And that is some of the reason SWORD has such a good reputation as it
has - because you try to be honest to the texts and present it so that
the interpretors can make the decision for themselves! That is what
qualifies it a scientifically usable tool, and makes it prosper in
environments with different theologies!
Thank you - you are doing great work! :)
I'm sorry if I wrote in such a way that could be read as advocating a
theologically based decision in a matter that in principle should not
even be considered. (c.f. "Thus, the point is moot as to whether or nt
it is a good decision to capitalize...").
- Kristian
Greg Hellings wrote:
It might be nice for you to offer people the choice and the chances.
I think that is what someone was indicating when they stated that we
ought not to make this a theologically based decision but rather a
choice based on our best re-construction of the material. The choice
comes in that SWORD offers as many of the possible translations as
possible in as accurate a representation as possible - even going so
far as to present the questionable/cultish versions of the scripture.
Thus, the point is moot as to whether or nt it is a good decision to
capitalize, since we are trying to develop a rendition of the KJV and
not our interpretation of the material.
--Greg H
On 2/15/06, *Darald Bantel* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
As this has become a personal opinion piece I will weigh in!
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 18:44 +0100, Kristian Due wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just wanted to add two more reasons (in addition to Chris' good
point
> of hyperothodoxy) why you should not capitalize the pronouns in
KJV. You
> are probably aware of them anyway, but I think them a little
funny, so
> they deserve to be mentioned.
>
> 1) The singular pronouns ( e.g. thou/thee) in middle-english are
> always used in non-formal settings, and for formal settings the
plural
> forms you (and ye) were used. The funny thing here is the
semantic shift
> because the middle english *informal* pronouns have become the
modern
> english *formal* pronouns, and vice versa!
> 2) If the translators of KJV had wanted to revere God by
pronouns,
> they certainly would have used the formal ones. The informal
pronouns
> probably reflect a theological consideration - a God we are
allowed to
> call abba/daddy certainly does not demand reverence through
capitalized
> pronouns.
Right in one - God does not demand reverence and He does encourage
me to
think of Him as a beloved Father but (a very important but) albeit
though He (in His Son) walks beside me He is still also pure holiness
and as such I offer Him reverence. If I wish to do such that does not
detract from what you do - rather it is my decision - as such would it
not be nice to give the user the option rather than ranting in
one's own
opinion?
Darald
Post scriptum If you found the foregoing hard to read - sorry but
this
is the way I prefer to write about my God.
D
>
> When the pronouns in KJV are capitalized, it is because of a severe
> semantic misunderstanding (which is a little funny...) and, as I
would
> argue, a severe theological misunderstanding.
>
> I am aware that perhaps someone would feel that the second
argument here
> is disputable, and I know this is not a theological mailinglist,
but I
> hope these points may be of interest! For of course - the main
point
> should be to give the KJV text as it was originally printed, no
matter
> how the translators use pronouns.
>
> My best wishes for KJV 2006
>
> Kristian Due
>
>
>
> Chris Little wrote:
>
> > Please don't change this. Pronouns referring to God in the KJV use
> > lowercase. They did in the 1611. They did in the 1769.
Anything that
> > deviates from this is edited.
> >
> > The whole practice of capitalizing pronouns referring to God is a
> > stupid modern attempt at hyper-orthodoxy. Very simply put:
pronouns
> > are never capitalized in modern English unless they come at
the start
> > of a sentence or are title-cased. And the irony is that the same
> > people who would WANT to modify a text to capitalize such
pronouns are
> > likely often also people who would decry similar modification
of a
> > text to be gender neutral where source texts/other
translations use
> > masculine.
> >
> > It's a silly, bad, evil, yucky, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad practice.
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
<mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org>
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
<mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org>
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
<mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org>
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
