-
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!
The question KJVOs cannot seem to answer
- Thread starter try hard
- Start date
Yes, it is. I got my ESV for half price at Hastings the week before Easter.Clearance is a beautiful thing
Every year around Easter Hastings sells all its Bibles for half price; I'm not sure if they do it any other time of year. It's a good time to scoop up a bargain.
Eric,
I see BrianT already answered your question about thee/thou/thy versus ye/you/your. I would only add by way of response that I don't think it would be that confusing to bring these pronouns back. But this brings up one of the things that disturbs me about the thinking that goes into so much modern translation, and that is the tendency to assume that the reader isn't very intelligent. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it is getting harder to avoid such a conclusion all the time.
Pastork
I see BrianT already answered your question about thee/thou/thy versus ye/you/your. I would only add by way of response that I don't think it would be that confusing to bring these pronouns back. But this brings up one of the things that disturbs me about the thinking that goes into so much modern translation, and that is the tendency to assume that the reader isn't very intelligent. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it is getting harder to avoid such a conclusion all the time.
Pastork
Well, people use what they want to use, and translations like the NIV have become hugely popular because people have decided they prefer to read the Bible in modern English istead of grappling with 400-year-old Elizabethan English. It hasn't been imposed on anyone, it's something people have chosen. I don't think that's a sign of lack of intelligence, I think that shows people prefer to read the Bible in language that they are familiar with rather than learning new words and grammar.
I'm glad options are available, it'll be a sad day if KJV ever goes out of print, but at the same time I'm glad people can choose to read the Bible in modern English if they want to. Not having grown up with the KJV (or any other Bible, for that matter) I find modern translations much, much easier to read and understand. I'm not sure whether that means I'm "not very intelligent", but if so, so be it.
I know beyond a doubt that I know much, much more about what the Bible says than I would if I had stuck with the KJV. I couldn't plow my way through hardly any Scripture until I got an NIV, and within 15 months of getting an NIV I had read every book of the Bible at least once.
Eric
[ September 16, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
Eric,
Sorry for the opaque post that left you with a wrong impression about the point I was intending to make. I was not really criticizing the attempt to update the language, rather I was criticizing the tendency to dumb down the language. For example, it is getting increasingly more difficult to find translations that aim at anything above a sixth grade reading level. I would not even assume that this trend is occuring through bad intentions. I just think it is unfortunate. There was a time when the effort was put into educating people up to the level of the Bible. Now there is reluctance to even try to teach them that "thee" is the singular for "you". Again, I am all for updating the language of a translation when this really does help to better capture in English the meaning of the original, but dropping thee/thy/thou etc. has not done this. Rather, it has obscured the meaning.
As far as people liking not to have to learn new words and grammar, you are probably right, but isn't it unavoidable? After all, how many people would typically need to learn the real meaning of words like propitiation or sanctification aside from reading the Bible? Besides, what is so bad about learning a larger vocabulary, especially if it actually better represents the intent of the bible writers?
At any rate, I hope I have made clearer the kinds of concerns I really had in mind.
Pastork
[ September 17, 2002, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
Sorry for the opaque post that left you with a wrong impression about the point I was intending to make. I was not really criticizing the attempt to update the language, rather I was criticizing the tendency to dumb down the language. For example, it is getting increasingly more difficult to find translations that aim at anything above a sixth grade reading level. I would not even assume that this trend is occuring through bad intentions. I just think it is unfortunate. There was a time when the effort was put into educating people up to the level of the Bible. Now there is reluctance to even try to teach them that "thee" is the singular for "you". Again, I am all for updating the language of a translation when this really does help to better capture in English the meaning of the original, but dropping thee/thy/thou etc. has not done this. Rather, it has obscured the meaning.
As far as people liking not to have to learn new words and grammar, you are probably right, but isn't it unavoidable? After all, how many people would typically need to learn the real meaning of words like propitiation or sanctification aside from reading the Bible? Besides, what is so bad about learning a larger vocabulary, especially if it actually better represents the intent of the bible writers?
At any rate, I hope I have made clearer the kinds of concerns I really had in mind.
Pastork
[ September 17, 2002, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
Scanning back over this forum, I can't find where a KJVO person was able to answer the original question. Maverick tried and made essentially told me he was TR only. That proves nothing.
Why is ok to say the 1611 is the perfect word of God when the revision vary from the 1611 in spelling, punctuation, and even added words? There are words in our 1769 that are not in the 1611, but in the TR. That means the 1611 does not agree 100% with the TR. (As neither does the 1769)
The 1611 is not the perfect preserved word of God. The perfect word of God doesn't need correcting. When God "breathes" something, it is perfect.
Why is ok to say the 1611 is the perfect word of God when the revision vary from the 1611 in spelling, punctuation, and even added words? There are words in our 1769 that are not in the 1611, but in the TR. That means the 1611 does not agree 100% with the TR. (As neither does the 1769)
The 1611 is not the perfect preserved word of God. The perfect word of God doesn't need correcting. When God "breathes" something, it is perfect.
DocCas
New Member
I am not certain that any of our KJVO brethren (and remember, they are brethren, not our enemies) have claimed the KJV of 1611 slavishy follows any TR in existance in 1611, nor that the 1762/1769 editions follow any TR in existance when they were published. The only TR which follows the KJV (and it follows the KJV, not the other way around) is Scrivener's 1894 TR and that was deliberately edited to indicate the source words used by the translators of 1611, and even he admits there were about a half dozen cases where he could not find the source of the word choice.
