English writing in Bible

[dawnngcm]

Are all English writing in different versions of Bible, such as King James Version (KJV), Good News Edition (GNE), New International Version (NIV), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), grammatically correct?

I can’t figure out their syntax sometimes. :-?

 

[TheParser]

Are all English writing in different versions of Bible, such as King James Version, Good News Edition, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version, grammatically correct?

I can’t figure out their syntax sometimes. :-?

REMINDER: NOT A TEACHER


(1) What a great question.

(2) I think that you will get some very interesting answers from posters.

(3) I think (think!) that the English is certainly "grammatically correct" for the

time in which it was written. And some of the syntax and vocabulary are even

used today in poetry and super elegant speech.

(4) I just opened my King James version and saw this (Proverbs 16:32):

He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his

spirit than he that taketh a city.

(a) As you can, it uses "that" for the relative pronoun. Even today, "that" is

acceptable (better?) in certain sentences when referring to people, and -- of course --

the biggest (and most beautiful difference) is the use of "th" instead of

"s." I have read that there was a "contest" in England many years ago between

"th" and "s." Sadly (in my opinion), the users of "s" won the "competition."

 

[SoothingDave]

The King James Bible is a masterpiece of the English language. Its words and phrases have permeated our language.

That said, there is a reason there are more modern versions. The meaning of the KJV is often lost on the modern reader. This is due to the natural drift of language over time.

The different versions of the Bible exist because of the use of different manuscripts for their source material and of different philosophies of translation. Some try to translate the underlying Greek or Hebrew as closely word-for-word as possible. Other try to capture the meaning of a passage by expressing it in modern language, using modern idiom instead of the idiom of the underlying languages.

There is a place for each philosophy of translation.

 

[Tdol]

There have been many changes to the language since the KJV was published, and many passages will be opaque and difficult for native speakers, but many like it for the beauty of the language, which is why many consider it to be the 'true' translation, but one that does use the grammar of its time, which differs in some areas from ours.

 

[Rover_KE]

I can’t figure out their syntax sometimes. :-?

Ask us about specific examples, Dawn.

Rover

 

[dawnngcm]

Thanks all for your sharing!

I have a book called “How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth” by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. In chapter 2, it wrote similar idea as SoothingDave said.

“The sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible were originally written in three different languages: Hebrew (most of the Old Test), Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew used in half of Daniel and two passages in Ezra), and Greek (all of the New Testament).”

“…….the person who reads the Bible only in English is at the mercy of the translator(s), and translators have often had to make choices as to what in fact the original Hebrew or Greek was really intending to say.”

It also stated a term “Formal equivalence”. And it wrote,
“Formal equivalence: the attempt to keep as close to the “form” of the Hebrew or Greek, both words and grammar, as can be conveniently put into understandable English.…….Translations based on formal equivalence will keep historical distance intact at all points.”


Would it is the reason I underline above, some of English writing are not so grammatically correct? :?:

I hadn’t marked them down specifically when I came across. Maybe I post them later when I find out


Here is a one but I’m not sure it’s a good example or it relates to syntax. I read different versions of the same verse, some of them seems have different meanings. However, they all should have the same meaning.

Ezekiel 25:10
1. NJB: I shall let the sons of the East and the Ammonites take possession of them, so that they will no longer be remembered by the nations.
The meaning seems different from others below.


2. NRSV: I will give it along with Ammon to the people of the east as a possession. Thus Ammon shall be remember no more among the nations,
3. NIV: I will give Moab along with the Ammonites to the people of the East as a possession, so that the Ammonites will not be remembered among the nations;


I agree SoothingDave, KJV is the most difficult one for me to understand. Or I’m still far away from that level to understand them. :silly:

 

[Raymott]

Here is a one but I’m not sure it’s a good example or it relates to syntax. I read different versions of the same verse, some of them seems have different meanings. However, they all should have the same meaning.

Ezekiel 25:10
1. NJB: I shall let the sons of the East and the Ammonites take possession of them, so that they will no longer be remembered by the nations.
The meaning seems different from others below.
Yes, that looks like a very strange translation, given that most (if not all) of the other versions (see link below) say differently.

2. NRSV: I will give it along with Ammon to the people of the east as a possession. Thus Ammon shall be remember no more among the nations,
3. NIV: I will give Moab along with the Ammonites to the people of the East as a possession, so that the Ammonites will not be remembered among the nations;


I agree SoothingDave, KJV is the most difficult one for me to understand. Or I’m still far away from that level to understand them. :silly:

Yes, they seem to mean different things. There's commentary here (towards bottom of page):
http://bible.cc/ezekiel/25-10.htm

"The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. " http://www.catholic.org/bible/

Some of these apparent discrepancies will be for doctrinal reasons, and some will be different translations of ambiguous texts.

 

[dawnngcm]

Yes, they seem to mean different things. There's commentary here (towards bottom of page):
http://bible.cc/ezekiel/25-10.htm

"The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. " http://www.catholic.org/bible/

Some of these apparent discrepancies will be for doctrinal reasons, and some will be different translations of ambiguous texts.

Thanks Raymott for useful links!

I think the Bible is the book with the most translations in the world.

When I compare meaning of the same verses with different translations, English and Chinese, findings can be very interesting sometimes. :-D

 

[Tdol]

Are all English writing in different versions of Bible, such as King James Version (KJV), Good News Edition (GNE), New International Version (NIV), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), grammatically correct?

I can’t figure out their syntax sometimes. :-?

Poll: The wages of sin ____ death. - Language Polls - UsingEnglish.com
;-)

 

[dawnngcm]

An example from book of Ezekiel (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV])

Is the underline sentence grammatical correct? Which situation will double “and” be used to connect three subjects/nouns in a sentence?

