Spanish

saul^paul you should have been here long enough (Dec 2003) to know that no one is bashing the KJV per se.

We are responding to the KJVO claims of the KJV's human perfection because supposedly God "moved" the KJV translators to make an English word-for-word perfectly perfect jot-and-tittle English Bible as well as promoting other bizarre/absurd KJVO theories (like the English text corrects the Greek and Hebrew sources from which it was translated).

To defeat these errors we have to point out these weaknesses and human errors within the English text of the KJV and this may very well appear to be "bashing" the KJV, but again, it is necessary to overcome the radical KJVO errors.


HankD

 

First, if I've correctly read through the thread, I don't think anyone has pointed out the obvious. The difference between "usted" and "tu" is the difference between formal and familiar (both are singular). BUT the difference between "you" and "thou" is the difference between plural and singular. A good English dictionary and Greek lexicon should clear this up. For example, look up "ye" - "used originally only as a plural pronoun of the second person in the subjective case..." It is a shame, for clarity's sake, that we have lost the plural/singular difference in English (which Spanish preserves).

Second, is anyone here familiar with Spanish translations of the Bible? The one I have is the Antigua Version de Casiodoro de Reina (1569, but revised 1602). Anyone familiar with it?

 

What do you think? I bet the AV translators were familiar with both Reina and Valera ... oooooops we don't bet do we?

 

Hank

I understand the need to go to the original languages ... [BTW - some great greek study is conducted in Spain ... ]

However, the question here is about english to spanish ...

How would you translate: "American"; "United States"; & "North American"

This is the crux of the translational issues that so many miss outright. The issues also apply to Greek to ANY AND EVERY language.

A "Mexicano" [sic] is an American; He is from the United States of Mexico; and He is definitely from North America.

And this is a translational problem illustrated using ONLY English ...

Use a second language and all of a sudden it can get difficult - quick.

Just ask the people that remember the translational mistake of then President Reagan's translator(s) in Central America ...

 

Or, ask the barber that cut my hair in Fort Worth ...

 

Basically, the way I see it, some people want to translate the KJV into Spanish for the same reason that some people cling to KJVOism...they want to perpetuate the sect.

Gee, I can't wait to here the rhetoric of the SKJVO (Spanish King James Version Only)!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

From what I recollect from Spanish class, 'estas' was the familiar usage, and 'usted' was the proper, or respectful, usage. 'Estas' was used among friends and such. 'Usted' was used when addressing elders, superiors, strangers. Nothing about 'you' and 'thou', which is nothing more than KJVO verbage.

The only differences between 'you' and 'thou' is that today 'you' can be singular or plural (except in the South, where it is y'all), and 'thou' is always singular. Oh, and 'thou' is not part of the venacular of the day...nor has it been for close to four hundred years.

'Thou' has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with familiarity. 'Thou' is the singular form of 'you' and nothing else, period. Let's not add to the cloud that the KJVO use to hide their tactics.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

"I would love to see a good spanish translation of the KJV seeing how there are spanish translations of the asv and niv."
"
As far as I know both the Spanish NIV&ASV were translated from the original languages. They only share the same translation philosophy, Greek/Hebrew source texts and marketing strategy with their English language counterparts.

A number of different language versions of the (jehovah's witnesses) NWT Bible were translated from English instead of the original languages, including the Dutch version.

 

...

The KJV translators had three sources at their disposal which most Americans (*) totally forget about.

1. The Complutensian Polyglot (**) A solid work commissioned in Spain.

2. The works of Reina would have been known to them. 3. And the revision of Reina by Valera would have been known to them.

saul^paul

THEREFORE: I ask: why haven't you noticed that the KJV usually follows the style and format of the the Reina Valera 1602? (Reina-Valera Antigua)


* BUMP to understand the correct interpretation of American

**

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

This is not entirely accurate. Example available upon request.

 

Back to what Aspon originally postulated.

