i have thought too much about.

There may well be an error somewhere there....i am only a mathematics person after all.....


~netweaver~