# 'Will' vs. 'Shall' in KJV



## KMK (Aug 2, 2008)

I have been trying to understand the difference between the verbs 'will' and 'shall' in the KJV.

OED seems to indicate that 'will' implies desire; and 'shall' implies determination. (That is a loose paraphrase)

Wikipedia says this from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#cite_note-2



> Whether the prescribed usage had basis in common usage or only ever existed inside the minds of grammarians, it is largely or completely ignored by American, Scots and Irish speakers of English, which constitute the majority of English-speaking people.[2] Nevertheless, the differences between the two words were once thought by some people to be real, so much so that Dwight D. Eisenhower was reputed to have fired an aide who could not understand the (then supposed) distinction between "shall" and "will."[3]
> 
> ^ Larrabee, Eric, Commander in Chief -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants and Their War, at page 420, Harper and Rowe, New York, NY 1987 ISBN 0-06-0390050-6



And this...



> Old English did not have a future tense, but because the verbs shall and will hint at one, they were conscripted by the language's development and became modal verbs.
> In declarative sentences under the pure system, shall is not used in the first person, since one does not usually give commands to oneself. Therefore, shall became the auxiliary verb for expressing simple futurity in the first person. Will, on the other hand, is not often used in the second and third persons in statements under the pure system and so second and third person will became the auxiliary verb for expressing simple futurity in the second and third persons:
> Shall and its past tense form should denote simple futurity in the first person.
> Will and its past tense form would denote simple futurity in the second and third persons.
> ...



From my cursory glance at their usage in the KJV it appears that the words have nothing to do with the 'person'. See below:



> Ps 7:17 *I will* praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.





> Ps 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me: because [he is] at my right hand, *I shall* not be moved.



Does this mean that the difference is between 'desire' (will), and 'determination' (shall)? Is there a resource somewhere that speaks about some rules that the KJV translators used to determine which word they would use?


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 2, 2008)

*Shall/will proper usage*

Your best bet is any book written prior to the 20th century on English grammar or Universal Grammar. Here are some books I have found useful:

A Short Introduction to English ... - Google Book Search Start on page 48.

The Principles of Grammar: Being a ... - Google Book Search Start on page 115

Hermes: Or, A Philosophical Inquiry ... - Google Book Search

The AV also uses the shall/will distinction in a legal sense. "Thou shalt not" is a prohibition. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" is a command. Both these statements imply that obedience is expected and not optional. Someone once told me that when reading the AV you're not reading a book, but you're reading a binding legal document with no wiggle room for the reader. Because of the lack of specificity in the modern versions, (cf. Lk 22:31, 32 in the AV and any MV) you have some wiggle room. Hope this helps some.


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 2, 2008)

Chris,

No wonder people read and undestood the KJV back then, they had English grammer to understand it. 

Do you have anything like this for modern English?


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 2, 2008)

*Some more I just remembered*

Principles of General Grammar ... - Google Book Search Starting on page 78.

Principles of General Grammar: Comp ... - Google Book Search

A grammar of the Anglo-Saxon tongue ... - Google Book Search

The Principles of Grammar: An ... - Google Book Search Start on page 117


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 2, 2008)

*Modern English?!? What's that?*



SolaGratia said:


> Chris,
> 
> No wonder people read and undestood the KJV back then, they had English grammer to understand it.
> 
> Do you have anything like this for modern English?



For the past year I have been using books dealing with Rhetoric and Composition written prior to the 20th century. The only 20th century book I have used is by Thomas S. Kane entitled, The New Oxford Guide To Writing.

Here are some of the Rhetoric books I have been using:

A Manual of Composition and Rhetoric ... - Google Book Search

A Practical System of Rhetoric, Or ... - Google Book Search

Advanced Course of Composition and ... - Google Book Search

The only other 20th century book I can think of is With Good Reason, by Morris Engel. While it's purpose is to explain informal fallacies, its appendix deals with clarity in writing. You might also read the article On Philosophical Style by Brand Blanshard.

Though I've found that the more I read the AV, the better my modern grammar becomes. Some knowledge of Latin cases also helps.


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 2, 2008)

Modern English? Is a Great English Rock Band.


