Actually that was more than a summary, although I started out that way!

@obi, turned out I was wrong. You only use the accusative of exclamation with adjectives. Shakespeare isn't really the most reliable source for accurate English though, because he was just trying to make it sound pretty.

obi-dork.

The "man of letters" incapable of writing a SENTENCE.

Read his introductory post......

@maple:

Oh, man, I missed you so much!

@ghug:

Yep, Shakespeare just played fast and loose with the language. :p

Which is why I was surprised to see "thou" where I thought a "you/ye" should be--

For Shakespeare it'd make sense, he's just playing fast and loose with the language to fit the meter of his plays or poems...but for an official Holy Bible for King James? You can maybe understand there my confusion as to why I at least initially was confused as to why what I thought was a grammatical mistake was in there (I don't know now if it was or not, or if it's just a quirk of the English language that any of those, ye/thou/you, would have had problems, so they just picked what they wanted.)

@ulytau:

"Dip has a point, God is your closest friend and formal language creates distance, he has no needs for formalities when you pray to him. You cannot open your heart and embrace God when you distance yourself from him."

I suppose maybe that's my own personal bias--

I've never seen God as a "friendly figure," as I had the wrathful, vengeful, do-what-I-say-or-else OT God growing up, and now I'm an atheist, so I definitely don't see God as a friend.

Jesus I can see speaking and being spoken to intimately and as a friend, again, he seems like that sort of character/guy...

I suppose to use a comparison:

Jesus seems like that A+ super-popular brain-and-jack super-student that'd win Prom King and Student Body President in high school, and you'd want as a buddy...at least in theory...

Whereas God seems more like a military drill sergeant to me--definitely not a friendly sort of guy, and certainly not someone I'd be informal with.

"You're missing a big part of the issue here, obiwanobiwan. The Bible is entirely a work of translation.Perhaps it' as simple as Greek and Hebrew having familiar and formal forms for "you" and the distinction was kept. Or they don't and context demanded such a construction in English. The KJV is just the already existing Scriptures put into the English of the sixteenth century or whenever it came out, so you can't just look at the issue without remembering that these works were originally created in totally different tongues."

Hmmm...I wonder what it is like in the original Greek/Hebrew, if that's the case, as again...apparently there is a large group here who see God as being someone you can be informal with and friendly, and I just don't see it in his character.

@Mujus:

" In Old English, there was no formal/informal dichotomy, just singular plural. Singular was thou-thee-thy-thine, and plural was ye-you-your-yours. Hebrew also has no formal/informal dichotomy, but does have both male and female singular and plural forms, basically you (female), you (male), you (females), and you (males). The Old Testament of the Bible was also translated into to Greek, which had singular and plural forms of "you." When William Tyndale translated the Bible into English, pre-King James, he kept the singular-plural dichotomy by using thou for singular you and ye for plural you, and even though by the time of the KJV many parts of England were not using both forms, it was the most accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek words, so they used the two forms. Later, Hebrew started using female forms for more formal uses, or so I understand; Greek started using the singular forms as informal and the plural forms as formal; and English used thou among equals in informal situations and ye when speaking upward socially, as the Anglo-Saxons had to do with the Norman French conquerors. It's interesting also to note that in Sweden, the common people have the right to say "du til könig," meaning that they can use the informal with the king--and this even when the language was super-formal, up until about WWII I guess. As for the informal with God, Jesus called him "Abba," meaning Dad,"or Papa--obviously a close connection."

1. Well, that's interesting if the formal/informal wasn't already there, though I'd somewhat caution against that, on Hebrew at least, as that was largely an oral-tradition language at the time the earliest parts of the OT would have begun to have been written down, and surely the priests/rabbis would have treated God's word (and the parts I'm questioning here, ie, the Commandments) with great formality.

You just can't SAY the Ten Commandments informally and mean it seriously; when they're said and meant, they're meant in a serious, formal, and arguably dictatorial and/or regal tone...

So LATER translations using an informal, if there was none to begin with, is maybe just a case of losing something via time and translation?

Because surely no one would have originally said the Decalogue as if they were informal, God being condescending to the Hebrew people, or both?

