I just came across some old papers I had written years ago, and found this poem. It's not art, but I found it interesting.
=============
One bright day in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back, they faced each other;
Drew their swords and shot each other.
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and shot the two dead boys.
If you don't believe this lie is true,
Ask the blind man; he saw it too.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Was Beatle John Lennon Pro-Christ?
According to this article, a 1969 interview with John Lennon, of the Beatles, has him saying,
If the Beatles get on the side of Christ, which they always were, and let people know that, then maybe the churches won't be full, but there'll be a lot of Christians dancing in the dance halls. Whatever they celebrate, God and Christ, I don't think it matters as long as they're aware of Him and His message.and
... if I can turn the focus on the Beatles on to Christ's message, then that's what we're here to do.Concerning his statement that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, he said his statement was misunderstood:
It's just an expression meaning the Beatles seem to me to have more influence over youth than Christ," he said. "Now I wasn't saying that was a good idea, 'cos I'm one of Christ's biggest fans."I've never been much of a fan of the Beatles, and I don't know anything more about John Lennon and the others than what little snippets I catch from the mainstream media, but if Lennon really felt this way, and these statements are not out-of-context or an attempt at damage-control on his part, I'm very encouraged about Lennon. From what little evidence I've seen, I don't believe I would likely be persuaded that he was "a good Christian man", but I might be persuaded that he was a fallen, confused man, like us all, who perhaps had his moments of reaching out to the True One in his own broken, less-than-churchly way.
The Biblical Order for Financial Assistance to Others
1. Family
2. Church Family
3. Others (See #2 above)
Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
--- 1 Tim 5:8 (HCSB) ---
2. Church Family
Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.
--- Gal 6:19 (HCSB) ---
3. Others (See #2 above)
Just another Biblical example of hand-raising
Just another example of hands being raised in praise ...
So I will praise You as long as I live;
at Your name, I will lift up my hands.
--- Psalm 63:4 (HCSB) ---
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Why was Paul heading to Jerusalem in Acts 20:16?
We were studying Acts 20 last night at church, reading in Acts 20:16 that Paul was heading to Jerusalem, and someone asked, "Why was Paul heading to Jerusalem?"
The answer given in class is that he was going to where he'd find a large gathering of people who might be receptive to the Gospel.
I think this is a true answer, but it must be remembered that this answer is assumed, and is never stated in the text.
A second likely reason is that Jewish men went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. Paul was Jewish, and as covered in my last blog entry, he, at least for a time, retained his Jewish habits.
A third reason is specifically stated by Paul in Acts 24:11 -- "to worship". The implication (and that's all it is) is that he was going to Jerusalem to participate in the Jewish Passover worship activities (as opposed to Christian worship activities, which would not have required a trip to Jerusalem).
A fourth reason is also specifically stated by Paul, in Acts 24:17 -- "to deliver alms and offerings to my nation". By "my nation", he might be referring to his Christian brothers and sisters (and we know from other passages that was his task), but the context seems to indicate that he intended his listeners to understand the phrase as referring to the physical Jewish nation, implying that Paul considered the Christians in Jerusalem as part of the physical Jewish nation.
So, Paul was going to Jerusalem:
1. to deliver financial aid to the Jewish church
and
2. to teach the Gospel (a probable reason)
and
3. because he was a Jew and that's what Jews did (also a probable reason)
and
4. to worship.
The answer given in class is that he was going to where he'd find a large gathering of people who might be receptive to the Gospel.
I think this is a true answer, but it must be remembered that this answer is assumed, and is never stated in the text.
A second likely reason is that Jewish men went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. Paul was Jewish, and as covered in my last blog entry, he, at least for a time, retained his Jewish habits.
A third reason is specifically stated by Paul in Acts 24:11 -- "to worship". The implication (and that's all it is) is that he was going to Jerusalem to participate in the Jewish Passover worship activities (as opposed to Christian worship activities, which would not have required a trip to Jerusalem).
A fourth reason is also specifically stated by Paul, in Acts 24:17 -- "to deliver alms and offerings to my nation". By "my nation", he might be referring to his Christian brothers and sisters (and we know from other passages that was his task), but the context seems to indicate that he intended his listeners to understand the phrase as referring to the physical Jewish nation, implying that Paul considered the Christians in Jerusalem as part of the physical Jewish nation.
