That would be “southern.” Which I am not.
3 Likes
So in northerner dialect, would it be something more like “all youse…”?
Or maybe you could start something; that is, if ‘ye’ doesn’t work out.
2 Likes
In Michigan, maybe the wider Midwest, we usually say “you guys.” One of my younger girlfriends uses “you gyns.”
“Yous” strikes me as from The Bronx, but that might just be a stereotype.
1 Like
Which brings up the question, does she produce gyn as “gin” or “guy-n?”
2 Likes
Guine-z
…
…
1 Like
That’s what we used in Greek class.
My relatives in Nebraska always used “you’ns”.
2 Likes
i do not agree that this claim is an accurate description of sound biblical theology. We know from internal comparisons within the text what the writers original intended interpretations were. We can know this by comparing similar statements of theology and doctrine across various bible writers that existed over many hundreds of years and hundreds of miles of distance. Those things prove beyond any doubt that there is no modern insert there beyond translating.
Even then, translating is quite easily able to produce accurate results…for example, the discovery of the Rosetta Stone was the key to translating Egyptian Hieraglyphs. We know almost exactly what the entire ancient Egyptian language is now because of the cross referencing of the 3 languages on that stone.
The bible has far more numerous and easily accessible decoders for its ancient language that ensures translators over the ages do not screw up the original. One significant proof of this is the comparison of the critical verses majority texts. Textus receptus revealed an uncanny accuracy over hundreds of years of copying by largely unqualified individuals who were without a central control body or mechanism. There are some differences sure, however, generally these do not affect any doctrine in the KJV which was derived from it. We can also look at the Dead Sea scrolls and subsequent find of the Silver Scrolls and know that nothing has changed since at least 800 B.C and given the New Testament writers support Old Testament writings by referencing them so often, it is certain that we are not mistranslating or misinterpreting any part of the ancient text that is internally (within the bible text itself) claimed to be far older than 700 B.C (ie the writings of Moses).
Even the claimed trinitarian text 1 John 5:7-9 KJV, whilst almost certainly a later addition, is not necessary in supporting the trinitarian doctrine. Trinitarians have far more references to the doctrine than that text from a variety of other biblical writers, that is the point I’m making here.
One thing i should note at this point (before naysayers run their mouths off) only about 1% of errors in the bible are noteworthy and of those (eg 1 John 5:7 KJV), the vast majority have little or no impact on internal biblical theology or self-evident doctrine! Anyone who wishes to disagree on this may challenge me as I’m willing to stand and be corrected where it can be proven from the textual variants that they completely change doctrine.
“Jesus’s” is like “Banana”. It’s hard to know when to stop.
3 Likes
Whoa, Adam. Slow down. Back the truck up.
No one is saying here that it is impossible to know (fairly accurately) what people of the Biblical world over their time thought or knew. Just that languages change.
(Although I challenge @Mervin_Bitikofer to produce evidence of the laziness hypothesis. Cherry picking I say!)
I will say that it is impossible to do anything like recreating in our minds the way of thinking that existed then. Our minds are not like write-unprotected floppy disks. Anything that we take and learn and consider will be done with minds with very different cultural formations. Don’t believe me, go spend time in Japan or India and try to “become” entirely Japanese of Indian in your thinking. If you spent enough time immersed, you might come close, but never all the way. You aren’t starting from nothing, and that makes a huge difference.
That languages are constantly changing is also easily demonstrable by examining the language differences developed over hundreds of years among the English speaking world, or in the relatively brief time Germany was divided.
3 Likes
Couldn’t help thinking about an old Larry Norman song:
Moses went and bugged Pharaoh.
He bugged him and he bugged him.
(He used real bugs.)
Link here: Moses in the Wilderness
1 Like
To be fair - it isn’t my hypothesis - but McWhorter’s. He just made a compelling case for it (I thought). See what you think. He doesn’t actually use the word “lazy” in the transcript of the linked Ted Talk - but he did in a longer video I listened to elsewhere.
1 Like
It appears that the same rules apply to acronyms. I am definitely a guilty party when it comes to using an apostrophe for plurals on acronyms (e.g. ribosomal RNA’s).
3 Likes
I have seen that used in formal writing for plurals of individual letters, so acronyms may be fine.
That’s not how language works – first you have to know what kind of literature they intended to write.
Don’t talk in a field you know nothing about. There are things in the Hebrew scriptures that cannot translate into English, period; it needs substantial explanation. Genesis 1:1-2 is just the first example of many.
Good grief – that has nothing to do with translation. You really have no clue what you’re talking about!
Besides which, the TR is a medieval construct, put together in the same century as the printing press became a thing in Europe. Texts that get printed tend to have accurate transmission.
The find of the silver scrolls establishes nothing about the existence of a greater text.
No book of the Hebrew scriptures claims Mosaic authorship. In fact even the Jews didn’t claim Mosaic authorship until the third century CE.
That’s something every biblical scholar I’ve met, listened to, or read stuff from would agree with. We can get close by figuring out what the worldview was at the time of writing, including the literary genre, and that’s a lot closer than what it was when I was in grad school, but for all that Heiser and Walton talk about seeing the scriptures through ancient eyes we still suffer from two problems: we have nothing from the general population – which means our understanding is necessarily skewed – and we do not take to that ancient worldview naturally; we have to use crutches such as reviewing what is know regularly and/or checklists and descriptions of literary types.
Yeah – I spent a year immersed in Cuban culture in Miami for a year and my understanding advanced just enough to not make big stupid mistakes, and speak Spanish with a Cuban accent.
True – it’s a standard principle of language change, applied to a particular case.
And dates; it’s “the 1990s” – “1990’s” would indicate something pertaining to that decade, e.g. “the 1990’s big movies”.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.