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Modern English? Is a Great English Rock Band.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v-tATVN_Hs&feature=related"]YouTube - I Melt With You by Modern English[/ame]


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Ken, ALL you have to know is this: The King James Bible is ALWAYS right!


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2008)

This is from "A Short Introduction to English Grammar" linked above:



> "_Will_, in the first Person singular and plural, promises or threatens; in the second and third Persons, only foretels: _shall_, on the contrary, in the first Person, simply foretels; in the second and third Persons, promises, commands, or threatens. But this must be understood of Explicative Sentences; for when the Sentence is Interrogative, just the reverse for the most part takes place: Thus, "I _shall_ go; you _will_ go;" express event only: but, "_will_ you go?" imports intention; and "_shall_ I go?" refers to the will of another. But again, "he _shall_ go," and "_shall_ he go," both imply will, expressing or referring to a command.



So...



> Ps 7:17 I _will_ praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and _will_ sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.



Being explitive in the first person, 'will' imports promise or intention. "I will (promise or intend to) praise the Lord."



> Ps 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me: because [he is] at my right hand, I _shall_ not be moved.



Being explitive in the first person, 'shall' simply foretells. There is no promise or intention anexed to the word, only the event. The Psalmist is simply foretelling the event of his not being moved, but his 'intentions' or 'desires' are not in view.

Am I on the right track?

BTW, I agree with you etexas.


----------



## MW (Aug 3, 2008)

KMK said:


> Am I on the right track?



Well noted. I learnt the difference from Fowler's King's English and he explained it in much the same way, only he notes subjunctive differences as well (p. 147, 3rd edition):

"I shall, you will, die some day.
Shall I, will they, be here to-morrow?
We should, he would, have consecrated if you had asked.
Should we, would he, have missed you if you had been there?
I should, you would, like a bathe.
Should I, would he, like it myself, himself?"

These come somewhat instinctively if you have the advantage to learn Greek or Latin from classical scholars who insist on the shall/will distinction in translation.


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Am I on the right track?
> ...



Can we assume that the KJ translators would have used these same distinctions? (Since I don't know Hebrew)


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 3, 2008)

KMK said:


> This is from "A Short Introduction to English Grammar" linked above:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or to put it another way, the Psalmist is stating the impossibility of his being moved due to the precondition of his setting the LORD always before him. He is referring to the consequence and not his intent. So yes I would agree. I've always read 'shall' as referring to that which must be done regardless of one's desires or intent. I might not feel like reading my Bible daily, memorizing it and meditating upon it, but I'd better do it anyways. Another one of those moments where God doesn't care how I feel, I just need to obey.

As to the AV always being right, if it was good enough for the scripture proofs of the Westminster Confession and its catechisms, it's good enough for me!    Besides, I can't understand modern versions. They make no sense to me. Using you for both singular and plural 2nd person pronouns. No -est & -eth ending to let me know what's going on. Greek verbs changed into English nouns, Hebrew idioms turned into convoluted english sayings. No built-in dictionary to let me know what words mean. No alliteration, no consonance rhyming, no assonance rhyming, no slant rhyme, no eye-rhyme, no sense rhyme. Maybe it's just the old Anglo-Saxon language I enjoy. Forceful, to the point, and majestic at the same time, got to love that. And of course any version that has 'propitiation' is automatically excellent. For fun you might try the Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus. Makes you wonder about word choices in the modern versions. You could also try WordNet - Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory


----------



## KMK (Aug 4, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > This is from "A Short Introduction to English Grammar" linked above:
> ...



This is exactly where I was going. Could we say the same thing for God's explicative statements?

I bookmarked the WordNet site. It looks awesome.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 4, 2008)

KMK said:


> This is exactly where I was going. Could we say the same thing for God's explicative statements?
> 
> I bookmarked the WordNet site. It looks awesome.



Your question reminded me of another book Elements of English Grammar: With a ... - Google Book Search

As long as it is understood that what God wills or intends is always in line with what God does or requires of himself. To me, when it applies to us, it is another example of how we are to emulate God. I see implicit in 'shall' commands the further command to conform my desire to God's word. (2 Cor 10:4,5) 

Or did I misunderstand your question?


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Am I on the right track?
> ...



The King's English ... - Google Book Search

After learning Greek & Latin cases I understood English better. I can now find the direct & indirect object with ease. 