So, Paul was going to Jerusalem:
1. to deliver financial aid to the Jewish church
and
2. to teach the Gospel (a probable reason)
and
3. because he was a Jew and that's what Jews did (also a probable reason)
and
4. to worship.
Two Churches in the First Century
I believe I've written about this before, but it has come up again at church, so I'm compelled to once again cover the matter.
I made the comment that the Jewish Christians probably met as Jews in the synagogue on Saturday-Day, and when six pm rolled around, the Gentile Christians joined them, and the meeting morphed into a Christian assembly as the first day of the week began at the close of the Sabbath, our Saturday-Night.
The idea that Jewish Christians were still meeting in the synagogue as Jews didn't seem to sit well with some. This is probably because many Christians today believe that keeping the Mosaic Law after Jesus' resurrection is sinful, based on a faulty understanding of Paul's writings that the Law has been done away with.
Paul didn't say that keeping the Law was sinful; he said that trying to be justified by keeping the Law was sinful. He further said that the Law was good.
We have traditionally misunderstood these warnings in the New Testament against adhering to the Mosaic Law. It is not a sin to keep the Law; it is a sin to seek justification by keeping the Law. This misunderstanding has led to the further misunderstanding of much of the history of the church in the first century.
Paul, himself, kept the Law. From Acts 21:
Not only Paul, but the entire church kept the Law for the first decade or so of the church. The whole reason for the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 is because up until then, every Christian was a Jew keeping the Law of Moses; it likely had never even crossed their minds that Gentiles could become Christians before Peter met Cornelius, much less that they could do so without "becoming Jews" and keeping the Law of Moses. The entire conference was about this issue, and even the Apostles and other leaders of the church had to be swayed by the Holy Spirit before they'd accept the idea that the Law of Moses was not required of the Gentile converts (although they insisted that the Gentiles keep a few basics to keep from offending the Jews living in Gentile cities). The New Testament has several examples of Law-keeping Jewish Christians still trying years later to coerce the Gentile Christians to keep the Law of Moses, particularly circumcision. (Those Jewish Christians must not have gotten the memo; or they just disagreed with it.)
Modern-day Christians, if they truly want to be Biblical, need to realize that in the first decade or so of the church Christians were exclusively Moses-obeying Jews, and then for the next few decades there were "two" churches : a Moses-obeying Jewish church, and a non-Moses-obeying Gentile church. Paul had to constantly remind the Christians that they had been made into "one" by the blood of Christ which made this distinction a merely cultural one that no longer mattered. Thus he could add that keeping a Jewish holy day special didn't matter one way or the other (Rom 14:5ff); Jewish dietary restrictions didn't matter one way or the other (Rom 14:6ff); Jewish circumcision didn't matter one way or the other (1 Cor 7:19). Once the Jews got that into their heads, they either started letting go of Moses, or started letting go of Christ in order to hold onto Moses, and the result was a gradual morphing of the church into a predominantly non-Moses-obeying Gentile church, which is what we have today.
This lesson is hard to accept for modern Christians because it brings into question doctrines many of us have held all our lives, such as our thinking about observing religious holidays. But our job is not to hold onto our life-long-held doctrines, but to examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so.
I made the comment that the Jewish Christians probably met as Jews in the synagogue on Saturday-Day, and when six pm rolled around, the Gentile Christians joined them, and the meeting morphed into a Christian assembly as the first day of the week began at the close of the Sabbath, our Saturday-Night.
The idea that Jewish Christians were still meeting in the synagogue as Jews didn't seem to sit well with some. This is probably because many Christians today believe that keeping the Mosaic Law after Jesus' resurrection is sinful, based on a faulty understanding of Paul's writings that the Law has been done away with.
Paul didn't say that keeping the Law was sinful; he said that trying to be justified by keeping the Law was sinful. He further said that the Law was good.
We have traditionally misunderstood these warnings in the New Testament against adhering to the Mosaic Law. It is not a sin to keep the Law; it is a sin to seek justification by keeping the Law. This misunderstanding has led to the further misunderstanding of much of the history of the church in the first century.
Paul, himself, kept the Law. From Acts 21:
21[The Jews] have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. ... so do what we tell you. ... Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law..."
