Does the language of the scriptures bother you?

[Guest]

When I imagine talking to Jesus Christ one on one in a conversation, I imagine him speaking to me in modern 21st century english that I can understand and relate to. Sometimes it's difficult reading the scriptures and trying to understand exactly what the people are saying with all the old timey language. I'm just letting people know that not everyone understands simple verses and what is actually being said because of the way it's written. There are some Jesus quotes in the New Testament and Doctrine and Covenants that I don't even understand what Jesus really means. I wish there were scriptures in modern 21st century english. And I hope I can understand what Jesus is saying when I do have a conversation with him one day.

[Vort]

The opposite. Scriptural language generally seems much clearer and more direct, lacking the wiggle room and ambiguity that infest are characteristic of modern speech.

Simple example: "Thou" versus "ye" ("you"). What a great word "thou" is! We English speakers were idiots to give it up. It tells us unambiguously whether the pronoun refers to two or more people (e.g. Jesus to Peter, speaking of all the disciples: "Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat") or whether it's referring to one person only (e.g. Jesus to Peter, speaking of Peter alone: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy strength fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren").

Edited March 2, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

The scriptures are written in very formal English, conveying a mood of truth, soberness, and reverence.  This type of formal English seems to be very conducive to feeling the Spirit, as well as getting your attention that what is being said is very important.

I have read parts of The Living Bible (written in modern English).  While you may still be getting the Bible stories, something is definitely lost when you read the Bible this way.  To me, it does not feel like I am actually reading the scriptures when I read The Living Bible or that I am being spiritually nourished as strongly.

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[SilentOne]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

I wish there were scriptures in modern 21st century english.

There are, and we aren't banned from checking out some of the other translations as study aids. I think the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version are pretty well respected.

[Sunday21]

@Zarahemla Could not agree more! I desperately want to rewrite almost all of the scriptures! And the use of pronouns in the Book of Mormon! Don't get me started! Talking about 4 men and the next sentence starts with 'He' so which of the four men are we talking about?

[bytebear]

I am one who love the language.  And actually, the "ye" and "thou" are familiar, and "you" is the formal.  We just don't have the distinction any more.  Many languages do (Spanish for example has "tu" and "usted").  I grew up with it, and speaking that way in prayer, so I consider it the language of worship in my own mind.  I am sure it's very different in other languages.  English has simply lost some charm, I think.  I remember going to the movie "Much Ado About Nothing" with several friends, and I was one of the few laughing at all the jokes.  No one else got them, because they didn't get the language.  I find that sad, and something lost in modern society.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

And actually, the "ye" and "thou" are familiar, and "you" is the formal.

Not so. So-called "formal" speech is not used in scripture at all, as far as I can tell. Or perhaps more precisely, formality is never conveyed by pronoun choice. The pronouns are always strictly literal in their meanings. (Traditional Christians and Jews would probably disagree with this in the plural pronouns referring to deity in Genesis, but to Latter-day Saints, their meaning is perfectly clear.)

"Thou" and "ye" are the subject forms; "thee" and "you" are the object forms. So we say:

Thou art speaking / Ye are speaking.

but:

I am speaking to thee/you.

The singular pronouns "thou/thee/thy/thine" along with the subject form "ye" were all lost from English in the last couple of hundred years, all replaced by "you" (and "your/yours" for "thy/thine"). Truly a pity.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Vort

[a mustard seed]

I agree with most of the others - I like the language and think it's fine. I think reading with practice helps foster understanding, like reading Shakespeare, you eventually develop a mental translation. The only time I find it hard to understand is when it is overly symbolic, like with Isaiah but although it is a challenge for me personally, once I get to the nitty gritty of picking it apart, it is actually really cool stuff. Oh, and stuff like with Numbers I don't appreciate very much, where it sounds like an accountant log. Not because I don't understand the language but because it is boring and repetitive. I understand the "why"(I think) but it is just hard to focus on it and get through it.

[Vort]

I was surprised and pleased to find that I actually quite enjoyed the book of Numbers when I read it carefully last year. It is a bit accountant-like, but it all points toward how to build the temple. If you're imagining the temple as you read and you put the words into your mental image, it's actually very interesting.