As for the last sentence--

I cna surely see JESUS being informal with God...he's his "Son," the second-in-command of the establishment, as it were (and I know, he's really God and 3 and 1 and God on Earth and all of that and so not REALLY "second," I'm just using a figure of speech from my day...maybe the same way the KJV were trying to translate the Hebrew words into their own vernacular? Though again I'd ask why use "thou" if it was archaic already and also somewhat inaccurate, unless, as someone suggested, they wanted that archaic touch, in which case...

Well, Bible readers, would you treat the KJV as an accurate, "good" translation, or is it maybe more of a stylized translation, and there are more accurate and literal--if drier--translations out there?)

*Added in on that Jesus being informal with God part--

I can see him being informal, as he's...well...Jesus...

But how is a mere moral, as it were, worthy of addressing or being addressed informally and with familiarity by God, if we take that whole construct to be true?

Jesus taught his disciples to pray to the Father, which in the King James is "Our Father, which art in heaven...." There's a close relationship there, although my understanding is that second-person Hebrew verbs showed only male/female and singular/plural, but not formal/informal. The KJV was the most accurate version possible at the time it was created--and there's a fascinating National Geographic article on the KJV, well worth a read, at
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/12/king-james-bible/nicolson-text
However, I prefer the New Living Translation for easy understanding, the NIV for Bible studies, and the New American Standard Bible, or a side-by-side parallel Bible, or even a Greek interlinear text for in-depth study of individual words. But it's so easy to use online resources this day, such as you find at blueletterbible.org.

I have a better question: Why is the King James Bible so messed up? Why can't we use the original (By that I mean the Septuagint; both the King James version and the Masoretic versions are corrupted.)

Uh, could it be because we don't speak Greek? ;-)

There are English translations of the LXX, just like every other Bible.

And the copies of the Masoretic version we have today have very, very few errors, and extremely few that affect the meaning, and none that affect any major point of theology.

The Masoretic text is actually highly corrupted; ie. They took away 1200 years from Genesis, left out some Psalms, and many other problems arise too.

Besides, why settle for errors, when you can have the original text?

Part of the problem with reading the King James that many people have today is that the meanings of some words have changed since the 1600s, such as this verse: "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is true." The word "prove" in those days means more like "test" today--In other words, check out everything you hear or read, and hold on to the claims that turn out to be true.

Finally, re the character of God, the Bible shows the dual aspects of his nature throughout, including both absolutely pure judgment, and absolutely undeserved mercy. To understand his nature, I like to go back to Exodus 2 and 3, where God reveals himself to Moses in the burning bush. That section is filled with repeated references to the fact that God cares about his people and has "come down to deliver them." (deliver = rescue)

Another one of the problems is that it isn't Catholic...

Sbyvl36, thank you for that information. I guess the main point that we can take from this is that the most recent translations are the most accurate of those in existence--because we now have such ancient copies as the Dead Sea texts and others to rely on, in addition to the Greek Septuagint and the fixed Masoretic text.

I kind of always thought of it as a father talking to his children. Tu, du, and thou make perfect sense to me in that regard.

Obi, the English Standard Version would be drier but more accurate.

You do have a point that if you're reading it for literature and its impact on English literature, the KJV has a leg up in that regard, certainly.

@Mujus:

"Part of the problem with reading the King James that many people have today is that the meanings of some words have changed since the 1600s, such as this verse: "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is true." The word "prove" in those days means more like "test" today--In other words, check out everything you hear or read, and hold on to the claims that turn out to be true."

Well, for me, for the most part...understanding the intent of those words in the 1600s isn't too big a problem--

I'm the Shakespeare/Milton nut, after all...and while it's true Shakespeare certainly used words, well, if not incorrectly, "colorfully," shall we say, in the Chaucer tradition of whatever-works English, Milton was very meticulous with his words, in his poetry and his essays alike.

So the wording isn't really throwing me--in fact, it's probably the best aspect of it the book right now, for, as I've said above, the logical and ethical problems I had with God in Genesis continue into Exodus...see the whole "hardening his heart" issue above, but at the very least, it IS decently written for a piece at that time...I've seen far worse.

