English grammar and spelling affects prophecy

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is going to be a thread that may seem trivial, but I believe that it has ramifications that intertwine among each one of the on-going threads.

Let me build my case:

Logic is the mathematics of language, and English grammar is a set of rules to which most who speak English have agreed to use by which we can communicate effectively to others the logic we are trying to convey.

SO, ... in order for me (or anyone) to communicate effectively through the language of English the reasoning that may be going on in my mind to others, I must become proficient in English grammar (and in logic).

Spelling is also a set of rules to which we've agreed as a society that speaks English. Although not directly connected to English grammar, English spelling IS used by English grammar and contributes to its meaning.

This thread, then, is intended to be a place where grammar and spelling rules can be discussed, particularly as they relate to the English translations of the prophecies, particularly the end-times prophecies, of the Bible. Anyone is welcome to come here and vent about an annoying English grammar or spelling problem, but the thread is meant to IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING, not to put someone down.

If we can agree to be civil in this thread, I believe we can all benefit by addressing this issue.


Shalom, everyone (and no one in particular).

Allow me to start with some simple spelling problems I've noticed: Most of the time, we can generally figure out what a person is intending to say, but some contexts are confusing when the simple words "to," "two," and "too" are confused.

The word "too" is a synonym for the word "also." If you can replace the word in your message with "also," then it is spelled "t - o - o" with 2 o's.

The word "two" is the number "2" spelled out.

Everything else will probably be the word "to," which is either a preposition meaning "toward" or a part of the infinitive form of a verb, like "to cry" or "to laugh."

In today's phone texting, this spelling rule is GROSSLY abused for the sake of brevity, but we need to remember the rule, especially if people misunderstand our text message.

You've probably seen a text message like "U2?" meaning "You, too?" or "You, also?" or "You, as well?" It may not even have the question mark, as this often requires a second step or a shift key in order to produce the character on the phone. Whereas this makes it quicker to write, saving time and message length, one must understand that writing "U2?" or "U 2?" or "U2" or "U 2" injects a measure of uncertainty into the message you are trying to convey. With each addition of uncertainty into the message, you have added to the possibility your message will be misunderstood. It's accumulative. While the flow of the context in which you are writing will help to alleviate these uncertainties, context alone may not clear up the "muddiness of the water!"

It's understandable and excusable for this rule to be ignored, but not when you're trying to convey something important. If you are trying to convey some important piece of information, let the rule come back to your mind. You'll save more time in conveying your message the first time rather than needing to explain your message one, two, or three times! Explaining what you meant to say also takes time, and a person's attention span may not be long enough to remember the rest of your initial message after you have explained what you meant!

So, it's "TOO" for "ALSO," "TWO" for "2," and "TO" for all the rest.
 

Trumpeter

New Member
Mar 6, 2013
332
3
0
Alberta, Canada
Retrobyter said:
This is going to be a thread that may seem trivial, but I believe that it has ramifications that intertwine among each one of the on-going threads.

Let me build my case:

Logic is the mathematics of language, and English grammar is a set of rules to which most who speak English have agreed to use by which we can communicate effectively to others the logic we are trying to convey.

SO, ... in order for me (or anyone) to communicate effectively through the language of English the reasoning that may be going on in my mind to others, I must become proficient in English grammar (and in logic).

Spelling is also a set of rules to which we've agreed as a society that speaks English. Although not directly connected to English grammar, English spelling IS used by English grammar and contributes to its meaning.

This thread, then, is intended to be a place where grammar and spelling rules can be discussed, particularly as they relate to the English translations of the prophecies, particularly the end-times prophecies, of the Bible. Anyone is welcome to come here and vent about an annoying English grammar or spelling problem, but the thread is meant to IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING, not to put someone down.

If we can agree to be civil in this thread, I believe we can all benefit by addressing this issue.


Shalom, everyone (and no one in particular).

Allow me to start with some simple spelling problems I've noticed: Most of the time, we can generally figure out what a person is intending to say, but some contexts are confusing when the simple words "to," "two," and "too" are confused.

The word "too" is a synonym for the word "also." If you can replace the word in your message with "also," then it is spelled "t - o - o" with 2 o's.

The word "two" is the number "2" spelled out.

Everything else will probably be the word "to," which is either a preposition meaning "toward" or a part of the infinitive form of a verb, like "to cry" or "to laugh."

In today's phone texting, this spelling rule is GROSSLY abused for the sake of brevity, but we need to remember the rule, especially if people misunderstand our text message.

You've probably seen a text message like "U2?" meaning "You, too?" or "You, also?" or "You, as well?" It may not even have the question mark, as this often requires a second step or a shift key in order to produce the character on the phone. Whereas this makes it quicker to write, saving time and message length, one must understand that writing "U2?" or "U 2?" or "U2" or "U 2" injects a measure of uncertainty into the message you are trying to convey. With each addition of uncertainty into the message, you have added to the possibility your message will be misunderstood. It's accumulative. While the flow of the context in which you are writing will help to alleviate these uncertainties, context alone may not clear up the "muddiness of the water!"

