Comments on: The KJV and the Thereofs Thereof

By: Ivan Wolfe

Ivan Wolfe — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:38:02 +0000

One problem with your so called Bibliocentric reading: The Greek pronouns behind the NT don’t really support your reading (since Koine Greek doesn’t have distinctions between familiar and formal pronouns the way European languages do).

From my understanding, the you/thou for both the Greek and Hebrew was used in translation to distinguish plural and singular, and that there’s no real formal/informal pronoun differences in Biblical Hebrew as well, but Ben S. will know that better than me – I’ve only studied the Greek.

But at least we know you see you are quite comfortable condemning Asian cultures for not being as enlightened as European ones.

By: Kelvin Smith

Kelvin Smith — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:46:15 +0000

(It’s Kelvin, not Kevin, if you don’t mind.) My thinking (at least on this topic) is not Eurocentric; it’s bibliocentric. Jesus’ preferred term for God is “Father.” He calls the disciples his friends. The relationship is clearly an intimate, not a formal, one. Is that the only way to refer to God in the Bible? Of course not; he is the Ancient of Days, high and exalted. But the point that the familiar form of “you” drives home, in a way that can be arresting to a speaker of any language that has the distinction (English, of course, doesn’t), is that the Creator of the Universe has chosen to be in an intimate relationship with us. That’s not blasphemous; that’s Christianity, even though it blows the mind of some from different cultures, just as does the concept that said Creator would die an ignominious death at the hands of his creatures so that we miserable sinners might have eternal life. It’s one of the distinctives of Christianity as compared to, say, Islam, which has a much more remote conception of Allah.

Does that mean you have to rub it in the nose of an Asian with a highly socially stratified language structure? No; familiar/formal isn’t the core of the gospel. But I think the European understanding is a more accurate portrayal of our relationship with God. Another way to look at it is that forms appropriate to addressing one’s physical father would apply, over those used for addressing a king or a boss. If an Asian thinks that’s blasphemous, he needs to unlearn and rebuild his concept of God.

By: Ivan Wolfe

Ivan Wolfe — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:55:27 +0000

Kevin Smith: That’s a nice bit of Eurocentric thinking, but in many Asian languages, using the familiar terms when dealing with God or praying would be unthinkable, if not outright blasphemous. I’m not sure why the familiar forms are somehow morally superior in some people’s minds.

I get that we misuse it in the modern English speaking church, thinking “thee” and “thou” and the like are super-formal when they really aren’t, but each language has it’s quirks, and I see no reason to claim the familiar pronouns are the only true and living pronouns to use in prayer, when my experiences with Lao and Thai tell me different.

By: Kelvin Smith

Kelvin Smith — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:14:05 +0000

The KJV use of “Thee” and “Thou” for addressing God parallels usage in French and other languages where the intimate/familiar form of “you” is used. It should be understood as evoking Paul’s “Abba” reference to our Heavenly Father. As noted, too many English-speakers have it exactly backwards, thinking it’s some sort of exalted language for the Deity. It was living in France for six months in college, using the “tu” form in prayer when so much of my life was in the formal “vous” form, that confirmed my rejection of the KJV (and the NASB, which didn’t jettison Thou until 1985); I switched to an English Bible that was written in recognizable English.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:39:28 +0000

They are, but they’re still expensive. It’s hard to justify an other $250 for the Anchor Bible Dictionary for example if I already have the print version.

By: Ben S.

Ben S. — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:56:51 +0000

Most of the Anchor volumes as well as Kinship and Covenant are available through Logos. Also, Word Biblical Commentary volumes are all on sale for $9.99 across platforms.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:53:45 +0000

It’s interesting that they’re doing library pricing for the Oxford Handbook of Mormonism. Even for the Kindle it’s $136!

By: Terry H

Terry H — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:49:12 +0000

Yes. the Oxford Handbook of Mormonism is out, but not too many notices or reviews yet that I’ve seen. You might call the RSC and find out what they’re thinking. I agree with what you said about from Darkness into Light (and I’ve read a boatload on that topic). I happen to have the Hermeneia CD for the first 38 of their volumes. Everything since then is hard copy. Actually, the AB isn’t on ebook that I’ve seen (although most of the AYBR series is on ebook.) Scott Hahn’s Kinship and Covenant isn’t (and its the best one of the lot).

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:45:11 +0000

I made a goal of getting rid of print books as much as I can to free up space. I actually made this huge run to Pioneer Books this summer with all the books I managed to find ebook versions of. (Except for ones where the replacement was too expensive such as some of my Anchor Bible books) So I’ll hold out for the ebook.

Hopefully it comes out soon as it sounds quite interesting. I just finished From Darkness into Light and learned a ton from it. Lots of great new books coming out this year.

By: Terry H

Terry H — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:27:38 +0000

That could also be a problem with the RSC not communicating very well. That happens with the University of Utah Press every now and again. A couple of years ago, I was at the Maxwell Institute offices to ask them about a book and they said it was still in press. I walked to the BYU Bookstore and there it was. DB had gotten it out without telling them. Stuff happens!

By: Terry H

Terry H — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:25:34 +0000

Clark. I know its not on Amazon or the DB website, but its on the shelves at DB here in St. George. Nag them. I once offered our local manager to pay Sheri Dew if she would let me fire their buyers. No luck, sadly. On the bright side, after selling out every time I mention Julie’s book on air, they now have several copies that I hope will move before Christmas. Hi, Julie. :)

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:46:32 +0000

The thesis of tight control but a loose translation by someone else I confess seems dubious to me. I know Skousen talks about a 15th century dialect being in the original Book of Mormon. I suspect we’ll find that this was a dialect in America as well – although that might be harder to prove. The idea that this was Moroni translating the Book of Mormon seems a bit problematic to my eyes as well. He’s portrayed from what I can tell as a resurrected angel. Why would he be limited to learning English from a few centuries earlier? I just think Joseph’s mind as involved in a sometimes loose translation is the most likely explanation.

I don’t think Approaching Antiquity is out yet. Neither the DB or Amazon websites have it that I could find.

Adano, are we sure he confused the terms Elias and Elijah later on? (It’s certainly plausible early on) It may well be that he’s just splitting the concept, much like he does with the eschatological concept of Jerusalem into the old Jerusalem and new Jerusalem.

By: Terry H

Terry H — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:03:18 +0000

Ben S. I’ll be looking for it. Thanks. I’ve also heard rumblings about there being other stuff in the archives that might have to do with that topic (not from Matt Grey) so we’ll see.

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:11:34 +0000

Here is a case where I argue Joseph was influenced by the Campbell translation:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/11/a-mistake-in-the-1979-lds-bible/

By: BevP

BevP — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:58:05 +0000

I’ve wondered, given the KJV-ish language of the Book of Mormon, why Joseph used that version of English, and it occurred to me once that perhaps Moroni [or someone] was doing the translating into English for him, and that person had learned English in the 16th century. That led me to wonder if maybe someone else had originally been chosen to bring the BoM to light but blew his chances somehow, so the plan was put on hold until Joseph Smith emerged and asked the right questions. Just idle speculation, and I clearly don’t have enough to do… But I’m looking forward to the Matt Grey to come. I shall pick up Approaching Antiquity when I next cross the ocean if I can’t get it locally.