Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It also uses "you" instead of "thee" and "thou" when referring to God so it would be no good.
Another reason I enjoy the KJV is the fun and dare I say reward of looking up and studying all of the antiquated phrases and expressions and then seeing how various modern translations chose to translate the same passages. I get great enjoyment from doing this and learn a lot in the process. I understand this is a choice and not a necessity, so if others prefer to stick to a good modern translation I'm all for it so long as their noses are in the word regularly.
What you are saying is that "we should ask KJV users to defend the KJV against the suggestion that we should abandon it because it is archaic but only allow them to use certain arguments which we want them to use." Well sorry I don't accept that arbitrary limitation.
I understand the helpfulness of these pronouns to distinguish between singular and plural in many instances, but I am unsure how not using them in reference to God would render a translation “no good.”
I'm fairly certain I never said abandon the KJV. I think I said the opposite. My point was that language is intended to communicate, and I listed a number of archaic terms that have zero meaning in today's world. I'm not talking about thees and thous. Those should be revived.
Because God is one. He is not many gods. The second person plural pronoun "you" which has also assumed the function of the second person singular pronoun in modern English leaves this rather important distinction ambiguous grammatically and is technically (and theologically) wrong.
“Wrong” is far too strong a word. This would mean that when I addressed God as “you” this morning in prayer that I was in sin (that’s what “wrong” means, after all, especially if this has to do with Trinitarian dogma).
Furthermore, your objection would only be valid if you could produce actual evidence that “you” in reference to God in Scripture is commonly misunderstood as plural rather than singular. I have literally never encountered such a problem.
Because you engaged in the conversation and argued with me over the point and said that I couldn't use that argument (on the translation philosophy) in this thread.
Fair enough, but if you weren't talking to me on that point, you should have then quoted and addressed Richard. Otherwise, it makes it look like you were directly addressing me.
On one hand that is fair, but it really can't be said in this thread because everyone is agreeing to leave manuscript considerations out of it.
It is grammatically wrong. That is a fact of language. "You" is plural.
You can disagree...
This is patently incorrect, not only as indicated by all dictionaries, but also as evidenced by your own use of “you” to address me, a single individual:
You have moved from “you” being “ambiguous” to being plural only. The former is true some of the time, the latter is entirely incorrect.
Yes because I use modern English in my day to day conversation.
I have a higher standard when it comes to Biblical translation and addressing God in prayer.
That’s not what you’ve argued, though. You’ve said “you” is (not merely was) plural, and even used that as a criteria against modern translations. So saying what you just said—namely, that using “you” for the singular in modern speech is okay—is, at best, inconsistent. Is using “you” to address a singular incorrect or not? You can’t have it both ways.
So I was in sin when I addressed God as “you” this morning? Am I a tritheist because I don’t address him as “thou”?
This is a little extreme, brother.
As to whether or not you were sinning: I see no reason to reduce this discussion down to the personal like that.
@alexandermsmith Look, brother, don’t misunderstand me. Aside from the occasional extreme archaism, I do think the KJV is perhaps the most consistent and accurate translation we have available. I wish English would have retained the varied pronouns. I love them.
But...
That personal wish is a far cry from accusing the morphing of language of being inherently tritheistic.
Does this not on some levels make it a better term (“you”). Don’t we confess our Lord to be One (singular) in essence AND Three (plural) in persons?The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural).
Wrong can be different from sin.
I was listening to a presentation by D.A. Carson about Bible translation. I've been reading the KJV for 40+ years, along with other modern translation, but I've read the KJV so much, for so long, that I still pray in KJV English.The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural). Therefore, to me and many others, it is problematic, to say the least, to use it in reference to God where if one is going to be rigorously consistent and technical anywhere it would be in this area. We have an English term. It is antiquated, we don't use it in any other situation, but we do have it and therefore we believe it should be used here. I believe it is wrong to use "you" when addressing God. Whether I would actually go so far as to say it was a sin, I don't know. Wrong can be different from sin. But that is why for me, and for my denomination, a translation of the Bible which uses "you" in addressing God would be a non-starter.
Please refer me to the modern second person singular pronoun that is distinct from the second person plural pronoun.
We let context make the distinction now.
When I preach, either open-air or from the pulpit, I will often spontaneously "modernize" the language of the KJV, so it is eminently understandable to folks either Biblically illiterate or not used to KJV language.
Yes, this matters. About two centuries ago, English lost this rather important distinction.
Exactly. And, in cases where there is contextual ambiguity, many modern translations make a clarifying note (e.g., Exod. 16:28; Luke 22:31). Sure, it would be nice to not need that note, but the English language has changed, like all languages do. And, unless I am mistaken, languages tend to evolve toward simplicity, not complexity. In other words, language tend to not retain aspects which are not absolutely necessary for comprehension. Hence why these pronouns have dropped. Therefore, chalking language change up to something like people getting dumber or irreverent is not only false by unhelpful.
Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.[Not regarding manuscripts but regarding KJV language]
"The Gospels were written with simple everyday language, Tyndale's translation was also so that the commonfolk would understand. It would go against the inspired writers and the tradition of translations to use antiquated Scripture translations in the church."
Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.
But not the language of our day, even when translated into the most readable English.If by "set apart" you mean its status as special revelation, then sure. However, as far as I am aware, there is no indication that the language of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are anything other than the language of the day.