It's understandable and excusable for this rule to be ignored, but not when you're trying to convey something important. If you are trying to convey some important piece of information, let the rule come back to your mind. You'll save more time in conveying your message the first time rather than needing to explain your message one, two, or three times! Explaining what you meant to say also takes time, and a person's attention span may not be long enough to remember the rest of your initial message after you have explained what you meant!

So, it's "TOO" for "ALSO," "TWO" for "2," and "TO" for all the rest.
Hi Retrobyter,

This is what The Lord says concerning His Word:

Know and understand this also: The translations of My Word by men are greatly erred, and lead many into an even greater misinterpretation of My Word, which is coupled with the pride and arrogance of the churches of men, who seek not the Truth as it was written by the children of God, in their own language, by which one is better able to see the Word as it really is and was meant to be.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
641
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Unfortunately English is a language without a proper grammar.

Yes, there have been attempts by worthy people to impose one but they had no authority to do so. There is no equivalent to L'Académie française for the French Language. Such attempts that have been made have tried to impose Latin grammar on a differently structured language and come up with such absurdities as “you must not split the infinitive” (because you can’t in Latin).

Similarly there is no control over spelling or meaning as the differences between British English and American English show. Words change their meaning over time, sometimes becoming the opposite of the original meaning. Words that look as though they should be opposites have the same meaning (e.g. flammable and inflammable).

If you want a good book on the subject (highly readable) I recommend Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson. He charts the history of the language as well as considerations of grammar and spelling.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Trumpeter.

Trumpeter said:
Hi Retrobyter,

This is what The Lord says concerning His Word:

Know and understand this also: The translations of My Word by men are greatly erred, and lead many into an even greater misinterpretation of My Word, which is coupled with the pride and arrogance of the churches of men, who seek not the Truth as it was written by the children of God, in their own language, by which one is better able to see the Word as it really is and was meant to be.
I'd rather this thread not be addressing INTENT, as in the reason why a person might choose to disguise his message. For the purposes of understanding, this thread should not address the morality of the individual, i.e. whether he is being good or evil in his or her communications. In this thread, I want the "good" and "bad" of the thread to reflect whether one is adhering to the rules of English grammar and English spelling or not.

Just as in matters of righteousness there are "righteous" and "evil" behaviors, and in logic there are "valid" and "invalid" assumptions, premises and conclusions, in THIS matter there are "correct" or "incorrect" usages of grammar and spelling. It's a whole different dimension, a different axis on the grid!
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
641
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Retrobyter said:
Shalom, Trumpeter.


I'd rather this thread not be addressing INTENT, as in the reason why a person might choose to disguise his message. For the purposes of understanding, this thread should not address the morality of the individual, i.e. whether he is being good or evil in his or her communications. In this thread, I want the "good" and "bad" of the thread to reflect whether one is adhering to the rules of English grammar and English spelling or not.

Just as in matters of righteousness there are "righteous" and "evil" behaviors, and in logic there are "valid" and "invalid" assumptions, premises and conclusions, in THIS matter there are "correct" or "incorrect" usages of grammar and spelling. It's a whole different dimension, a different axis on the grid!

What rules of spelling and grammar?

Or perhaps better whose rules of spelling and grammar?
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Mungo.

Mungo said:
Unfortunately English is a language without a proper grammar.

Yes, there have been attempts by worthy people to impose one but they had no authority to do so. There is no equivalent to L'Académie française for the French Language. Such attempts that have been made have tried to impose Latin grammar on a differently structured language and come up with such absurdities as “you must not split the infinitive” (because you can’t in Latin).

Similarly there is no control over spelling or meaning as the differences between British English and American English show. Words change their meaning over time, sometimes becoming the opposite of the original meaning. Words that look as though they should be opposites have the same meaning (e.g. flammable and inflammable).

If you want a good book on the subject (highly readable) I recommend Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson.

Mungo said:
What rules of spelling and grammar?

Or perhaps better whose rules of spelling and grammar?
Thank you, Mungo; I will certainly look into the book. However, we still have a SEMBLANCE of English grammar that all students are still taught in our schools. Furthermore, even if the rules of English grammar are decaying in some respects, people still have to understand one another, and therefore make up a NEW English grammar - even an unspoken, informal English grammar - to which they will adhere, a colloquialism, if you prefer.

American English is an adopted language from that country to which many of our ancestors belonged and escaped in the American Revolution. However, we have a language that we have embraced and adapted and have improved upon that language we inherited, making it our own. So, we DO have a list of rules for grammar and a list of rules for spelling, regardless how you might object.

If you like, I am using the Handbook of Grammar & Composition (Fourth Edition) by James A Chapman, the Random House/McCormick-Mathers Plain English Handbook by J. Martyn Walsh and Anna Kathleen Walsh, and English 3200 (Second Edition) by Joseph C. Blumenthal for most of my needs in English grammar, and I use the New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language for my needs in English spelling.

I should like to mention, too, that if you have come away from such a book or background with such an embittered view on the rules of grammar and spelling, then why do you bother to write? What is the point? If we can't have common rules by which we understand what each other is writing, then there's NO point of trying to communicate! Indeed, if you came away from Mother Tongue so embittered, then that book did you more of a disservice than a service!

