Were the KJV translators right to correct?

[Salamander]

The only problem I see with this is that it shows that the KJV translators did the same thing that a lot of KJVO types say is wrong.

Language changes.
I don't see a problem.

The only real objection occurs when the meaning is altere3d or clouded. You know that, I thinkest thou doth know that.raying:

 

[Deacon]

Is there an English translation that uses the "absolutely correct" he at Amos 9:13?
At least twenty use him, including the ESV (2001).

At least in Hebrew, there is no difference between "he" and "him", the gender is drawn from the masculine, singular, noun-verb participle, (he/him) sower/sows.
The verb for the clause (as noted) is from the previous clause, "overtake".

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

Is there an English translation that uses
he at Amos 9:13?

The 1985 LITERAL TRANSLATION by Jay Green and the 1990 Modern KJV do.

the treader of grapes, and he who draws along the seed (Amos 9:13b)

 

[Jerome]

That's because the ModernKJV does not use overtake, which requires an object, and instead has all four laborers (subjects) drawing near:

Amos 9:13a ModernKJV
Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that the plowman and the reaper shall draw near, the treader of grapes, and he who draws along the seed.

Does the 1985 Green's Literal Translation read the same as the ModernKJV?
The Green's Literal Translation on e-Sword and Studylight.org have [overtake] him.

 

[Armchair Scholar]

Were the KJV translators right to correct the use of "me" as a subject at 1 Corinthians 4:9 in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles? Was the KJV's rendering an improvement over the rendering of those pre-1611 English Bibles? Was it a needed, necessary, or helpful change?

1 Cor. 4:9a
Me thinketh that God hath set forth (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's)
For me thinketh that God hath set forth (Great, Bishops)
For I think that God hath set forth (1611 KJV)

I do think it was acceptable that they changed it. I see it as an update to the language, well noted by them, since the English language had already had a considerable enough change from the time of Tyndale to require a bit of update by the time they put the 1611 together. This is an example of how English has always undergone change. If less than 200 years had brought enough of a change that they had to "update" these words in the 1611 then it also shows the need for some language updating today, 400 years later. :applause:

 

[Dale-c]

The only real objection occurs when the meaning is altere3d or clouded. You know that, I thinkest thou doth know that.

I agree. I used to hold to a KJVO position but I have since come to realize the great inconsistency of that position.

 

[Rippon]

Right you are ACS . John Owen ( 1616-1687 ) was the leading Puritan of his time . I admire him very much . But aside from his commenable qualities ... , he wrote a huge commentary on the book of Hebrews . When he came to the KJV rendering of 4:12 where the Word of God is said to be quick and powerful -- he had to inform his audience of something . Even though Owen was a 17th century man, folks of his time did not understand the KJV wording of 'quick' . Owen said that was an improper translation because it more ordinarily signifies 'speedy' , whereas the meaning that should come across is 'living' .

 

[Jerome]

Yet Owen in his own writings often uses quick in that same sense:laugh:

 

[Jerome]

There are other verses where the KJV used "him" or "himself" as a subject.

Are there any other purported KJV uses of him a subject besides the aforementioned God hates...him of Proverbs 6?


Although now archaic, the use of -self pronouns as subjects in former times is well attested.

G. Chaucer, Book of the Duchess, 1369, 34:
"Myselven can not telle why"
Wm. Shakespeare, Richard III, 1594, II. i. 18:
"Madam, your selfe is not exempt from this."
Wm. Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, 1594, IV. iv. 74:
"My selfe hath often heard them say,"
w. Bedell, Letterts, 1624, p. 135:
"themselues doe vtterly denie it."
John Bunyan, Holy War, 1682, p. 155:
"both they and my self are guilty of great transgressions."
J. Swift, Epistle to a Lady, 1734, p. 8:
"Carve for all, yourself is starving."


Webster's 1828 Dictionary (emphasis added):

HIMSELF, pron. In the nominative or objective case. [him and self.]
1. He; but himself is more emphatical, or more expressive of distinct personality than he.

With shame remembers, while himself was one

Of the same herd, himself the same had done.


From the Oxford English Dictionary:

HIMSELF
3. a. With the nominative pronoun omitted, and himself taking its place. arch.
(= OE. he self, he selfa.)

c1000 Sec. Laws of Canute c. 30 §3 (Schmid) Nime fife and beo he [v.r. him] sylfa syxta. Ibid. §7 Nime him fif..and beo him sylf sixta. c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 121 Alse him self sei. 1297 R. GLOUC. (1724) 12 Mony was e gode body at hym self slou at day. 1388 WYCLIF Hab. i. 13 A more iust man than hymsilf [1382 than hym]. 1535 STEWART Cron. Scot. (1858) I. 6 Siclike as him sell. 1619 Crt. & Times Jas. I (1849) II. 120 Sir Edward Villiers told him himself was the man. 1719 J. RICHARDSON Art Critic. 188 But Himself is seen throughout most apparently. 1864 TENNYSON Aylmer's F. 596 The dagger which himself Gave Edith.

 

[Logos1560]

Amos 9:13a ModernKJV
Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that the plowman and the reaper shall draw near, the treader of grapes, and he who draws along the seed.

Does the 1985 Green's Literal Translation read the same as the ModernKJV?

Behold, the days are coming: The plowman and the reaper shall draw near, the treader of grapes, and he who draws along the seed [1985 Green's Literal Translation]

 

[Logos1560]

Amos 9:13a in 1853 O. T. by Isaac Leeser

Behold, days are coming, saith the Lord, when the ploughman shall come close up to the harvester, and the treader of the grapes to the one that scattereth the seed

 

[rsr]

The entire phrase him that soweth righteousness is the complete object. Him in this instance is the subject of the phrase and in contemporary English requires a nominative, i.e., he.

After looking back at the thread, I shamefacedly concede that Jerome was correct in defending the use of him, which indeed is the object and therefore must be in the objective case. The rest of the phrase, i.e. that soweth righteousness is an adjectival phrase modifying him, with that operating as the subject.

 

[Jerome]

This post mentions a verse relevant to this thread.


Hebrews 2:1 "...lest at any time we should let them slip."


How do we explain them?


Also,
Wycliffe(1389)
John 8:30 "Him spekinge thes thingis, many men bileueden in to him."

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
Hebrews 2:1 "...lest at any time we should let them slip."
...

This is place proof positive that
it is better to have several transations:

Heb 2:1 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Wherefore wee ought diligently to giue heede
to the thinges which wee haue heard,
lest at any time we runne out.