They reject Biblical English grammar and spelling, trying to make out that it is inconsistent, when on examination, the PCE is found to be exactly correct right down to the details of Biblical English use.
Where do the Scriptures teach that a translation establishes the rules for spelling and grammar for that language? Is there any sound Scriptural basis for the above claims? Where do the Scriptures teach that it is only a certain edition of that translation that establishes the rules for spelling and grammar for that language?
Does the so-called PCE reject Biblical spelling when it rejects English spelling found in the 1611 edition of the KJV or in some other standard edition of the KJV?
Does the so-call PCE reject the 1611 Biblical spelling at Proverbs 7:14?
Does the so-called PCE reject any spellings in the 1769 standard Oxford edition of the KJV edited by Benjamin Blayney? On what objective and consistent basis are the spelling of certain words in the so-called PCE defended?
Where do the Scriptures teach that a translation establishes the rules for spelling and grammar for that language? Is there any sound Scriptural basis for the above claims? Where do the Scriptures teach that it is only a certain edition of that translation that establishes the rules for spelling and grammar for that language?
Clearly the Scriptures teach no such thing, nor do the Scriptures speak of themselves with regard to any particular translation, that is, although the Scriptures do indeed speak often of the "word of God", there is no suggestion that any individual or particular example of a translation into any particular language is intended, yet it is nonetheless indisputable that the KJV has contributed much to the development of that form of English referred to as Early Modern English, and by derivation and progression, to much that remains excellent in the best examples of our 17th to 20th century English literature.
It would not be at all inaccurate to say that the language of the KJV helped to shape the forms of modern English as it has come down to us.
So although the Scriptures do not teach that any particular translation or version of the Bible is intended to specify or teach a given language's rules of grammar or spelling, it is ironically true that a particular version, the KJV, did so much to influence the status and development of our English language.
FWIW.
It was on page 3 [post #27] of the thread entitled "Is the KJV based on any counterfeits?"
Here is the context for this thread. bibleprotector's response included a spot of humour dealing with the Norris Bot language, nonetheless the discussion was interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
There is a lack of consistency, clarity, and soundness in KJV-only claims for the so-called PCE. Pure English grammar and spelling will be rejected as supposedly impure while oddball or archaic English spelling and grammar will be excused and rationalized as being pure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
There is a lack of consistency, clarity and soundness in anti-KJBO claims for variations to the Pure Cambridge Edition. There is a willingness to uphold the quirks and untenable choices of Scrivener and Norton, only because they reject pure renderings or agree with modernist assumptions. They reject Biblical English grammar and spelling, trying to make out that it is inconsistent, when on examination, the PCE is found to be exactly correct right down to the details of Biblical English use..
Quirks and untenable choices of Scrivener and Norton have been documented. Similarly we have seen many cases where Biblical English grammar and spelling has been rejected (simple example "strain at a gnat").
So the remaining part is :
"the PCE is found to be exactly correct right down to the details of Biblical English use"
Rick claims that Proverbs 7:14 :
Proverbs*7:14 I have peace offerings with me;
this day have I payed my vows.
cannot be said to be "exactly correct right down to the details of Biblical English use" because certain editions, including 1611, had paid. Here we may get into the nuance of burden of proof and whether one word being "exactly correct" makes another word not correct.
As for payed and paid, the most interesting discussion I have found is:
KJB - influence the status and development of our English language
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAWBONES
Clearly the Scriptures teach no such thing,
Remember you were dealing only with what Rick wants to give the impression might have been implied, not the actual words of bibleprotector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAWBONES
it is nonetheless indisputable that the KJV has contributed much to the development of that form of English referred to as Early Modern English, and by derivation and progression, to much that remains excellent in the best examples of our 17th to 20th century English literature.
Amen. Quite amazingly so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAWBONES
...the language of the KJV helped to shape the forms of modern English as it has come down to us ... it is ironically true that a particular version, the KJV, did so much to influence the status and development of our English language.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-30-2009 at 02:11 AM.
KJV-only advocates ignore the quirks and inconsistencies in spelling and grammar in the editions of the KJV that they seem to pick arbitrarily. They provide no consistent principles and rules for spelling and grammar for evaluating an edition, but arbitrarily seek to justify or rationalize whatever inconsistencies and quirks are found in one certain edition.
Where do the Scriptures teach that a translation establishes the rules for spelling and grammar for that language?
Bible English is not the same as "normal" English (and there are variations at present in "normal" English).
The rightness of Bible English is based on its own authority, namely, that it is the very Word of God in English. Surely, God's Word must be correct, and if presented by God's providence, should be with correct (i.e. Biblical) English.
Quote:
Is there any sound Scriptural basis for the above claims?
