thou's, thus', shall's and -eths, are they necessary??

sermonindex Feb 15, 2009

I believe it is a treasure to have the early Greek manuscripts in our possession.

I believe it is a treasure to have the english language's most prestigious bible translation, the King James.

I also believe it is unnecessary to avoid up to date vernacular translations. Such as the ESV or even the New Century Version. Once we depart from the original language of Christ, aramaic, and delve into the greek gospels we have broken the barrier of culturally contained language and customs. We then had latin versions of the greek version of the aramaic Christ spoke. Then we had old english versions of the latin and greek versions of the aramaic Christ spoke. At this point, the modern english and the common man who uses it demands we be able to use, memorize and freely quote from modern day english vernacular. The grammatical structure of the King James english is barely understandable to the average man on the street and is almost another language to him (and her).

Therefore I believe it is untrue to the original "street" greek in which the Scriptures were preserved to force a man on the street to speak a classical form of English. There was a high minded Greek language in the day of the New Testament's creation, but it was not used. We need to remember that.

Any thoughts?

sermonindex Feb 16, 2009

i agree that their is nothing wrong with reading easier versions that may place the instead of thou or thy. But really those our the easier part of the kjv it is the words in the kjv that our real big and words we never heard in which we need to look up to get the definition of the word, maybe an exact similar version of the kjv in easier english but i truly truly feel the spirit in the kjv more then some of the other versions don't know why but i do. NLT i had to actually stop reading because truthfully i didn't feel the spirit. We our talking about 2 different manuscripts here, personally i think the kjv is a safer choice and the others you our taking more of a chance on it being the full word of since they question so many verses in the bible like the last 12 verses in mark and the trinity verse in john. I also believe the aleph and b did not have 5 of the books that our in the bible in that manuscript, vaticanus or sinaticanus whatever they our called were missing 5 books and had shephered of hermas and episttle of barnabbas, while kjv manuscri[pt i believe in the beginning didn't have the book of revelation, it was added later by eramus, i really do love the kjv and am questionable about the others validity, but let gods spirit speak to you

T

TaylorOtwell Feb 16, 2009

I recently got a Geneva Bible from Tolle Lege Press. It's a great edition, and, in my opinion, easier to read than the KJV. Plus, it's the "people's Bible". The notes are helpful in the difficult passages.

Genevabible.com

K

KingJimmy Feb 16, 2009

Well, technically speaking the thee/thou words are more grammatically correct and express some things in the old King James language that simply cannot be expressed in modern English (unless modern translations start using phrases like "ya'll"). But, I suppose since few people understand those issues, then such stuff really doesn't matter much anyway.

My personal advice, find a Bible translation you understand. I've seen God speak to people through all versions of the Bible. I've managed to gain an insight or two from The Message! Of course, I don't recommend The Message as a study Bible by any stretch of the imagination.

I personally recommend the NASB. It's the most literal word-for-word translation on the market today. As a result, some people find it a little rough around the edges. But, I like the hard facts of the word of God and how words are used grammatically anyway :-) But, the ESV, NKJV and others are quite good, though, not without their own issues (no translation is perfect). The NIV and NLT can be halfway decent too, so long as you take each with a grain of salt.

C

ccchhhrrriiisss Feb 16, 2009

Hi KingJimmy...

Do you have a citation regarding this claim about the "thees and thous?" I have heard some people claim this and have seen a few KJV-only websites that have made this claim, but I just can't find any substantial evidence to support some of their claims. Of course, I am not saying that it isn't true...but I would like to see something that might validate such a claim. Thanks!

BTW, the KJV and NASB can "be halfway decent too, so long as you take each with a grain of salt."

;-)

T

TaylorOtwell Feb 16, 2009

Chris,

Luke 22:31-32. Notice the shift - "sift you" (plural - all the apostles), but I have prayed for thee (sing. - Peter)

sermonindex Feb 16, 2009

Thou shalt not altereth the word in any way, shapeth or formeth....Me thinketh.

