Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Why the "Thee's" and "Thou's"?|
I was asked a similar question last year, and have a 30 page Word document of all the logic, reasons, and examples as to why the "thee" and "thou" is used asn I needed it to teach in church. I would be happy to send it to anyone interested.
Here is a good, quick object lesson on the "why":
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you (plural) as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (singular), and when thou (singular) art converted, strengthen thy (singular) brethren. (Luke 22:31,32)
The terms thee and thou in 17th century English do indicate that the person or object is singular as opposed to plural. To understand this gives an added depth to the meaning of the verses quoted in Luke 22. If we were not aware of the difference between thee and you, we might make the mistake of thinking that the Lord was telling Simon that Satan desired to have Simon personally to sift as wheat rather than the disciples (plural).
Hope this helps!
| 2005/7/8 20:18||Profile|
| Re: Why the "Thee's" and "Thou's"?|
I agree with the other posts. Ye is different from you.
So when Mark 16:15 says, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," the meaning is actually EVERY one of you, go EVERYwhere, and preach the gospel to EVERY creature.
If you leave out ye, who is Jesus talking to? Ye leaves do doubt. It is all of them.
Would "How Great Thou Art" sound better as "How Great You Are?" Or "I've seen the glory," or "Mine eyes have seen the glory." I suppose it is debatable.
KJV is more accurate to the Greek, and admittedly harder to read. Maybe God wants us to examine the words as if our life depended on it.
Proverbs 18:21 "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."
| 2005/7/8 20:25||Profile|
Thanks everyone. I actually thought that Jesus was only talking to Simon about sifting him like wheat!
Anyway, it's not like it's impossible to translate the plural accurately. Just translate "you both" or "you all" or "you guys", whichever is apprpriate in the context. Wouldn't it be accurate then?
For example, if Jesus walked into a room with a married couple (as in one example brought up), He could just say, "You're both of your father the devil."
Or in the Luke 22 example it could be translated something like, "Simon, Satan has desired to sift all of you as wheat, but I have prayed for you..." Ok, I just realized how that's not as clear.
But aren't there plenty of other things like that that in the Greek that just can't be accurately translated into English ,even in the KJV? Like Ephesians 5:18. I've learned that the Greek is really saying to be [i]continually[/i] filled with the Spirit, but even the KJV just says "filled" and could be confused as a one-time experience, a one-time filling.
I guess this is why we need teachers because they can clarify things like this. I am willing to sacrifice some accuracy for readability, but obviously the less the better. But when it concerns some small grammatical things as brought up here, it's worth it to me. Students of the Bible simply must be taught to be on the lookout for these kinds of grammatical variances.
I am already looking into buying an updated version of the NASB! Thanks again.
| 2005/7/8 20:51||Profile|
| have you tried the other translations?|
i find the amplified Version of the bible, just another translation that carries the context of teh verse in square brackets to help me out when i dont understand something, but not everyone can work from the amplified, i know a couple of people that think its too wordy, i couldnt live without it, teh message translation is translated to place in contemporary language the stories via chapter, so instead of verses you're given the chapter in modern day language, like the way i'm talking to you now, its awesome, but if you want specific references it can get frustrating finding what you want.
there are also translations like the 'new king james version', 'new internation version', and, probably the newest i've seen is the 'new living' version. what does NASB stand for?
is that what you wanted or did i miss the point?
| 2005/7/18 0:28||Profile|
Washington st. u.S. A.
"I think you might have the old version of NASB. My version of NASB doesn't have the thee's and thou's in it. NASB was last updated in 1995 I believe."
This is why you want to know where your bible came from, what was changed and what was left out.
how can one be a student, and not go to the old paths? one must learn to study and not just be tought.
| 2005/7/18 1:33||Profile|
| Re: Why the "Thee's" and "Thou's"?|
I read the NASB version, it is a thompson chain, i do not know when it was printed but it has thees and thous but not alot like my kjv, I love both versions as i love how the english laungage has evolved, I did notce how when i look up online that the nasb online is not the same as mine on my lap. I tried reading the NIV but it was so empty to my understanding but to others i know it speaks life. I prefer how the NASB dosnt mince deep thoughts....
| 2005/7/18 16:39||Profile|
I copyed some verses the differnce from kjv and the nasb
Mar 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
Mar 4:28 "The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head.