So, why are you asking the KJVO brethren to substantiate something they never claimed?
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
That is correct. Y'all is 2nd person plural inclusive of those being addressed. All o' y'all is 2nd person plural inclusive of everyone within the given population, currently present or not.
"Now the God of peace be with all o' y'all. Amen." (Romans 15:33)
That is correct. Y'all is 2nd person plural inclusive of those being addressed. All o' y'all is 2nd person plural inclusive of everyone within the given population, currently present or not.
"Now the God of peace be with all o' y'all. Amen." (Romans 15:33)</font>[/QUOTE]Thee | You
Thou | You
Thine | Yours
Ye | Y'all
You | Y'all
Yours | Y'all's
Hmmm, we're making progress but it still looks like some meaning is lost. Thee and Ye are subject pronouns and Thou and You are object pronouns, right?
Eric
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
No, thou is subjective and thee is objective. You is both. Ye was originally plural subjective, and is used that way in the KJV, but dictionaries say it became used in literature for any case, any number.
Without 'researcing' it is my conclusion that these overlappings and multiple words are the result of so many languages having a part in the development of English.
"So, why are you asking the KJVO brethren to substantiate something they never claimed?"
So what exactly do they claim DocCas?
This is my understanding:
1611: perfect (KJVO claim)
TR: perfect (KJVO claim)
Than TR must equal 1611, but it can't if it isn't 100% because that would mean it isn't perfect.
It looks to me like KJVO people believe in "God inspired errors". Makes no sense to me.
So what exactly do they claim DocCas?
This is my understanding:
1611: perfect (KJVO claim)
TR: perfect (KJVO claim)
Than TR must equal 1611, but it can't if it isn't 100% because that would mean it isn't perfect.
It looks to me like KJVO people believe in "God inspired errors". Makes no sense to me.
DocCas
New Member
We would have to let them make their own claims. It is not for me to say they claim this or that when, in fact, they may not. And to assert they claim something when, in fact, they may not make that claim, just gives them more fuel to throw on the fire. Let's deal with their actual claims. There certainly seems to be enough fodder for the canon in what they have said so we don't have to make any assumptions about what we think they may claim.
Thank you DocCas.
I am just trying to find what they believe about this and I am trying to "so to speak" beat it out of them. I don't necessarly know for sure that is what they believe, it just is my understanding based on statements heard by KJVO's.
So here I am, still waiting on a good answer by one of them to my question.
So here I am, still waiting on a good answer by one of them to my question.
J
Japheth
Guest
Those so called "changes" were nothing but revisions(which have already been discussed.)1611,1613,1644,1664,1701,1769,and 1850, was NOT a departure from the Textus Receptus.According to the "modern versions" translators their "work" was nothing but the continuing of the "revising process" which began with the 1611. But that is not the thruth!! The modern versions ARE from the corrupt line of text from Alexandria, Egypt.
J
Japheth
Guest
[/qb][/QUOTE]Why would something "perfect" need so many revisions?
Good question,If the MV'S are the word of God then why do they call it a NEW Translation when they come up with a new translation from the same ole' tired Alexandrian text??(RV,ASV,RSV,NASV,NIV et al.) The KJV revisions CAME from the same text, but the name never changed..
Good question,If the MV'S are the word of God then why do they call it a NEW Translation when they come up with a new translation from the same ole' tired Alexandrian text??(RV,ASV,RSV,NASV,NIV et al.) The KJV revisions CAME from the same text, but the name never changed..
No, thou is subjective and thee is objective. You is both. Ye was originally plural subjective, and is used that way in the KJV, but dictionaries say it became used in literature for any case, any number.
Without 'researcing' it is my conclusion that these overlappings and multiple words are the result of so many languages having a part in the development of English.</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I have one final question: how would you translate "y'all come back now, y'hear?" into the Elizabethan English?
Yea, come ye back anon, hearest you mine words?
Eric
Good question
</font>[/QUOTE]Then answer it instead of deflecting it.
They call them new translations because they are new translations. And BTW, they are not "from the Alexandrian text", it's just that Alexandrian texts are taken into account (sometimes strongly).
If the MV'S are the word of God then why do they call it a NEW Translation when they come up with a new translation from the same ole' tired Alexandrian text??(RV,ASV,RSV,NASV,NIV et al.) The KJV revisions CAME from the same text, but the name never changed..
You're saying it's OK to do revisions as long as you don't change the name?!? Neato. I'll scratch out the "NIV" embossing on my Bible and slap on a "KJV" sticker, and all will be well.
J
Japheth
Guest
You're saying it's OK to do revisions as long as you don't change the name?!? Neato. I'll scratch out the "NIV" embossing on my Bible and slap on a "KJV" sticker, and all will be well.
Nope.(Matthew 23:27 !!!)
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
I have one final question: how would you translate "y'all come back now, y'hear?" into the Elizabethan English?
Yea, come ye back anon, hearest you mine words?
More like... "Hear ye-- come back anon!"
Yea, come ye back anon, hearest you mine words?
More like... "Hear ye-- come back anon!"