. . . person singular pronoun indifference?

[37818]

. . . person singular pronoun indifference reading God's word?
Do you use such a modern Bible translation, without care?

 

[Ben1445]

. . . person singular pronoun indifference reading God's word?
Do you use such a modern Bible translation, without care?

No.
Would you care to give some examples of what you are talking about?

And specifically, what are the implications of doing so?

Which versions are most guilty?

 

[37818]

No.
Would you care to give some examples of what you are talking about?

And specifically, what are the implications of doing so?

Which versions are most guilty?

Really?
Most translations which do not use the thee, thy, thou and thine pronouns because they are no longer being used in everyday speech.

 

[37818]

KJV
1881 ERV
1890 Darby translation
1901 ASV

 

[Logos1560]

Most translations which do not use the thee, thy, thou and thine pronouns because they are no longer being used in everyday speech.

So what? Those archaic pronouns are not present standard Modern English. The word of God is not bound or limited to archaic English pronouns. The word of God can be translated into present Modern English.

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). John Beekman and John Callow asserted: “The use of the second person singular for the plural is found throughout the New Testament” (p. 108).

 

[37818]

.

So what? Those archaic pronouns are not present standard Modern English. The word of God is not bound or limited to archaic English pronouns. The word of God can be translated into present Modern English.

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). John Beekman and John Callow asserted: “The use of the second person singular for the plural is found throughout the New Testament” (p. 108).matt

In the OT Hebrew, Aramic and the NT Greek it still matters.
Matthew 5:18, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Logos1560]

.

In the OT Hebrew, Aramic and the NT Greek it still matters.
Matthew 5:18, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

A post-NT Bible translation does not preserve, transfer, and keep all aspects of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic and all aspects of the Greek of the New Testament. Post-NT Bible translations are a different category than untranslated preserved original-language texts of Scripture.


E. W. Bullinger observed: “There are figures used in the English language, which have nothing that answers to them in Hebrew or Greek; and there are Oriental figures which have no counterpart in English” (Figures of Speech, p. xv). Concerning one figure, Bullinger noted: “This figure is common to all languages, but the instances cannot readily be translated from one language into another” (p. 307). In one example of such figures, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Acrostics, like many other figures, occur only in the Originals, and cannot be reproduced in a translation” (p. 188). Concerning Psalm 111, Bullinger noted: “The Psalm has twenty-two lines, which commence successively with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet” (p. 182). Concerning Psalm 119, E. W. Bullinger observed that in this Acrostic Psalm “the eight verses of each group begin with the same letter” (p. 182). Bullinger maintained that the first chapter of Lamentations is an acrostic which “consists of 22 verses, each of which commences with a successive letter of the alphabet” (p. 185). In another example, E. W. Bullinger claimed: “This figure [alliteration] is seen, of course, only in the Hebrew and the Greek. It is difficult to reproduce it in a translation” (p. 171). In still another example, Bullinger observed: “This figure [repetition of inflections] belongs peculiarly to the Original languages and cannot always be transferred in translation” (p. 177).

Steve Combs asserted: “There is no perfect tense in English that matches the Greek perfect tense. There is no exact equivalent” (Practical Theology, p. 106). William D. Mounce maintained that “Greek does have a category of verbs called ‘deponent’ verbs” and that “a deponent verb is one that is passive in its form but active in its meaning” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 147). KJV-only author Gail RIplinger admitted: “The verb tenses of the Greek language do not have direct equivalents in English” (In Awe, p. 283).

William D. Mounce asserted: “Because we do not have a dative case in English, we cannot say something in the same way as it is said in Greek” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 229). William Mounce observed: “A Greek sentence does not require an expressed subject,” and he added: “It is also common for Greek to drop a verb’s direct object, and English translators must add them back in” (p. 149). Dave Brunn gave an example of where the direct object was left out in the Greek at Luke 2:49 so that “the part of the verse that is translated ‘house’ or ‘business’ is left blank in Greek” (One Bible, p. 168).

 

[37818]

One attempt:
www.ModernLiteralVersion.org It is very important to read the Non-Bible pages at least once so you understand the MLV much better and its style.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There are a very few places where the question of 2nd person singular or plural is important (Luke 22:31-32; John 3:7). Generally, however, as in conversation, the context will reveal the number.
There is a simple way to resolve this problem without reverting to 16th Century language. William Hendriksen, in his New Testament commentaries, used to space out 'y o u' and 'y o u r' for plurals and to leave the singulars as 'you' and 'yours.'

 

[Ascetic X]

Really?
Most translations which do not use the thee, thy, thou and thine pronouns because they are no longer being used in everyday speech.

If thee, thou, and thine are no longer used in everyday speech, why should they be used in the Bible?

Why make the scriptures sound archaic like Shakespeare?