When reading my KJV I always wondered what is the full corn in the ear?
I was always amazed how corn was so well known in the KJV, when in school i was taught that corn wasnt discovered untill the time of columbus.....So Then the KJV must have been written after the new world was discovered? for Corn was used liberally from OT to NT in the KJV
I dont know what manuscripts we read is closest to greek, i have heard that the nasb is or that the kjv is, but regardless the holy spirit can teach from what version we read as long as we are seeking the Lord, the holy spitit makes kmown the truth......
| 2005/7/18 16:56||Profile|
Yeah, I like the NASB, especially the Key Word Study version, too. But I am over the "Thee's" and "Thou's." Even after looking into it a little deeper, I still don't think it's necessary. If you look at my post on the 8th, you'll see why I think this way. I don't think that the, perhaps, more accurate grammer that is conveyed by the Old English is worth the loss in readability. But that's just my opinion.
At this point I'm still looking into getting a newer version of the NASB that doesn't have any Old English. But I really just want it in the Key Word Study Bible version because it has helped me so much.
| 2005/7/18 17:09||Profile|
Good point, Michelle.
Corn, as written in old manuscripts, is a vague literary term that can refer to any particular type of cereal grain (or plant), or cereal grain (or plants) as a whole. An average person reading the KJV might not understand that.
I suggest to those who indulge themselves in the KJV debate to read the translators' preface to the original KJV. The translators were very specific as to [i]why[/i] they were creating a [i]new translation[/i] at the time (most specifically -- to have a translation in language understood by the people). It is also interesting to note that the present KJV is also different than the original KJV (published in 1611). This includes spelling, punctuation, and [i]even added and omitted phrases[/i]. To top it off, the original King James Version even included [i]books of the [u]Apocrypha[/u][/i]! Most libraries have a copy of the original text, so I encourage you to look it up and compare it with your current KJV.
Also, there are many other foreign translations that even predate the original KJV. I have read a few of these translations (like one in Spanish and another in German), and each show characteristics of cultural and linguistic age. Since the Spanish pronouns have changed little over the years, the pronouns are not disputed very often. However, there are words that have changed their meaning over time (just like the old english word for [i]corn[/i]). That was the purpose of creating more modern translations.
Do I trust the King James Version? Definitely! I enjoy reading it more than the other versions. I always refer to the KJV when seriously studying the Word. As a translator of the NIV put it, "There were old translations available then [in 1611] that were not available in 1978."
Many people find it's old English words quite poetic. But what is poetic to us today was not very poetic in 1611. It was the language of the day. Just as the late 1500s Spanish version was for that day. Remember, there were men that were [i]put to death[/i] for desiring to have the Bible translated out of latin into the language of everyday people. I trust the KJV. But I also read the 1978 NIV and several other serious translations. Now, there are "translations" or "paraphrases" that I don't trust (like gender-neutral versions, obvious doctrinal manipulations, the Living Bible, etc...). Thus, regardless of the translation that you use, you should always read it with much prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to lead you and guide you in all truth. Like Michelle said, it is the Holy Spirit that makes known the truth.
Someone once said, "Some men like to read the Word of God in Greek. Some men like to read the Word of God in Hebrew. I like to read it with the Holy Ghost." I know that there are people passionate on both sides of this issue. I'm just glad that there are many out there that are endeavouring to "know the certainty" of their beliefs! We can all agree that no matter how you "color" it (or "colour" it), the true Word is forever infallible.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
| 2005/7/18 17:51||Profile|
Thanks for your input. Very enlightening.
| 2005/7/23 3:31||Profile|