Re: KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)

From: bivalve (
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:12:17 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    >One mark of their excellence is their recognition of the great
    >contributions of earlier English translations. <

    In addition, part of the mandate of the KJV translators was to stick
    as closely as possible to the previous authorized versions. As a
    result, the language is outdated by 1611 standards. For example, the
    second person singular pronouns such as thee and thou were falling
    out of use by 1611, and the remaining use tended to imply social
    superiority on the part of the speaker. It is thus highly ironic
    that these terms are now seen as particularly appropriate to use in
    addressing God.

    In fact, the claim of absolute authority of the 1611 edition has some
    problems similar to those invoked by Burgy regarding the inerrancy of
    the originals. Is it the version produced by the committee that is
    authoritative, or the version as delivered to the printers (with a
    few changes made by the royal appointee in charge of the project) or
    the version as printed with some typos (which is the only one of
    these three that we actually have today) or something else?

         Dr. David Campbell
         Old Seashells
         University of Alabama
         Biodiversity & Systematics
         Dept. Biological Sciences
         Box 870345
         Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    Droitgate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 13:58:58 EDT