[Fether]

14 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

There are some Jesus quotes in the New Testament and Doctrine and Covenants that I don't even understand what Jesus really means. I wish there were scriptures in modern 21st century english. And I hope I can understand what Jesus is saying when I do have a conversation with him one day.

I totally understand, check out this translation of the Bible. Easily the most modern one. I feel this may be at your level

http://ebible.org/hwcNT/

Edited March 2, 2017 by Fether

[Backroads]

I never thought about it.

No, not bothered. It's how it's written and I embrace it as an essential quality.

[SilentOne]

If you'd like to check out some other translations, try https://www.biblegateway.com/.

[Anddenex]

In my youth, yes, because the language was foreign. The more I read the scriptures the more I began to love the language it is written in. I understand the difficulty in understanding some passages, and this is why we have the Spirit as a companion. Clears up and clarifies what we need to know.

[anatess2]

Well.  I would think this only bothers English speaking people.  My lament of Americans and Brits is this - yes, English is the language of international trade.  But c'mon... learn to speak something else!  Fluently!

I mean, can you imagine a Filipino trying to figure out the difference between British English and American English  and Irish English and Australian English and Ebonics English and Southern English and Old English and conversational English and all other kinds of English?  But we do.  We have to.  Because you English speakers just don't want to make it easier for us.

Okay, okay... I was just being funny.  With some truth woven in there. 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by anatess2

[skalenfehl]

Zarahemla, I've read the scriptures in three different languages (being multi-lingual). Reading the Bible, for example in German's Luther translation, which Joseph Smith commented on in 1844:

Quote

I find it to be the most correct that I have found & it corresponds the nearest to the revns. that I have given the last 16 years..." (Words of Joseph Smith p. 351

and also Spanish, which is my native tongue. English can be a messy language indeed, especially in an outdated version of itself. But with careful, ponderous and repeated study and the Holy Ghost, it can be done. It is my experience that the Lord speaks to one according to his own understanding. If you use thee and thou in life, then He may well address you with thee and thou. If you use tu and usted, then likewise. Gleichfalls mit du und dir. Furthermore, if "dude" is part of your natural communication, maybe He will address you as such. 

 

[bytebear]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

Not so. So-called "formal" speech is not used in scripture at all, as far as I can tell. Or perhaps more precisely, formality is never conveyed by pronoun choice. The pronouns are always strictly literal in their meanings. (Traditional Christians and Jews would probably disagree with this in the plural pronouns referring to deity in Genesis, but to Latter-day Saints, their meaning is perfectly clear.)

"Thou" and "ye" are the subject forms; "thee" and "you" are the object forms. So we say:

Thou art speaking / Ye are speaking.

but:

I am speaking to thee/you.

The singular pronouns "thou/thee/thy/thine" along with the subject form "ye" were all lost from English in the last couple of hundred years, all replaced by "you" (and "your/yours" for "thy/thine"). Truly a pity.

"Following the Norman invasion of 1066, thou was used to express intimacy, familiarity or even disrespect, while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances (see T–V distinction)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
 

Perhaps, not in the context of the Bible, but I knew I learned that somewhere.

[Vort]

Yes, the Normans were French-speaking conquerors from (surprise!) Normandy, across the English Channel. They were actually primarily of Norse blood. After conquering Alfred in 1066, they established William as king of England and began imposing their linguistic culture on the native Anglo-Saxon. The French "tu/vous" was inelegantly carried over to the English "thou/ye". After a few centuries, most English speakers no longer understood the difference between "ye" (or "you") and "thou", so "thou" just sort of died out.

But scripture never used this dichotomy. In the Bible "thou" was always used to translate the singular, and "ye" was always used to translate the plural. As I wrote before, those are the subject pronouns; the corresponding object pronouns were "thee" and "you".

[zil]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

But scripture never used this dichotomy. In the Bible "thou" was always used to translate the singular, and "ye" was always used to translate the plural. As I wrote before, those are the subject pronouns; the corresponding object pronouns were "thee" and "you".