1611 was so far removed from modern English, I doubt if we could understand it today. Find an old copy of Shakespeare, or a very early bible, and it is almost uninterpretable, except for the very learned.

The Lord's wisdom gave us a standard in the original Greek and Hebrew, that will always be able to be translated into any modern language.

King James' version, was simply that. 3/4 of the world cannot read or speak English in any form. Should they add in the formal pronunciations also, say into their Farsi or Hindi tongue? I think not.

I do appreciate the modern version of the King James Bible, though, and it is unmatched, for this English speaker, in it's flow and poetic sublimity's, but was generally written to be obeyed and understood, rather than trivialized by a compliance to formalities.

K

KingJimmy Feb 16, 2009

Ccchhhrrriiisss,

No, unfortunately I don't have a scholarly quote or anything that talks about the usage of thee/thou. I do remember reading such a few times though. If memory serves correct, "thee" is a third person plural, whereas "thou" is a third person singular. Modern English doesn't have anything for these words anymore except what local dialects have formed. In New York it would be "Hey You'z Guys" and in the south it would "Hey Ya'll." According to one Greek scholar, William Mounce, "Ya'll" is actually good English, because it expresses the third person plural, a feature grammatically common in most modern and ancient languages, but absent from the present English.

If the translators started using ya'll or you'z guys in modern translations, we might have another civil war :-)

sermonindex Feb 16, 2009

The main issue, the crux of the debate, is not modern English versus old English. It's about ~~[b]~~which[/b] underlying greek text is being used. Until one understands ~~[b]~~that[/b] issue the rest is a moot point.

Unfortauntely in todays churches most Christians dont understand that we're not dealing with two different translations (modern and old), we're actually dealing with 2 completely different Bibles... those from the Textus Receptus, and those from the Alexandrian.

Krispy

sermonindex Feb 16, 2009

I do appreciate the third person plural/singular seeing as my first language is french and "vous" vs "tu" can give more information than simply "you." However, the context of the phrase will sometimes make this unnecessary which is probably why modern english no longer uses it.

I think we all see eye to eye. Good confirmation.

I use an NASB and a french "Sainte Bible." Gives me good binocular vision.

C

CJaKfOrEsT Feb 16, 2009

spinalmanu wrote:
I do appreciate the third person plural/singular seeing as my first language is french and "vous" vs "tu" can give more information than simply "you." However, the context of the phrase will sometimes make this unnecessary which is probably why modern english no longer uses it.

Compare,

"Verily, verily I say unto ~~[u]~~you[/u], ~~[u]~~you[/u] must be born again"

...with...

"Verily, verily I say unto ~~[u]~~thee[/u], ~~[u]~~ye[/u] must be born again."

...in light of the second/third person relationship. Both statements seem to say different things.

T

TaylorOtwell Feb 16, 2009

There has been some confusion in this thread about thee/thou/ye/you and which is singular and plural.

Thee/Thou is singular. Ye/You is plural.

Note Luke 22:31-32 for an example. "Sift you" (plural - all the apostles), "prayed for thee" (singular - Peter).

As for a scholarly citation on the usage, I believe Joel Beeke (President of Puritan Reformed Theological) discusses this in his defense of the KJV.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

C

ccchhhrrriiisss Feb 16, 2009

Hi TaylorOtwell...

From what I have understood, "thee" was simply the objective case (well, usually) of the word "thou."

thou = nominative (subject of the sentence)
thee = accusative (object of the sentence)
thy/thine = genitive (indication of possession)

While there isn't a distinction in modern English between the singular and plural forms of the word "you," is this enough to warrant ~~[i]~~criticism[/i]? Many of the KJV or Quaker websites seem to have done just that. Yet the KJV also combines four (or more) words into one (love) -- and these aren't mere variations between singular/plural or nominative/objective distinctions.

If any of you (plural) have any links from a website or a citation regarding this issue, please let me know. I am interested enough to look further into it. Thanks!

:-)