Posted on 11/18/2011 9:49:29 PM PST by hiho hiho
For centuries, people of all walks of life have carried around with them echoes of the King James Version. So to throw it out as the church hierarchy has done amounts to a savage act of deprivation and, as this deprivation is of the Word of God in English, it is vicious iconoclasm. Sidelining the King James Version especially deprives our children and is therefore a notable case of child abuse.
There is no such thing as noble truth expressed in ignoble words. The choice of words determines what is being said. Therefore, we should choose the best.
Strips of cloth is no substitute for swaddling clothes. And Mary was with child we think of the Madonna and Child and she had not fallen pregnant as it says in one of the modern versions. You cannot satisfactorily replace through a glass darkly with the crass literalism puzzling reflections in a mirror or sounding brass and tinkling cymbal with noisy gong and clanging cymbal. The King James Bible was designed to be read aloud in churches. All the modern versions sound as if they have been written by tone-deaf people with tin ears and no rhythm.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I haven't been shown anything. Just a lot of denials by Catholics who are so ashamed of their Church's history they want to rewrite it. In 100 years the same people will be saying there is no historical record that any Catholic priest ever molested any child.
Unfortunately, the Reformation had a very active propaganda arm and much of the history of the Reformation available in English and in the US today remains in its shadow.
The really sad thing is that there are those who are all to willing to believe the worst about the Church that they fail to educate themselves. I'm afraid that 100 years from now there will still be those who believe that pedophilia is exclusively a Catholic problem.
Campion replied:
Well, it wasn't actually a matter of "insisting on a correct English grammar," it's simply the traditional practice in English to address God using the familiar form of the second person singular pronoun. (Thee/thou/thy is actually the familiar or informal version of the pronoun, though it sounds formal to our ears.)
Your comment illustrates the problem of trusting your own opinion as your sole authority. You have flat out contradicted that what I presented correctly was fact, and which was not merely personal opinion. Thus your error is compounded by seemingly intimating that I am ignorant or a liar, and that the KJV translators were not following a strict grammar protocol. (If your opinion had been well founded, I might have been offended.)
Let me suggest that your education in this matter can be expanded and benefitted by reading through the summary "HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE - THE KING JAMES BIBLE" as found on the "Way of Life Literature" site, whose link and a couple of pertinent excerpts are as follows:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/historyenglishbiblekjv.html
**********
...the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. IT IS BIBLICAL ENGLISH, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century English--which was very different--but to its faithful translation of the original. ITS STYLE IS THAT OF THE HEBREW AND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 218).
*****
Many criticize the use of thee, thou, thy, and thine in the King James Bible.They say that this is antiquated and difficult to understand. The fact is that these are used to distinguish between the second person singular and plural of pronouns. THEE, THOU, and THINE are always singular. YOU, YE, and YOUR are always plural. This follows the usage of the Hebrew and Greek, which make such a distinction. In modern English, this distinction has been dropped, and YOU can be either plural or singular. Following are some examples of how important this is:
Exodus 4:15. THOU shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with THY mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach YOU what YE shall do.
THOU and THY refer to Moses, but YOU refers to the nation which would be instructed by the spokesman Aaron.
Matthew 26:64. Jesus saith unto him, THOU hast said: nevertheless I say unto YOU, Hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
THOU refers to the high priest, but YOU refers to the nation Israel as a whole and to all who will see Him in the day of His glory (Revelation 1:7).
John 3:7. Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again.
The message was spoken to an individual, Nicodemus [THEE], but it applies to all men [YE].
These important distinctions are lost in modern English versions.
(The above bolded emphases originate with the author of the article, the underlined is mine.)
***********
If you wish, you can find a great deal more on the facts and other faults of modern English translations on the "Way of Life"site. Also, a wider web search on the translation model employed for the KJV will give you better instruction on how a literal equivalency translation is accomplished. For instance, in this matter, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
Style and criticism
"The pronouns thou/thee and you are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this time you often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare)."
What this is saying is that where in the original language the second person singular occurs, it is translated in the KJV as the English second person singular in each and every instance, and without exception. When in the original the second person plural occurs, its translation in the KJV is likewise the second person plural, so as to be precise and faithful to the grammar of the original. It is not a matter of tone, of intimacy, or of religiosity. They restored the proper English grammar that had fallen out of use. It was a matter of precisely carrying over the construction of declension, conjugation, gender, case, and number etc. from the source language to the target language.
Capisce?
Respectfully ---
I may have the wrong thread as I don't see the name annalex, so I'll keep watching for "Daily Readings"threads.
Nice try in an attempt to change the subject though.
And all of those are corrupt references.
Says who? The Catholic Church? An organization that has a history of murdering people it thought were heretics? That "Church" has been at the forefront of religious repression since Constantine founded/legalized it.
Says Luther.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.