... 26The next day Paul [did as they suggested].
Not only Paul, but the entire church kept the Law for the first decade or so of the church. The whole reason for the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 is because up until then, every Christian was a Jew keeping the Law of Moses; it likely had never even crossed their minds that Gentiles could become Christians before Peter met Cornelius, much less that they could do so without "becoming Jews" and keeping the Law of Moses. The entire conference was about this issue, and even the Apostles and other leaders of the church had to be swayed by the Holy Spirit before they'd accept the idea that the Law of Moses was not required of the Gentile converts (although they insisted that the Gentiles keep a few basics to keep from offending the Jews living in Gentile cities). The New Testament has several examples of Law-keeping Jewish Christians still trying years later to coerce the Gentile Christians to keep the Law of Moses, particularly circumcision. (Those Jewish Christians must not have gotten the memo; or they just disagreed with it.)
Modern-day Christians, if they truly want to be Biblical, need to realize that in the first decade or so of the church Christians were exclusively Moses-obeying Jews, and then for the next few decades there were "two" churches : a Moses-obeying Jewish church, and a non-Moses-obeying Gentile church. Paul had to constantly remind the Christians that they had been made into "one" by the blood of Christ which made this distinction a merely cultural one that no longer mattered. Thus he could add that keeping a Jewish holy day special didn't matter one way or the other (Rom 14:5ff); Jewish dietary restrictions didn't matter one way or the other (Rom 14:6ff); Jewish circumcision didn't matter one way or the other (1 Cor 7:19). Once the Jews got that into their heads, they either started letting go of Moses, or started letting go of Christ in order to hold onto Moses, and the result was a gradual morphing of the church into a predominantly non-Moses-obeying Gentile church, which is what we have today.
This lesson is hard to accept for modern Christians because it brings into question doctrines many of us have held all our lives, such as our thinking about observing religious holidays. But our job is not to hold onto our life-long-held doctrines, but to examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so.
Breaking of Bread in Acts 20:7
To insist that the phrase "break bread" in Acts 20:7 refers to the Lord's Supper is to go beyond what is written. This is a possible meaning, but it is by no means certain.
This meaning is often arrived at by circular reasoning:
A. The claim is made that the church met on the first day of the week to have communion.
B. How do we know?
C. Because Acts 20:7 talks about meeting on the first day of the week to break bread.
D. How do we know this "break bread" refers to the communion?
A. Because that's what the church did when they met on the first day of the week.
Oh.
This meaning is often arrived at by circular reasoning:
A. The claim is made that the church met on the first day of the week to have communion.
B. How do we know?
C. Because Acts 20:7 talks about meeting on the first day of the week to break bread.
D. How do we know this "break bread" refers to the communion?
A. Because that's what the church did when they met on the first day of the week.
Oh.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Which Side Are You On?
Jesus said,
(This concept plagiarized from Greg Laurie's "Encountering the Jesus Freaks".)
You are either for Me, or you are against Me.Which side are you on?
(This concept plagiarized from Greg Laurie's "Encountering the Jesus Freaks".)
Are You Wicked?
Psalm 28:3 defines the wicked and the evildoers as those people ...
who speak in friendly ways with their neighbors, while malice is in their hearts." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)Are you a wicked evildoer?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Whence the value of Christianity in a Modern Scientific culture?
This short blog article highlights the difference in outcome of a Christian-based culture vs an atheist-based one, in regards to medical progress. Rather interesting, and is a good response to those claims by atheists that "modern science" is responsible for medical progress rather than "prayer".
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/cancer_research_prayer_and_st.html#more
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/cancer_research_prayer_and_st.html#more
The Bible as a Mirror
I don't remember where I was exposed to this idea (I've probably blogged about it previously), but it has recently really come home to roost in my mind.
The Bible, complex as it is, winds up mirroring whatever beliefs you bring to it.
The Bible, complex as it is, winds up mirroring whatever beliefs you bring to it.
- If you believe women should be silent in church, you'll find that in there. If you believe women should be given equal rights/status/abilities as men, you'll find that in there.
- If you believe salvation is absolutely dependent on being immersed, you'll find that in there. If you believe we can do nothing to gain our own salvation, you'll find that in there.