Found these Greek and Latin textbooks for learning those languages:

A New Method of Learning with ... - Google Book Search

Internet Archive: Details: A new method of learning with facility the Latin tongue. . . Enlarged with variety of solid remarks ... with a treatise on Latin poetry

Internet Archive: Details: A new method of learning with facility the Latin tongue. . . Enlarged with variety of solid remarks ... with a treatise on Latin poetry

Claude Lancelot worked with the Port Royal group. While their universal grammar is not yet translated from the French their Logic is.

And of course Adler's books used by the LATINUM Podcast:

A Practical Grammar of the Latin ... - Google Book Search

A Key to the Exercises Contained in ... - Google Book Search

In case you're wondering I have a folder on my computer labeled 'Trivium' with all of the books I've linked to. I also have some older textbooks on Physics, Mathematics, Syriac, Persian, Egyptian, Music, & Penmanship.


----------



## MW (Aug 4, 2008)

KMK said:


> Can we assume that the KJ translators would have used these same distinctions? (Since I don't know Hebrew)



I'd only be venturing an educated guess, but I would say the grammarians are noting a stylistic feature which would probably have developed as a result of the Elizabethan movement; the AV would therefore instinctively reflect these distinctions even if they were not yet written in stone.


----------



## KMK (Aug 5, 2008)

> Ps 50:15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I _will_ deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.



The Lord is saying that He 'intends/promises/desires' to deliver us when we call upon Him. And we 'intend/promise/desire' to glorify Him when He provides deliverance. 

It is not just that God foretells of His deliverance, but He actually 'intendes/desires' to deliver.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 5, 2008)

*Another issue in linguistic distinction*

(How's that post title for pompousness! I do try!)

Your question about the will/shall distinction in the AV got me to thinking about other places where understanding the AV hinges upon a proper understanding of "Classical English."

The AV refers to the Holy Ghost as 'itself' in Rom 8:16 & 26. Is it wrong to do so? I think this is another area where familiarity with older English grammars removes confusion of some areas in the AV. If 'itself' is taken reflectively then it can refer to male, female, or neuter. So, while it might appear to refer to the Holy Ghost as an it, upon inspection it is grammatically correct.

You make me wonder what other word distinctions there are.


----------



## KMK (Aug 5, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> (How's that post title for pompousness! I do try!)
> 
> Your question about the will/shall distinction in the AV got me to thinking about other places where understanding the AV hinges upon a proper understanding of "Classical English."
> 
> ...



Excellent observation.

I am now trying to grasp the distinction between 'would' and 'should'. I am going to continue delving into the awesome resources you have linked in this thread. I am a big fan of the accuracy of the Classical English in the AV because of its accuracy.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 9, 2008)

*Auto to pneuma*

Something I thought you might find interesting about Rom 8:16, 26. 'The Spirit itself' can also be translated as 'the same Spirit' because of the reflexive usage of 'auto' in context. In verse 16 'auto' is referencing the same Spirit from verse 14 and 15 which makes us cry 'Abba Father.' In verse 26 the Spirit in the latter half of the verse is referencing the Spirit in the first half of the verse and back to verse 23.

Or the 'self same Spirit' can be used. But neither of these are as clear as 'the Spirit itself.' Fowler's English deals with the reflexive use of pronouns. He cause them reflective.

When I look in a Greek grammar such as Moulton's or Sophocles' I'm more amazed at the accuracy and simplicity of the GV and AV translators.


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 9, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> ...got me to thinking about other places where understanding the AV hinges upon a proper understanding of "Classical English."



That's what I meant above!


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 9, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > ...got me to thinking about other places where understanding the AV hinges upon a proper understanding of "Classical English."
> ...



The rock band?

Still haven't found anything for modern english. The closest help I've found, modern english being a subjective term, is the book referenced by Matthew on Fowler's The King's English. I linked to it in one of my above posts. There is another Fowler who wrote, The English Language in Its Elements ... - Google Book Search. Solomon Barrett's Principles of Grammar and and Hermes a Philosophical Inquiry by James Harris are also good resources for mastering English. Both are available at Google Books. The material in them will definitely help you with "modern english."

Hope this helps. If not just PM me with exactly what you're looking for. I may already have found a PDF file that matches your needs. At least it'll save you the hassle.


----------