The above claims are not being made, i.e. that a translation establishes the rules for that language.
However, the pure and proper Scriptural form, being connected to the belief and practice of Scripture, is to speak in line with Scripture itself. Zeph. 3:9, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."
This cannot be Hebrew or Greek, because they are not world languages, they are not used by believers commonly and those using those languages are not in doctrinal agreement. Moreover, the name of the Lord is shrouded by modernistic developments with the original languages.
The prophecy of Zephaniah is talking about having a Scriptural standard. It is not saying that we should speak or write "KJBese". If people in the world are turned to English as the common language, then they have access to the very words of God without spot or blemish in English. This is what it means to turn to the people a pure language, because their knowing English was prerequisite for their access to the very pure Word. Thus, normal English is conversant with pure Bible English, and that is the purpose of normal English.
This is besides the fact that the KJB has had an impact on our language.
Quote:
Where do the Scriptures teach that it is only a certain edition of that translation that establishes the rules for spelling and grammar for that language?
Since Bible English is different to "normal" English, the Bible's use of English must only be consistent with itself. Notwithstanding, that it would not actually be contrary to the proper form of Received English.
The English of the Scripture is God's use of our language, it is lofty and divine, it is far more involved than the vulgar use of every day language.
Quote:
Does the so-called PCE reject Biblical spelling when it rejects English spelling found in the 1611 edition of the KJV or in some other standard edition of the KJV?
Since all "standard editions" are in fact milestones until we reach the PCE, and since there was a standardisation of the language within KJB editions, it follows that the standard must be the final form, and that these were refinements of presentation.
A spelling change would not actually alter the sense, but would perhaps clarify the intended meaning which was actually always meant since 1611. Thus, the PCE gives in the highest purity what was there in any proper edition.
Since "rie" is the true standard, and is the purified presentation of Bible English, so there is no grounds that the PCE is "wrong". If present American spelling tends toward "rye", this cannot be imposed upon the pure presentation of the English Scripture. Also, if the KJB spelt "rye" from 1611, and in various editions, this itself is not sufficient weight, because there was a proper progression of purification of the presentation, which makes "rie" stand as the Biblical standard of spelling.
Quote:
Does the so-called PCE reject the 1611 Biblical spelling at Exodus 9:32?
How can the impure presentation of 1611, with all its typographical errors, be considered to be more pure than the presentation which has come out of a line of proper editing and sound revision of the presentation?
Quote:
Does the so-called PCE reject any spellings in the 1769 standard Oxford edition of the KJV edited by Benjamin Blayney?
The standardisation of spelling in 1769 was not complete, and there are occasions where later editions have altered spellings. The PCE has a few differences in spelling, showing the true standard for the Biblical English form.
As is commonly known to language scholars, Cambridge and Oxford spellings differ a little like British and American spellings do. Thus, we expect that differences like "ax" versus "axe" would be in the purified Biblical form in the PCE, even though no change of meaning or sound is apparent.
Quote:
On what objective and consistent basis are the spelling of certain words in the so-called PCE defended?
There are many reasons to uphold the PCE, including tradition, providence, internal consistency, consistency with the doctrines of Scripture, prophecy, etc.
Is Rick Norris suggesting that the impure presentation of 1611 or Geneva spelling should be the standard for English orthography today?
KJV-only advocates ignore the quirks and inconsistencies in spelling and grammar in the editions of the KJV that they seem to pick arbitrarily. They provide no consistent principles and rules for spelling and grammar for evaluating an edition, but arbitrarily seek to justify or rationalize whatever inconsistencies and quirks are found in one certain edition.
This is the same flawed methodology that Rick brought to his italics analysis. A PCE 'inconsistency' would be internal, not as compared to a variety pack of earlier editions, where of course you could always claim one side or another of a spelling as an 'inconsistency', a meaningless assertion.
The selfsame error is begotten.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
PS.
We do realize it is hard for Rick to accept that tens of hours of labourious editions comparisons availeth him nothing.
Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-30-2009 at 02:17 AM.
Is this a joke?? Isn't it enough that the KJV is alleged to be the ultimate in Bible translation without also deciding that it is the ultimate examplar of English spelling?
It's true that in the case of rye and paid, the 1611 KJV has the same spelling that is used now -- but there are instances of "payed" elsewhere in the 1611 KJV, and a look at the 1611 edition shows LOTS and lots of words that are no longer spelled as they were then: witnesse, worke, wordes, sinnes, iniquities, floore, mercie, knowen, alowd (for aloud), shewed, etc. etc. (and these are examples drawn from just two facing pages!)
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Does PCE reject Biblical spelling?
in another thread
Linear Mode