(Incidentally, if anyone wants to see some truly DREADFUL writing from the 1600s, try the 1677 play "The Rover" by Aphra Behn...notable as Behn was one of the very first female authors to gain notoriety in the English language...and also for it's absurd plot, shoddy characterization, and for a quality of language that reads like the 1600s equivalent of a teenage girl writing fan-fiction on Deviant Art...some feminist scholars defend it for being Behn's being one of the first notable female authors (which I can understand) and for allegedly being feminist in tone in large part because it features a woman in disguise escaping rape in one section (which I disagree with as she in large part escapes rape by the luck of others happening upon herself and her would-be rapist, and while rape is obviously a horrific thing, Behn, for whatever reason, never gives her female characters the chance to speak about that, or anything else, really, or have a singular "wow" speech or moment where they show off how deep and complex their characters are in the way Viola, Kate, and Portia all get such moments and speeches in Shakespeare...granted that's comparing Elizabethan theatre to Restoration theatre, but still, Behn takes no time to develop her characters and doesn't seem to have a good command of the plot--that rape scene is one scene in one of three "main" plots, to say nothing of the subplots--and in all the work is as rambling, incoherent, and utterly unfocused as this sentence...except I don't claim it to be a great work of feminist fiction.)

;)

Where was I?

Oh, right--I don't have a problem understanding the KJV language, and it's nice language, I just wonder how accurate it is now.

@Mujus:

"Finally, re the character of God, the Bible shows the dual aspects of his nature throughout, including both absolutely pure judgment, and absolutely undeserved mercy. To understand his nature, I like to go back to Exodus 2 and 3, where God reveals himself to Moses in the burning bush. That section is filled with repeated references to the fact that God cares about his people and has "come down to deliver them." (deliver = rescue)"

Well, I got deliver = rescue, of course...

What I DON'T get is God's playing games with this--why not just let them go a la a literal Act of God?

Why does he need to have Moses keep asking the Pharaoh to--sing it with me now, everybody,--"Let my people go?"

ESPECIALLY when God keeps taking Pharaoh's free will away and "hardens his heart"...several occasions he's ready to let them go, because he--as any rational leader, tyrant or no--has realized, they're really more trouble than they're worth if their staying means rivers of blood and dead cattle all over the land and locusts and whatnot...

But God "hardens his heart," effectively forcing Pharaoh to change his mind and not let the Hebrew people go...

The same people God promised to deliver.

Why the circularity? The reason GOD gives is that he wants to show the world his wonders, so they will know him and all that...well...

1. Why does he need to use this situation in order to show off his power...he's God, can't he just do so whenever he wants, without having millions of innocent Egyptians (and some of them HAD to have been innocent) suffer?

2. Why does God need to "show off" as it were, anyway...granted he wants the world to know him, but aren't there better, more positive ways of doing this (odd for me to say this, but maybe the "Jesus way" of doing this...you know, revealing himself constructively and in aiding people rather than raining down plagues and destruction?

3. EVEN if we take 1 and 2 and set them aside...why harden Pharaoh's heart, that's just cruel and sadistic...and you can argue he can do that if he wants, but then we can't quite argue God wanted people to have free will, as he's clearly taking away the Pharaoh's free will here, so it's "free will...when it's convenient for me." If there MUST be plagues...well, weren't the rivers of blood and boils and killing cattle and locusts enough? At points, Pharaoh IS ready to let them go, say "This is no longer worth the trouble it's causing me and my kingdom," but then God seems to take him over like a puppet master, harden his heart, and switch the Pharaoh's answer to "no"...just so God can rain down more plagues to show off his power...to achieve the same end--freeing the Hebrew people--that would have been achieved if he'd NOT hardened Pharaoh's heart? There's just all kinds of immoral action there, it seems.

I also don't see anything there that paints God as someone friendly and familiar...

If he's a God that will take over my mind and force me to give an answer in accordance with his will so he can rain down even MORE destruction so that the world might know and fear him...he seems 1. a show off, 2. immature, 3. insecure, 4. sadistic, and 5. anything BUT someone I'd address with the familiarity of an intimate, protecting friend...I'd be terrified of such a person (and after all, doesn't he keep saying he wants people to know AND fear him?) and would NEVER expect such a being to address me informally.

But we're out of Egypt now, so let's see how wandering in the desert for 40 years plays out in the KJV, shall we? :)

I think, obi, that the "hardening Pharaoh's heart" issue that you're struggling with is one of the most profound passages in the Bible -- both troubling, enlightening, and helpful.

