Were the KJV translators right to correct?

Methinks that either is completely acceptable.

What doeth/doth theethink?

Ed

 

Or shouldest the question that that I haveth askest, really beeth "What dost thee thinkest?"?

As I aforetime sayeth, I cometh to the conclusion thateth it maketh no difference to meeth. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
methinks
O.E. me thyncth "it seems to me," from me, dat. of I, + thyncth, third pers. sing. of thyncan "to seem," reflecting the O.E. distinction between thyncan "to seem" and related thencan "to think," which bedevils modern students of the language (see think). The two words were constantly confused, then finally merged, in M.E.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
think, v.1 (Old English thyncan) "to seem, appear"
In Old English, as in the cognate languages, the forms of this verb and THINK v.2 remained quite distinct; but in Middle English, owing to the fact that both thync- and thenc- gave ME. think-, ...they became confused and finally fell together. The contiguity of sense also helped: see THINK v.2:

think, v.2 (Old English thencan) "to conceive in the mind, exercise the mind"
In Middle English, thenk (as was normal with the groups -eng, -enk) became think, with the result of confusing this in the present stem with the preceding verb., ...so that the forms of the two verbs became completely identical. The practical equivalence of sense between me thinks, him thought, etc., and I think, he thought, etc., also contributed to this result, there being no difference of import between ‘such compani as him thought [= OE. him thúhte] competent’ (see THINK v.1 B. 2a) and ‘such company as he thought [= OE. he thóhte] competent’.


Methinks ("it seems to me") was becoming obsolete.

In I Cor. 4:9, the KJV translators, like the Geneva translators did a half century before, kept the verb form "think" but used the more common (by then) nominative pronoun "I".

Tyndale: "me thinketh"
Geneva: "I think"
KJV: "I think"
NIV: "it seems to me"

However, in Acts 25:27 the translators retained the dative pronoun and used the verb "seem" instead.

Tyndale: "me thinketh it unreasonable"
Geneva: "me thinketh it unreasonable"
KJV: "it seemeth to me unreasonable"
NIV: "I think it is unreasonable"

 

I believe the AV men were right in changing it, as English had changed from the day when 'me thenks' was commonly used. "The times, they are a' changin'".

 

It was just as right for KJV translators to update to then-current English grammar as it is for modern Bible translators to update to today's English. What is right in one version is also right in another version, as long as God's intended message is not tampered with.

 

The KJV translators were well ahead of their times.

Why they even have a verse with Ebonics. :smilewinkgrin:

And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are moe than they that be with them.
2 Kings 6:16 AV 1873

Rob

 

Ebonics: //They be mo'// -- even before 1873:

2 Kings 6:16 (Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition):
And he answered, Feare not:
for they that be with vs,
are mo then they that be with them.

2 Kings 6:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
And he answered, Feare not:
for they that be with vs,
are moe then they that be with them.

Furthermore, the Geneva Bible has this
commentery note:
g. For he was assured of Gods helpe & that millions
of Angels camped about the godlie to deliver them.

 

Change was needed, but the 1769 change was not really an improvement.

him can properly precede that soweth:
Prov. 11:18 to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward
Amos 9:13 the treader of grapes [shall overtake] him that soweth seed
him is not the subject of soweth, but an object in these sentences

So in Prov. 6:19, correct pronoun choice depends not on how he/him relates to soweth, but how it relates to the rest of the sentence.

What you have is the last element of a list, antecedent to verse 16's these six things and/or seven.
these six things is the subject of its clause, but seven is the object of its clause.

KJV1611 him refers to these six things
The LORD hates [him that soweth discord].
NOT *The LORD hates [he that soweth discord].

KJV1769 he refers to seven
[He that soweth discord] is an abomination to him.
NOT *[Him that soweth discord] is an abomination to him.

Because of this apparent antecedent ambiguity problem, other versions have used one instead of he or him (NASB, NKJV) and/or rephrased v.16A, making that antecedent a subject as well: "There are six things..." (ASV, NASB).

 

Follow that reasoning and you get:
Amos 9:13 the treader of grapes [shall overtake] *he that soweth seed

 

The only problem I see with this is that it shows that the KJV translators did the same thing that a lot of KJVO types say is wrong.

Language changes.
I don't see a problem.

 

Is there an English translation that uses the "absolutely correct" he at Amos 9:13?
At least twenty use him, including the ESV (2001).

 

"Corrected" is a subjective term that indicates a misnomer to allocate that there was indeed any real correction to the verse.

"Methinks" means "I think" and I know that it does. So do all people who can think.:laugh: