GulfCoast Presbyterian
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, many. Frankly, most young folks today don't understand that there ever was a difference between nominative and objective pronouns. Its all "you" to them.
Question for Byzantine Text Users
- Thread starter PointyHaired Calvinist
- Start date
- Status
Yes, many. Frankly, most young folks today don't understand that there ever was a difference between nominative and objective pronouns. Its all "you" to them.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
Really? I find that hard to believe. So, "thou shalt not kill" is unintelligible to young folks?
Hmmmmm.
-Rob
Really? I find that hard to believe. So, "thou shalt not kill" is unintelligible to young folks?
Hmmmmm.
-Rob
GulfCoast Presbyterian
Puritan Board Senior
No. What they don't know is the difference or disctinction between "thee" and "thou."
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Thee, Thou was foreign to the average illiterate person in 1611 London as well. It takes all of 5 seconds to explain the difference. Kids are smart enough to figure it out.
My point was only to show that precision with the original reading should be supported by precision with translation of that reading. If people can "get along" with imprecision in the translation, then it is somewhat imbalanced to make so much fuss over the original. As for thee/thou, it continues to be used in religious contexts, so it is not redundant. No matter how small the context may be, a word is meaningful if it is used in context.
Your use of "vulgar" confirms that a word used in a narrow context can still be understood notwithstanding the changes that word has undergone. The Bible is literature, not spoken language. The "vulgar" literature continues to use the pronominal distinctions long after they have fallen out of use in every day speech. There is a proper convention in English for distinguishing between singular and plural second person pronouns. Accuracy of translation demands the use of conventional language for conveying the meaning of the original.
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
The problem with "thee" and "thou" is that most people think it is merely archaic; it was not until I started really studying the issue that I realized "thee/thou" was singular, and "ye/you" are plural. Others think it is "respectful" address to God or a superior (Darth Vader - "What is thy bidding, my master.")
The modern mind does not conceive of "thee or thou" the way the 1611 translators and their predecessors did. *I* have no problem with the language of the AV, but I would probably prefer a you/you* distinction for the general audience. A quick mention before a sermon would remind the congregation of the asterisk.
Let me also say this is why I like the NKJV; like the translators of the AV, this one seems to be translated in a way it was understandable, but not common. It is not dumbed down, and not so common speech that it will die out and quickly need multiple revisions. An occasional update is fine, but the NKJV seems to have a timelessness in a way the KJV had at its time. Neither is street speech, but both in their times can be understood by the "average Joe."
The modern mind does not conceive of "thee or thou" the way the 1611 translators and their predecessors did. *I* have no problem with the language of the AV, but I would probably prefer a you/you* distinction for the general audience. A quick mention before a sermon would remind the congregation of the asterisk.
Let me also say this is why I like the NKJV; like the translators of the AV, this one seems to be translated in a way it was understandable, but not common. It is not dumbed down, and not so common speech that it will die out and quickly need multiple revisions. An occasional update is fine, but the NKJV seems to have a timelessness in a way the KJV had at its time. Neither is street speech, but both in their times can be understood by the "average Joe."
The fact is, the Bible must be interpreted according to the grammatico-historical method. Grammar is not something to be invented. Creating a new grammatical convention only narrows the possibility for understanding. Let the people learn English. It won't harm them. If they are desirous of knowledge they will appreciate the opportunity. If they don't want to learn there is no new invention in the world which will overcome it. There is no good to be gained by creating new conventions; it can only lead to more confusion.
Matthew,
Could not one have made the same point about the AV? It certainly introduced "new conventions" that were not present in the Geneva, Tyndale or other English Bibles. Why would those particular new conventions (which replaced conventions not nearly as old as the AV) be more desirable?
Are you thinking of Hebraisms, etc.? These are idiomatic, and part of the commitment to formal equivalence. I don't think anyone would class them as new grammar. The use of thee/thou, though mostly out of use in common speech at the time, was retained for the purpose of accuracy.
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
Has anyone read Gary Zeolla's book on Bible Translations? I know he is a Byzantine Text supporter, and a pretty enthusiastic NKJV proponent. I downloaded the Kindle preview which piqued my interest more. For anyone who has read him, does he present a good Byzantine-Priority argument?
KaphLamedh
Puritan Board Freshman
Tyndale + Matthew Bible
Well, I used NASB for long time and also KJV. I tried to use ESV, but always I found NASB easier to read. I bought Tyndale's New Testament in modern spelling and somehow it feels better than KJV...I don't know why, maybe I feel so much sympathy for William because his martyrdom. There are some verses that are interesting in Tyndale's NT, like 2.thess. 2:7 in comparison to KJV. There is New Matthew Bible Project (google it...). It is interesting that Tyndale uses word Easter in many places instead of Passover and he also uses word "congregation" while KJV uses "church". For me who's native language is not English word "congregation" is better than "church", because it is "warm" word, while church is something ("too") big...
Tyndale used Bysantine texts BWT
Well, I used NASB for long time and also KJV. I tried to use ESV, but always I found NASB easier to read. I bought Tyndale's New Testament in modern spelling and somehow it feels better than KJV...I don't know why, maybe I feel so much sympathy for William because his martyrdom. There are some verses that are interesting in Tyndale's NT, like 2.thess. 2:7 in comparison to KJV. There is New Matthew Bible Project (google it...). It is interesting that Tyndale uses word Easter in many places instead of Passover and he also uses word "congregation" while KJV uses "church". For me who's native language is not English word "congregation" is better than "church", because it is "warm" word, while church is something ("too") big...
Tyndale used Bysantine texts BWT
Phil
Puritan Board Freshman
"Let the people learn English." Sorry--that's not biblical or confessional.
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
The statement was made in the context of a discussion on "English" Bible versions. Obviously it is referring to English speakers learning English. 1 Corinthians 14 requires one to speak in a known language, not to accommodate speech to a half-known language.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