"Paras and Lud and Put were in your army, your mighty warriors; they hung shield and helmet in you; they gave you splendor." (Ezekiel 27:10 – NRSV)

 

[5jj]

It would not be considered good style today; - we'd say, "Paras, Lud and Put were ..."

However, you will often hear more than one 'and' in conversation, especially to stress the number:

Lindsay and Emma and Fred were there.

It's perfectly acceptable when we see the expressions containing 'and' as units:

Sausage and mash and fish and chips are traditional English meals.

 

[dawnngcm]

It's perfectly acceptable when we see the expressions containing 'and' as units:

Sausage and mash and fish and chips are traditional English meals.

Thanks teacher fivejedjon!

Is similar sentence like the following acceptable too?

"Sausage and mash and fish and chips and toast and marmalade are traditional English meals."

In other words, no maximum no. of “and” is limited to put in a single sentence if there is need?

 

[5jj]

I'd go for:

"Sausage and mash, [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE]fish and chips and toast and marmalade are traditional English meals."

However, your version is possible.

 

[dawnngcm]

I'd go for:

"Sausage and mash, [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE]fish and chips and toast and marmalade are traditional English meals."

However, your version is possible.

I think your reply answered my 2nd question (In other words, no maximum no. of “and” is limited to put in a single sentence if there is need?).

Thank you very much! :up:

 

[TheParser]

An example from book of Ezekiel (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV])

Is the underline sentence grammatical correct? Which situation will double “and” be used to connect three subjects/nouns in a sentence?

"Paras and Lud and Put were in your army, your mighty warriors; they hung shield and helmet in you; they gave you splendor." (Ezekiel 27:10 – NRSV)

ONLY A NON-TEACHER'S OPINION


(1) I think that it is not only "correct" but even preferable and quite elegant.

(2) When you say or write "Paras, Lud, and Put were in your army," it seems

to me that you are not emphasizing the equality of all three persons so much as

when you say "Paras and Lud and Put were in your army." What do you think?

(3) In other words, many times the use of a comma or of the conjunction "and"

seems to be a matter of style.

(4) I found this in The Elements of Grammar by Margaret Shertzer:

Reading and writing and arithmetic are still basic.

(a) I think that such a sentence is stronger than "Reading, writing, and arithmetic

are still basic." What do you think?

(5) Tom: How many houses do you have?

Mona (a very rich and snobbish woman): Well, dear, I have homes in New York and

London and Beijing and Moscow and Buenos Aires. I'm currently thinking of buy one

in Warsaw.

(a) It is only my opinion that using commas would have made the sentence

"weaker." What do you think?

(6) Of course, you do not want to do this too often. In other words, it could seem

strange or even child-like to use "and" too often:

My friends are Tom and Sue and Tony and Mona and George and Alicia and Jose

and Marta. (You would be out of breath!)

 

[dawnngcm]

(2) When you say or write "Paras, Lud, and Put were in your army," it seems

to me that you are not emphasizing the equality of all three persons so much as

when you say "Paras and Lud and Put were in your army." What do you think?

(a) I think that such a sentence is stronger than "Reading, writing, and arithmetic

are still basic." What do you think?

Thanks TheParser for your sharing.

I’ve been taught “and” is used to join two expressions. Commas with “and” are used to separate and join two or more expressions, “and” is put before the last.

So “and” is used for emphasizing the equality, stress the number and treat it as units like teacher fivejedion said, I haven’t heard before.

It is new concepts and interesting usages of “and” to me. :-D

P.S.
I checked different versions, they are,
NIV – Men of Persia, Lydia and Put served as soldiers in your army. They hung their shields and helmets on your walls, bringing you splendor.
NJB – Men from Persia, Lud and Put served as warriors in your army; hanging up shield and helmet in you, they displayed your splendour.
GNE – Soldiers from Persia, Lydia, and Libya served in your army. They hung their shield and their helmets in your barracks. They are the men who won glory for you.

 

[birdeen's call]

Thanks TheParser for your sharing.

I’ve been taught “and” is used to join two expressions. Commas with “and” are used to separate and join two or more expressions, “and” is put before the last.

Yes, but note that it's a matter of style, not grammar.

 

[dawnngcm]

I’m not sure if it is right to write another question about English writing in the Bible here, for this already is a long thread.

If administrators think it is not so good, please let me know what I should do next time / feel free to redirect it wherever you think it is appropriate. Thanks!


Ezekiel 12:23
The time has come [GNE] / The days are coming [NJB] / The day is near [NRSV, NIV]

I checked Oxford advancer learner’s dictionary, it said ‘come – Time (old-fashioned, informal) when the time mentioned comes.

Is ‘come / near’ still used normally today to describe the time mentioned / plan scheduled is close?

P.S.
1. Day / time are abstract nouns, it seems a bit odd that they can actually come / near;
2. I checked other modern versions Bible like ‘New Living Translation (©2007)’ and ‘English Standard Version (©2001)’, it used ‘The time has come’ and ‘The days are near’ respectively. However, some version like King James 2000 Bible (©2003), it used ‘The days are at hand’.

Thank you in advance!

 

[5jj]

I checked Oxford advancer learner’s dictionary, it said ‘come – Time (old-fashioned, informal) when the time mentioned comes.

That 'old-fashioned' use, with the meaning 'when the time mentioned comes' is the one in such examples as: Those flowers will be dead come autumn.

We still use the time has come naturally.

 

[dawnngcm]

Thanks teacher 5jj!!!

And thanks teacher Tdol for still letting me ask question in this thread!