The Exodus is the Foundation story for the Jewish nation, and the event in which God establishes Himself, in the eyes of the Hebrews, and in the eyes of all mankind, as the One True God. These are the series of events that all mankind would look back to. This is "The Moment when God Decisively Intervenes in History." (Though Christians obviously think there was another such moment). As such, it was necessary that Pharaoh be hard-hearted to the final end.

Now, if you view God as the prime cause for all things, then God hardened Pharaoh's heart, in the same way he has softened another person's heart when they accept the Gospel, for an example. Did that person have Free Will? Did Pharaoh? This is one of the big mysteries. How does our Will intersect with the Will and the influence of Deity?

Yeah--it's pretty weird when something in the Bible doesn't sound like God. Maybe, since he knew that Pharaoh would change his mind and send his army to get the escaped Israelite slaves back (which he did), he hardened his heart so that the Israelites would feel the urgency of the need to escape, leading to a rushed Passover dinner, which would help Jesus' disciples understand the Last Supper and how in the deep meaning, the Passover lamb is Jesus..

But that's just speculation. Whatever--I know that he's perfectly holy and just, and amazingly merciful at the same time, paying our penalty, thereby satisfying his own perfect law and perfect nature.

Well...where's the upside or enlightened part of it?

Logically, ethically, OR dramatically?

Logically, it doesn't make sense, if God wants the Hebrews out to play both sides...

Ethically, the implications of subverting free will and causing more deaths are horrific...

And Dramatically...well...

Wouldn't it have made more sense...well...the way I believe MOST people actually envision the story--that is, with God NOT hardening his heart and the Pharaoh just not letting the people go because he was a Nero-type figure, high on arrogance and pride and thus that was the cause of his downfall, worldly pride and cruelty in the face of a supposedly-humble and spiritual Hebrew leader in Moses and his connection to God?

Doesn't THAT work better from a story perspective? I think it does...and that's why everyone seems to remember it that way, it just makes SENSE that way--

I mean, we've seen characters like this guy all throughout history and literature doing the same, yes?

Captain Ahab won't give up his obsession, and it costs his crew, his ship, and his life...
Nero, as I already mentioned, fiddled while Rome burnt...
Achilles and Agamemnon are BOTH too prideful to admit their errors...
Hitler stayed in his bunker and let Berlin get blown to smithereens rather than surrender...

Doesn't that seem more natural for a Pharaoh character than this odd play-both-sides way for God?

It weakens my ability to side with God, and if anything makes me feel sorrier for the Egyptian peasants here--it's not THEIR fault their leader is being controlled by God in this way, and yet they're the ones who will end up suffering for it...that's not to say I don't sympathize with Moses (at least in this story, given what happens with the Amalekites, I don't think that will last, but for the Out of Egypt story, at least, he's handled well, given a good mixture of uncertainty in becoming a leader and becoming the leader his people need him to be, from just a literary standpoint, that's handled well for the most part, though again, if ever there was a character I would have liked to have seen grow up more in a text, Moses would certainly be one of them...why NOT talk more about his growing up Egyptian and then struggling with the truth? Or how about the family drama that there had to have been because of that?) but it doesn't make me love God...

Granted I wouldn't believe in him either way, but still--

I don't believe Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes or, to REALLY go the opposite route, Satan from "Paradise Lost" ever existed...and they're all favorite characters of mine (Satan as an anti-hero or villain, whichever you prefer, he really fits both roles in that masterpiece.)

Sort of the same way that, while the NT is far off...well...Jesus doesn't SEEM like a vindictive character...

So while I might not believe in him, I could still end up finding him a character I can get behind the same way I might, say, Syndey Carton from "A Tale of Two Cities (Sydney obviously very much inspired by Jesus and Dickens' Christian leanings in that final chapter there.)

But nothing in Genesis or Exodus so far makes me like God as a character.

^@semck (sorry, while I typed that, more posts have appeared! lol)

Obiwan, I think while you were typing that, whole universes came into existence, lived, and winked out again. lol

@obiwanobiwan

By the way, I wanted to thank you for taking an interest in the Scriptures. I find it highly flattering that you should be willing to spend the time to study our most sacred text. Hopefully you will get a lot out of it. Please message me if you have any questions.