- If you believe the Jews are a favored race for all time, you'll find that in there. If you believe the Jews have been rejected since they've rejected Jesus, you'll find that in there.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Gravity is so 20th Century
Salvador Cordova has found a documentary on YouTube that is fascinating. Basically, in the past few decades, Plasma Cosmology has started making inroads into supplanting the standard cosmological theory that is based on gravity (which is the basis for modern science's understanding of the universe, including the Big Bang, etc).
Ever since Newton, it has been believed that the earth revolves around the sun because of gravity, and that gravity explains all the other movements in the heavens.
Plasma Cosmology suggests that gravity is not the dominant force, but rather electricity, and electricity's attendant magnetic fields.
Once the concept was presented to me, it clicked. It makes sense. (On a related note, this highlights how that an entire culture can be blind to something very obvious until someone happens to notice that obvious something and points it out.)
Plasma Cosmology explains many things that gravity-based cosmologies fail to explain. The four less-than-10-minute videos on Cordova's blog discuss comets and black holes and filament-structures and historical references to Venus as being a comet, etc. Well worth viewing if you have any interest in this sort of thing.
I'm sure there are weaknesses in the theory, and that this documentary has some things wrong, but still, it's an education that well-informed people need.
Go watch it at http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/253
Ever since Newton, it has been believed that the earth revolves around the sun because of gravity, and that gravity explains all the other movements in the heavens.
Plasma Cosmology suggests that gravity is not the dominant force, but rather electricity, and electricity's attendant magnetic fields.
Once the concept was presented to me, it clicked. It makes sense. (On a related note, this highlights how that an entire culture can be blind to something very obvious until someone happens to notice that obvious something and points it out.)
Plasma Cosmology explains many things that gravity-based cosmologies fail to explain. The four less-than-10-minute videos on Cordova's blog discuss comets and black holes and filament-structures and historical references to Venus as being a comet, etc. Well worth viewing if you have any interest in this sort of thing.
I'm sure there are weaknesses in the theory, and that this documentary has some things wrong, but still, it's an education that well-informed people need.
Go watch it at http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/253
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Prophet, Priest, and King
Olive oil was used to anoint:
Jesus:
- the prophet, who delivers God's word
- the priest, who is the People's representative to God
- the king, who enforces God's word
Jesus:
- while on Earth, functioned as prophet, delivering God's word
- now at the right hand of God, functions as priest, interceding for the people
- when he returns, will return as triumphant king, enforcing the righteousness of God
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Whatever Happened to Literacy?
The past few days I've spent some time over at Yahoo! Answers, and I have been appalled at the inability of most people on that site to communicate in simple English. Several of them are simply unintelligible. Here are a few examples:
Sad. So very, very sad.
UPDATE:
In a comment below, Chris points out that many of the people on the Internet don't speak English natively. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't explain this:
I only mention this entire issue because I believe, "Your English matter!"
(I guess the language center of your brain might be somewhat impaired by having what appears to be a large bullet hole in the center of your forehead.)
What do you mean by username and passward? actually i downloaded a software and it is asking my username and passward . i dont know what it is . so how can i know what is my username and passward ?????????????????????????????Here's another:
My computer is shutdown so long how tosolve that problem?And this beaut:
How to setting my firewall? i just change to window xp from vista.but after change hv the conection problem,alway be disconnect,and my msn alway sig in sig out.so my friend say is the firewall setting problem , need to seting it,but i dont knoe.abyone here can help me or teach me?The thing is that these are not the exceptions; these are the rule.
Sad. So very, very sad.
UPDATE:
In a comment below, Chris points out that many of the people on the Internet don't speak English natively. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't explain this:
I only mention this entire issue because I believe, "Your English matter!"
(I guess the language center of your brain might be somewhat impaired by having what appears to be a large bullet hole in the center of your forehead.)
Monday, June 09, 2008
Who to Vote For?
When Ron Paul first began to appear in the American conscious, I was often looked at askew for favoring him. I just read a post by Ed Hurst that sort of explains my thinking.
Ed said that he was often asked who he favors or endorses. He then said:
Ron Paul offered something different. I have no illusions that Ron Paul was the "savior" of the country. I'm sure he's just as likely to screw things up worse than he is to help. But I had hope that he could have begun the process of dismantling our current behemoth that is the Republicrat-Democrican system, which I dearly would love to see dismantled.