The Roman Catholic Church used to demand that all biblical texts and liturgies be in Latin, for that was the language used by intellectuals, while the average people didn’t understand a word of it.

Using the outdated thee, thou, and thine in modern Bible translations would not make the scriptures more reverent or pious.

When speaking to an individual, Koine Greek uses forms of σύ (su):

• • Nominative (Subject): σύ (su) — You
  • Genitive (Possessive / "of you"): σου (sou) — your / of you
  • Dative ("to/for you"): σοι (soi) — to you / for you
  • Accusative (Direct Object): σέ (se) — you
  
  When speaking to a group or congregation, Koine Greek shifts to the plural forms (often humorously compared to "y'all" in English pedagogy):
  
  • • Nominative (Subject): ὑμεῖς (hymeis) — you (all) / y'all
    • Genitive (Possessive / "of you all"): ὑμῶν (hymōn) — your (plural) / of you all
    • Dative ("to/for you all"): ὑμῖν (hymin) — to you all / for you all
    • Accusative (Direct Object): ὑμᾶς (hymas) — you (all)
    • Even if the pronoun (σύ or ὑμεῖς) is omitted—which is common in Greek since the verb ending itself reveals the number—the conjugation of the verb tells you immediately whether an individual or a group is being addressed.
    • Theological Context: Spotting whether a command or promise uses a singular su or a plural hymeisclarifies whether a statement applies to an individual believer or the corporate body of the church.

 

[Ascetic X]

One attempt:
www.ModernLiteralVersion.org It is very important to read the Non-Bible pages at least once so you understand the MLV much better and its style.

This version is really not so literal after all.

It contains paraphrases like other modern translations.

EXAMPLE

John 1:4 MLV

And the Word became flesh and resided among us (and we saw his glory, glory like that of the only begotten from the Father), full of favor and truth.


Resided among us. Literally means "pitched his tent" or "tabernacled". In the Old Testament, God's presence dwelt among the Israelites in the portable wilderness tabernacle; in Jesus, God pitched a human tent and lived among people.

Only begotten (monogenēs): Unique, one-and-only Son sharing the exact nature and substance of the Father.

Thus, the MLV claim is false.

Word for Word. Open source. Not for profit.
No denomination or publishing company agendas, no paraphrasing.

 

[Ben1445]

Really?
Most translations which do not use the thee, thy, thou and thine pronouns because they are no longer being used in everyday speech.

Yes, really.

But the real reason I asked for examples is because when I tried to look up your jargon and gobbledygook, I got a bunch of LGBTQ stuff. Then I really wanted to know what you were talking about.

 

[JonC]

.

In the OT Hebrew, Aramic and the NT Greek it still matters.
Matthew 5:18, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Law has been fulfilled. Jesus said that was why He came.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

. . . person singular pronoun indifference reading God's word?
Do you use such a modern Bible translation, without care?

I think you're highlighting something many modern readers never notice.

Most people today see:

• thou = old-fashioned you
• ye = old-fashioned you

Historically, however, they were not interchangeable.

• Thou, thee, thy, thine = singular
• Ye, you, your, yours = plural

That distinction often allows the reader to see details in the text that modern English no longer naturally preserves. In some passages, knowing whether a statement is directed to one person or to a group can make a significant difference in understanding the passage.

While the older pronouns may sound archaic to modern ears, they were not used merely for style. They conveyed grammatical information that English has largely lost.

 

[Logos1560]

At Jeremiah 34:16, many KJV editions interchanged "he" [singular] and "ye" [plural].

Jeremiah 34:16 [whom ye--1560 Geneva, 1568 & 1602 Bishops]

whom you (2002, 2010 KJVER)

whom ye (1968 Oxford, Oxford Classic, 1996 SSB, NPB) [1812, 1816, 1817, 1873, 1985, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CCR, CSTE, DKJB, 2011 PMR, 2011 Transetto Text, 2011 Cameo, 2011 Clarion] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1976 London} (1637 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1821 Brown) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1839, 1845, 1854 Harding) (1843 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1848 Hartford) (1952 Judson) (1956, 1957, 1958, 1975, 1999 Collins) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1970, 1976 TN) (1972 NMRB) (1973, 1976 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (1976 OGH) (1976 TBR) (1987, 1988 IBS) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2010 ZOND) (DSB) (JVIPB) (LPB) (VFC) (1996 ELKJV) (2001, 2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2015p, 2016, 2022, 2023, 2024 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (KJVJB) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2011p, 2021, 2022 HEND) (2008, 2012 ROASB) (NHPB) (2009 Ruckman) (2009 Strand) (ASB) (2011 AMP) (TBS-WT) (2011 KJVDB) (2011 WB) (HKJVSB) (NCE) (2012 Biblica) (2013 CC) (2013 HMB) (2013, 2014 TGS) (2014 HKJVSBps) (2014 RHKJVSB) (2015 KAPPA) (2017 CMRB) (2018 Spurgeon) (2019, 2019p Holman) (2021 EVSB) (2022 FMSB) (2026 MB)