Yes, some grammarians see the similarity between thou and and the Spanish "forma tú"

NO, not all grammarians see the similarity.

 

apson please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this your core statement of this thread?

I went to high school in Palo Alto, CA and took three years of Spanish.

After school and in the summer I worked in downtown Palo Alto and later in San Jose and had ample opportunity to use the Spanish language although it's been about 40 years since I have used it conversationally.

And, I agree 100% with apson's statement quoted above.

However, my point is that Greek and Hebrew do not make a grammatical or semantic distinction between formal and familiar mode of converstation.

A secondary point then is that the translator must determine from the context which would be the correct usage.

Granted, the KJV does it already for you but in that same spirit of the KJV translators any new translation should be "translated out of the original tongues" with other translations "diligently compared".

However there are many other grammar, syntax and semantic areas which the English language doesn't bring over into Spanish which the Greek/Hebrew do (example: gender) that one must use the original language texts as one's primary source.

There are also idiomatic areas in the original languages which are not found in English or Spanish which also necessitate Hebrew/Greek as the primary usage in translation.

American: Americano/a.
United states : Estados Unidos.
North American: Norte Americano/a.

HankD

[ March 06, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Trotter, I don't think this is necessarily a "KJVO tactic". It seems that most people posting in this thread (whether KJV supporters or detractors) are/were not aware that the difference between "you" and "thou" is in plural and singular rather than formal and familiar. At least no one before me pointed out the difference, and seemed to be discussing "thou = familiar" as correct. Is it possible that this "thou = familiar" is something that cropped up later through usage (such as using "thou" to address God)? Just wondering, I don't know - but it seems a lot of people have the perception that thou equals familiar usage.

Actually in the plural/singular you/thou the KJV has an advantage by providing a "more accurate" translation than modern English Bibles. Greek does have both plural & singular "you" (second person). I use "more accurate" in quotes because I don't think "you" in modern English is an incorrect translation. It's just that we "moderns" have lost the ability to distinguish second person singular/plural through word choice. I don't know why any KJVO person would want to cloud this advantage through the questionable discussion of the familiar/formal usage, and I think that some people on both sides have accepted the idea that thou = familiar usage. Can anyone supply a reference to support this idea (thou = familiar)? in Elizabethean English? in English in more modern times? How do the Quakers use "thou"?

 

Thanks, Stephen. The Quaker usage that I've heard was via the media, and I didn't know if it reflected them correctly. But in those cases, I was aware that the Quaker usage was not the same as old English (particuarly KJV) usage - such as in your example where "thee" is used as nominative instead of the proper "thou". The Quaker usage is one reason I thought of it as something that developed, though it seems from the online quote that it had started developing even before the King James Version was translated. I still believe that it holds true in the KJV that thou/thee/thine is used to translate singular, and has nothing to do with familiar. There could be some exceptions - does anyone know of any?

 

Has anyone else EVER studyied English GRAMMARS?

WHERE are we going with this line of discussion?

Internet grammars did not exist back then. Do any extant grammars support where this thread is going?

 

Did the original poster vanish?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I know I certainly resent the fact of being accused of KJV bashing. I am not KJVo, although I do tend to gravitate toward the Byzantine Texttype, but like I always say, that is a personal decision and I do NOT have a problem with people preferring to use the CT because it does not change doctrine.

Back to KJV bashing. I can't tell you what to do in this regard, but I think an apology would be in order to those of us who are not KJVO but believe that the KJV is a good translation (especially in its day). I think it is probably EXTREMELY accurate, but it is, after all, just a translation.

My only problem with it is the archaic language makes it very difficult to read especially for those who are new Christians or young children.

If you grew up in church like I did, it is difficult for us to understand this because we have been taught the Elizabethean language since youth. Even then, there are words I still do not understand or confuse; based primarily on the list of words we made showing the old meanings are NOT the same as the modern meanings.