Government has begun to get in the way of citizens living their lives. Ron Paul offered me hope of turning that around.
"What's the difference between bigger government and bigger government?"
Exactly.
Ed said that he was often asked who he favors or endorses. He then said:
...the difference between the two major parties is an illusion. What's the difference between a party which promotes a woman's right to murder her child, and another party which can't be bothered to prevent it? What's the difference between a party which wants to remove the 2nd Amendment and another which gears up mightily to close down every gun dealer in the US on petty technicalities? What's the difference between nanny-state socialism and corporate welfare which confiscates private property? What's the difference between bigger government and bigger government?Exactly.
Ron Paul offered something different. I have no illusions that Ron Paul was the "savior" of the country. I'm sure he's just as likely to screw things up worse than he is to help. But I had hope that he could have begun the process of dismantling our current behemoth that is the Republicrat-Democrican system, which I dearly would love to see dismantled.
Government has begun to get in the way of citizens living their lives. Ron Paul offered me hope of turning that around.
"What's the difference between bigger government and bigger government?"
Exactly.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
A Quick Comment from Genesis
In the first couple of chapters is a word-play:
Adam and Eve were naked (arom) before their sin.
The serpent was crafty (arum).
Adam and Eve realized they were naked (erom) after their sin.
In the shower, without clothes on, you're naked (arom - nude).
In the front lawn, without clothes on, you're naked (erom - exposed, vulnerable).
Adam and Eve were naked (arom) before their sin.
The serpent was crafty (arum).
Adam and Eve realized they were naked (erom) after their sin.
In the shower, without clothes on, you're naked (arom - nude).
In the front lawn, without clothes on, you're naked (erom - exposed, vulnerable).
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Applying the Quick Primer of a Former Post
In a recent post, I explained how thee/thou is second-person singular, and you/ye is second-person plural. Now, applying this rule to the KJV rendering of Luke 22:31-23:
but the footnote in that version does:
31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:the passage becomes in "The Message":32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Simon, stay on your toes. Satan has tried his best to separate all of you from me, like chaff from wheat. Simon, I've prayed for you in particular that you not give in or give out. When you have come through the time of testing, turn to your companions and give them a fresh start."The text of the English Standard Version does not reveal the meaning:
31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
What we need is an English language version of the Bible that's not afraid to use the term "y'all".
- Luke 22:31 The Greek word for you (twice in this verse) is plural; in verse 32, all four instances are singular
Monday, June 02, 2008
Manners and Customs of Bible Times
I recently purchased the book Manners and Customs of Bible Times by Ralph Gower and am already, within the first few pages, finding it to be of value in gaining a fuller understanding of the Bible.
In the first chapter we learn about clothing. Typical clothing for an average Bible character consisted of a loincloth, maybe, and then a tunic (or coat) which was basically just a long t-shirt, and for the more wealthy or in cold-weather, a cloak (or mantle) which was basically an oversized robe.
A typical poor person might have nothing more than the clothes on his back, and his cloak was the only protection he had from the weather. The cloak was sometimes given as a guarantee for a loan, but the cloak had to be returned to the owner every night as it was the only bed-cover a person might have. Accordingly, a Jewish law court might award a person's tunic in a lawsuit, but never his cloak. Clothing was so valuable that Jewish law stipulated a list of clothing that could be rescued from a burning structure even on the Sabbath when work was strictly forbidden. For John the Baptist to tell his disciples to give away any spare coats was a revolutionary thought.
In the first chapter we learn about clothing. Typical clothing for an average Bible character consisted of a loincloth, maybe, and then a tunic (or coat) which was basically just a long t-shirt, and for the more wealthy or in cold-weather, a cloak (or mantle) which was basically an oversized robe.
A typical poor person might have nothing more than the clothes on his back, and his cloak was the only protection he had from the weather. The cloak was sometimes given as a guarantee for a loan, but the cloak had to be returned to the owner every night as it was the only bed-cover a person might have. Accordingly, a Jewish law court might award a person's tunic in a lawsuit, but never his cloak. Clothing was so valuable that Jewish law stipulated a list of clothing that could be rescued from a burning structure even on the Sabbath when work was strictly forbidden. For John the Baptist to tell his disciples to give away any spare coats was a revolutionary thought.
