This post is akin to "The lady doth protest too much!" But its a guy instead. And breaking into a soliloquy and saying "'Tis now the very witching time of night!"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the KJV too difficult?
- Thread starter Anthony Pritchard
- Start date
- Status
This post is akin to "The lady doth protest too much!" But its a guy instead. And breaking into a soliloquy and saying "'Tis now the very witching time of night!"
Mike B
Active Member
You've got me confused here. In what version of John 1 do they use something other than "Word"?
37818
Well-Known Member
The modern English has thrown out the singular pronouns, thee, thy, thou, thine. A meaning in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Creek. Which is part of translation!
Define "word".
Mike B
Active Member
You said: "The KJV's use of "Word" in John 1 is not an adequate representation......"
Your comment sounds as if the KJV was unique in that regard. I inquired as to what version used something
other than "Word".... not a definition.
KJV: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIV: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ESV: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Yep, now I'm confused x 2...
As a definition, I can offer you this: Strong's Greek: 3056. λόγος (logos) -- Word, speech, message, account, reason, doctrine
37818
Well-Known Member
Mostly omit use of the singular pronouns.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
No they don't. It is just that current English uses the same word for second person singular as for second person plural. Besides, what about I/me, he/him, she/her and it/its? They are all singular pronouns and there are plenty of them in all English translations of the Bible.
Bill Fortenberry asserted: “The KJV is the only English translation currently in print with a distinction between the singular and plural forms of the second-person pronouns. None of the modern TR translations accurately preserve this important distinction” (False Friends, p. 44; Stewardship, p. 24).
Some of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew’s Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible are currently in print. The 1833 Webster’s Bible which was reprinted in 1987, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible [also called the New Authorized Version], and the 2013 Jubilee Bible edited by Russell Stendal still preserve this distinction in second person pronouns.
Trying to retain all aspects of the grammar of another language in a different language is not required in Bible translation. The KJV itself does not retain all aspects of the Hebrew syntax and Greek syntax in English.
William Mounce maintained that “because Greek is an inflected language, Greek writers are comfortable separating pronouns from their antecedents by quite some distance” while “English requires pronouns to be much closer to their antecedent” (Greek for the Rest of Us, pp. 103-104). Alan Macgregor asserted: “Hebrew makes a gender distinction for second and third person pronouns (singular and plural) as it does also with singular demonstrative pronouns. The Greek has feminine third person plural pronouns, and feminine reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. However, the English language is incapable of effectively translating these” (400 Years On, p. 254). William Mounce noted: “In English all imperatives are second person; in Greek there are second and third person imperatives” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 194). John Beekman and John Callow wrote: “In New Testament documents, the singular form is used with plural reference with all three persons” (Translating, p. 107). Beekman and Callow asserted: “The use of the second person singular for the plural is found throughout the New Testament” (p. 108).
Yes. And as evidence I asked you to define the English word "word". You did not. You provded different English words are used for the Greek logos. I was not asking for a concordance reference but the actual definition for "word".
The English "word" is not an accurate representation of logos in John 1. It is simply the best we have (there is not a direct corresponding English word).
Jesus is not "a speech sound that symbolizes a meaning" or "a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word".
I was not criticizing the use of "word". I was illustrating that translation is not a matching game.
Modern language uses the context to identify singular pronouns. It is not that singular and plural is not identified but instead how they are identified.
This is one reason we need to move from the KJV in evangelism. It is not a translation in the English used today.
The Greek could have been more precise if God had chosen Attic Greek instead of using the common language (you would then see more of the optative mood, clarifying what we gather by context in koine Greek).
But God used the common language rather than relying on the more percise Attic Greek.
If one struggles with context then they may need singular pronouns. The catch 22 is that if they lack the ability to deal with context then they will probably lack the ability to deal with antiquated English.
Think of it this way, @37818 -
If a reader struggles to read a book (a western, science fiction, biography, etc) and understand the usage of "you" (singular, plural) then what are the chances they could deal with archaic English?
The "singular pronouns" argument is based on using Scripture as sort of a code or scientific manual. That is an error.
If a young man can understand Harry Potter, or Call of the Wild then translating God's Word in our current language would not create an obstacle.
If a reader struggles to read a book (a western, science fiction, biography, etc) and understand the usage of "you" (singular, plural) then what are the chances they could deal with archaic English?
The "singular pronouns" argument is based on using Scripture as sort of a code or scientific manual. That is an error.
If a young man can understand Harry Potter, or Call of the Wild then translating God's Word in our current language would not create an obstacle.
Mike B
Active Member
I believe I now understand your point.
The inserting part comes when reading God's Word.
"In the beginning was the Word". But God used "logos", and the English "word" is does not carry the the same meaning.
So is John 1:1 God's Word?
I have to say the English words are not God's Word in a physical sense. They symbolize thoughts. And we must study the English words as a translation (regardless of which translation we use).
So we study the meaning of logos. Is the Greek God's Word?
Again, we run into the similar issue. In a physical sense the Greek is not God's Word. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. But His words are recorded in Greek.
Words as words are symbols for expressions. It is what these words communicate that are the words of God.
So any legitimate translation is God's Word. But we have to study every translation to arrive at God's Word (and we must study them as a translation).
This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new one.
(admin note: very interesting thread!)
- Status