whom he (1675, 1681, 1709, 1713, 1720, 1737, 1743, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1769 Oxford, 1952 PE, SRB) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1795, 1800, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1613, 1616, 1644, 1648, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1698, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1795, 1811, 1813, 1817, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1838, 1853, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1715, 1722, 1735, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1843, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1722, 1762, 1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1790, 1804 MH) (1791 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1792, 1831 Brown) (1799 Helston) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Blomfield) (1804 Gower) (1807 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1810, 1814 Woodward) (1815 Walpole) (1816, 1836 Hartford) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1840, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1826 Clarke) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1836 Stebbing) (1840 Roby) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Coldstream) (1846 Benson) (1850, 1856 AFBS) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1876 Harding) (1895, 1958, 1997 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1876 Porter) (1905, 1945, 1954, 1989, 1991, 1998, 2004 World) (1908, 1957, 1964, 2007, 2022 TCRB) (1910 Collins) (1911 TCE) (1923 NIB) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1940, 1976, 1979-1, 1979-2, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2010, 2013 Holman) (1942 UBBH) (1947 SP) (1948 WSE) (1959 Little) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1961 NBP) (1972, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2018, 2022 TN) (1973 WAP) (1974 MBI) (1975 CBP) (Nave’s) (1976 BH) (1984 MME) (1985, 2019 Open) (1985 VB) (1987 Dugan) (1987 PSI) (Dake’s) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (MSB) (LASB) (1984, 1991, 2008 AMG) (1990 REG) (KJVPBC) (2000 Rainbow) (CHSB) (EB) (RSB) (Life) (KJVCB) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (2007 SFCB) (CNB) (2008 Pilot) (2010, 2015 Baker) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (APB) (2011 PJB) (2012 F-S) (2012 WSB) (HMSB) (2014 TSB) (2015 KJVFSB) (2017 KWSB) (2022 SB) (2023 KJVWSRB) (2024 FGWB)



At Ezekiel 24:5, "him" [singular] in the 1611 edition of the KJV was interchanged with "them" [plural] in the 1638 Cambridge KJV edition.

Ezekiel 24:5

let him seethe (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1812, 1816, 1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1648, 1657, 1672, 1698 London} (1637, 1638 Edinburgh) (1645 Dutch) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1821 Brown) (1843 AFBS)

let him seeth [1648 Cambridge] {1634, 1640, 1652, 1655 London}

let them see (1790 Bolton)

let them seeth (1769, 1773, 1813 Oxford) [1762, 1769, 1775 Cambridge] {1717 London} (1790, 1804 MH)

let them seethe (1768 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1743, 1760 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Deacon]

While the older pronouns may sound archaic to modern ears, they were not used merely for style. They conveyed grammatical information that English has largely lost.

In modern speech the grammatical information is not so overtly conveyed within the context of a conversation.

The use of "thee's and thou's" is a form of speech that is obviously archaic.
'Victorian' or King James–style forms of communication is simply not necessary.

The use of it communicates an uppity, pretentious distance from others and a religious superiority - something that is generally avoided in polite conversation today.

Rob

 

[David Lamb]

. . . person singular pronoun indifference reading God's word?
Do you use such a modern Bible translation, without care?

Whatever translation we use, we should never read the Bible without care. As for pronouns, I imagine you are thinking particularly of the 2nd person pronoun, which in current English is "you" in both singular and plural. We usually manage to understand each other, as well as books, newspapers and periodicals perfectly well without constantly asking, "Is that "you" singular or plural?" As far as the Bible is concerned, it is usually clear from the context whether singular or plural is meant. For instance, when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, and saying, "You must be born again," the "you" must be singular, because He was addressing one person, Nicodemus. However, when He said:

NKJV Mat 23:28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

He was addressing the Scribes and Pharisees, so the "you" must be plural.

 

[David Lamb]

.

In the OT Hebrew, Aramic and the NT Greek it still matters.
Matthew 5:18, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

But the context tells us that Jesus was speaking to more than one person:

NKJV Mat 5:2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

So when verse 18 says "you" it is clearly plural.

 

[Ben1445]

The use of it communicates an uppity, pretentious distance from others and a religious superiority - something that is generally avoided in polite conversation today.

I think it were better if Christians who were confronted with this, especially in Scripture, were slower to be offended. The use of the words as insult is merely perceived insult and that is a problem on the receiving end.

 

[Foxmeister]

For instance, when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, and saying, "You must be born again," the "you" must be singular, because He was addressing one person, Nicodemus.

True, he was addressing Nicodemus at the time. However, we can take that to also mean all mankind must be born again.