A Quick Primer on the Language of the KJV
First, it's not really "old English". Old English is even older than the 17th Century English of the King James period.
English has its roots in the languages of several more-or-less-pagan Germanic peoples who migrated into the British Isles about 550 A.D, just half-a-century or so after the fabled more-or-less-Christian King Arthur had reigned in those lands. The English of this period is the true "Old English", and is the language of Beowulf.
About 500 years later, after the Normans (from France) invaded England around 1066, the language morphed into Middle English. It was this variant of the language that reigned until about the 1450s.
For the next couple of hundred years, from the mid-15th century until about 1650, the Brits spoke Early Modern English. It was during this period that the King James Bible was produced. This version of English, also known as Renaissance or Elizabethan English, is also the language of William Shakespeare.
Today we speak Modern English, which is but an update of the King's English.
So strictly speaking, the language of the King James Bible is not Old English, but is rather Early Modern English.
Still, it seems quite old to many of us in the 21st century.
The main idea I wish to convey in this post, however, concerns a couple of points of grammar, specifically the forms of thee, thou, ye, thy, thine, and the -est and -eth verb endings.
The use of thee, thou, etc, is fairly simple. It has nothing to do with respect or reverence; it has to do with how many people are being addressed. If you were speaking to one person, you would use "thee", "thou", "thy", or "thine". If you were speaking to a group of people, you'd use "you" or "ye".
I think the take-home lesson from this is that when you see "thee", "thine", "thou", "or "thy", you can know that the case of the person being addressed is singular. When you see "you" or "ye" or "your" or "yours", the case is plural.
Concerning the verb endings -est and -eth, the basic rule is that both are singular forms, with the "-est" indicating second-person-plural, and with the "-eth" indicating third-person plural:
(This is my understanding, and I don't claim it to be a perfect or accurate understanding. Most of my education on the topic is from http://www.kjv-only.com/theethou.html.)
English has its roots in the languages of several more-or-less-pagan Germanic peoples who migrated into the British Isles about 550 A.D, just half-a-century or so after the fabled more-or-less-Christian King Arthur had reigned in those lands. The English of this period is the true "Old English", and is the language of Beowulf.
About 500 years later, after the Normans (from France) invaded England around 1066, the language morphed into Middle English. It was this variant of the language that reigned until about the 1450s.
For the next couple of hundred years, from the mid-15th century until about 1650, the Brits spoke Early Modern English. It was during this period that the King James Bible was produced. This version of English, also known as Renaissance or Elizabethan English, is also the language of William Shakespeare.
Today we speak Modern English, which is but an update of the King's English.
So strictly speaking, the language of the King James Bible is not Old English, but is rather Early Modern English.
Still, it seems quite old to many of us in the 21st century.
The main idea I wish to convey in this post, however, concerns a couple of points of grammar, specifically the forms of thee, thou, ye, thy, thine, and the -est and -eth verb endings.
The use of thee, thou, etc, is fairly simple. It has nothing to do with respect or reverence; it has to do with how many people are being addressed. If you were speaking to one person, you would use "thee", "thou", "thy", or "thine". If you were speaking to a group of people, you'd use "you" or "ye".
- thou - if the person is the subject ("you give it to me"), you'd use "thou" ("thou givest it to me")
- thee - if the person is not the subject ("I'll give it to you"), you'd use "thee" ("I'll give it to thee")
- ye - if the group is the subject ("y'all give it to me"), you'd use "ye" ("ye give it to me")
- you - if the group is not the subject ("I'll give it to y'all"), you'd use "you" ("I'll give it to you")
I think the take-home lesson from this is that when you see "thee", "thine", "thou", "or "thy", you can know that the case of the person being addressed is singular. When you see "you" or "ye" or "your" or "yours", the case is plural.
Concerning the verb endings -est and -eth, the basic rule is that both are singular forms, with the "-est" indicating second-person-plural, and with the "-eth" indicating third-person plural:
- I love thee.
- Thou lovest me.
- She loveth me.
- They love me.
(This is my understanding, and I don't claim it to be a perfect or accurate understanding. Most of my education on the topic is from http://www.kjv-only.com/theethou.html.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)