Russian uses both meanings, and somewhere, I got the same impression of old English: "Thou" (ты) is singular (always) and familiar; "You" (вы) can be singular formal, or plural.  In Russian, the familiar is used in families and among close friends.  The formal is used either with a group (plural) or when addressing someone "senior" (child to adult, employee to boss, citizen to state official).

I could be wrong about the old English following the same pattern - can't remember where I heard that.  I've always thought of "thou" that way, because it would be used within a family, and well, we're all God's family.

[askandanswer]

On 3/3/2017 at 4:44 AM, anatess2 said:

 

I mean, can you imagine a Filipino trying to figure out the difference between British English and American English  and Irish English and Australian English and Ebonics English and Southern English and Old English and conversational English and all other kinds of English?  But we do.  We have to.  Because you English speakers just don't want to make it easier for us.

 

 

No need to worry about the British, Irish, American, Ebonics, Southern, Old or conversational English. Aussie English is good enough. But even given the superiority of Aussie English it still wouldn't sound right to greet Christ with "gooday mate."

[askandanswer]

On 3/2/2017 at 11:49 AM, Zarahemla said:

 And I hope I can understand what Jesus is saying when I do have a conversation with him one day.

Let me assure you that you and Jesus will understand each other perfectly when that day comes, more perfectly than you have ever understood any conversation you have ever had. I expect that your conversation will be hear to heart and could even by unspoken. He will just know, as will you. 

[askandanswer]

Its not the language of the scriptures that bothers me, but sometimes its the font. I've started reading Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the font in which it has been used is just tiny, and the footnotes are even smaller. I gave up reading the footnotes after a while, they are just too small.

[Just_A_Guy]

IIRC the KJV translators chose to use "Jacobean English" to convey a sense of majesty and timelessness precisely because it was already a shade archaic by the time the KJV was published.  Today we also lose some of the pronunciations, which makes things unnecessarily complicated--by the 1600s the "eth" suffix was pronounced "s"; so if you want to be really accurate you should say "thinks" where the text says "thinketh", and "says" where you read "saith".  ("Shew", by the way, has never been pronounced to rhyme with "few"; it is pronounced "show".)

A couple other things to bear in mind are a) English is a much more precise language than ancient Hebrew is--many more word tenses--so don't assume that a less ambiguous English translation is necessarily more accurate; and b) the KJV translators' attempt to use magisterial language sometimes undercuts the fact that some portions of the Bible--especially in the OT--are supposed to be earthy and even bawdy at times.  You also lose some of the voice of the individual authors.  For example, Luke's Greek is about as formal and proper as Elizabeth II's English; whereas Mark writes more or less like a first-century redneck.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

On March 1, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Zarahemla said:

When I imagine talking to Jesus Christ one on one in a conversation, I imagine him speaking to me in modern 21st century english that I can understand and relate to. Sometimes it's difficult reading the scriptures and trying to understand exactly what the people are saying with all the old timey language. I'm just letting people know that not everyone understands simple verses and what is actually being said because of the way it's written. There are some Jesus quotes in the New Testament and Doctrine and Covenants that I don't even understand what Jesus really means. I wish there were scriptures in modern 21st century english. And I hope I can understand what Jesus is saying when I do have a conversation with him one day.

I for one, am glad that joseph smith kept to the formal english and kept close to the judaic structures and wordplays (which do not make for good english, and less so for modern english). When we had a nonlds scholar of the kaballah come to this site by invitation of a member, who was asked to take a look through the BoM and just share what he thought about it, the results were very impressive to say the least- right from the first paragraphs he was pulling stuff out that i had no clue were there.

Had the book been translated to modern english, and more so to forms and structures that are easier for us to understand, he would not have had as much insight to the book as he had... So that in itself creates another testament to the books validity.

[Blackmarch]

On March 5, 2017 at 10:31 AM, askandanswer said:

Its not the language of the scriptures that bothers me, but sometimes its the font. I've started reading Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the font in which it has been used is just tiny, and the footnotes are even smaller. I gave up reading the footnotes after a while, they are just too small.

There are oversized editions. Alternatively if youve gone digital, most platforms provide some means of enlarging things.