Even if we have to shave away some of the discrepancies and dig to the basic rules that all grammars for the English language have in common, we will still find a sizable commonality! If there wasn't this commonality, then making spell checker and grammar checker application programs would not be possible! Please, look for the positive rather than the negative in the situation.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
641
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Hi Retrobyter,

I'm not embittered at all.

I just think you are trying to be over prescriptive and impose your own particular flavour of rules on a language that basically doesn't have such a prescriptive level. You want a nice tidy set of rules and spelling that you can be logical about. But English isn't like that.

Take your statements in the OP

The word "too" is a synonym for the word "also." If you can replace the word in your message with "also," then it is spelled "t - o - o" with 2 o's.

Fine, but too is not only a synonym for also.

Take the sentence "He jumped too high and banged his head on the ceiling". It's not a synonym for also there.

And
Everything else will probably be the word "to," which is either a preposition meaning "toward" or a part of the infinitive form of a verb, like "to cry" or "to laugh."

Well no. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary lists 7 different uses as a preposition and two as an "infinitve marker". For example in your limited list of two possibilities where would you put "The car does 10 miles to the gallon"?

I'll give you a couple of examples to ponder how they fit into your tidy world, and then I will leave leave this thread to you:-

1. Some words mean the opposite of itself, as with cleave. Cleave can mean to separate (as to cleave in two) or to join (as inTherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”).

2. Words often have multiple meanings, for example “call” has, according to the Collins Concise English Dictionary, 28 meanings as a verb and 18 as a noun.


English is not a tidy language. It's wonderfully flexible and ever changing and can't be corralled into a set of nice tidy boxes..


Au revoir
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
133
63
71
Manitoba Canada
Retrobyter said:
This thread, then, is intended to be a place where grammar and spelling rules can be discussed, particularly as they relate to the English translations of the prophecies, particularly the end-times prophecies, of the Bible. Anyone is welcome to come here and vent about an annoying English grammar or spelling problem, but the thread is meant to IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING, not to put someone down.
Know what I find most annoying ?...... people who mix a bunch of Hebrewisms into their English language posts ...... as though it makes them feel super religious or something. .... (Yeshua` haMashiach Yochanan Rav Sha'uwl Shabbat shalom N'vukhadnetsar)

As far as accurate language usage when it comes to prophecy ..... I am all for it ..... are you a Hebrew scholar ? .... or do you have access to such information ? I would find that very helpful.

Thanks
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Arnie.

Arnie Manitoba said:
Know what I find most annoying ?...... people who mix a bunch of Hebrewisms into their English language posts ...... as though it makes them feel super religious or something. .... (Yeshua` haMashiach Yochanan Rav Sha'uwl Shabbat shalom N'vukhadnetsar)

As far as accurate language usage when it comes to prophecy ..... I am all for it ..... are you a Hebrew scholar ? .... or do you have access to such information ? I would find that very helpful.

Thanks
Duly noted. However, as I said, this thread is to IMPROVE INFORMATION, not to put each other down. We need to BUILD EACH OTHER UP, not tear each other down. (Pardon my ending the sentence with a preposition-like adverb.) It is against Yeshua`s Law to "love one another" when we tear each other down.

Yes, I am a Hebrew scholar, but then anyone can be a Hebrew scholar. All "Hebrew scholar" means is a "student of the Hebrew language." It doesn't mean I have arrived; I am IN THE PROCESS of learning Hebrew and improving upon my knowledge of Hebrew.

Are you saying that you would prefer a thread on the grammar and spelling of Hebrew instead of English? While this is important, too, I'm more concerned at this moment in time with getting us all "on the same page" first.

And, by the way, I use the Hebrew names of people and places and some Hebrew phrases to remind people who are "stuck" here in the USA (or in whatever country they live) that these are REAL people who existed and REAL places to which one could go, even today! The Scripture accounts of past events (that we now call "history") REALLY happened, and many of us who have been in Sunday School as a child have yet to understand that these were not just mere stories, as though they were myths or fictional accounts. I believe that it throws a better light on the account to give it the actual names of the people and places mentioned within that account. It helps to give the account a fresh perspective.

I am truly sorry if I come across as seeming to "feel super religious or something." That whole idea is a foreign concept to me. So foreign in fact, that it truly took me by surprise that you felt that way. That wasn't my reason for doing it. It's merely a REMINDER that these people whom we call by one name would most likely be unresponsive if we called to them passing on the street, not recognizing the name we call out. If you called to "Yitschaq" with the name "Isaac," for instance, he would probably not understand that you were talking to him! If you called to "Chavaquwq" with the name "Habakkuk," especially the way most Americans pronounce the name, he would probably not understand you were talking to him! "There's nothing so sweet to the human ear as the sound of one's own name."

It's very naive (IMO) to think, when we see these people for the first time, that we will "instantly know" how to communicate with them! I do NOT believe that we are given "instant knowledge" nor are we able to read minds, even when we are given our new bodies. I believe that there will be a learning process and a learning curve in the assimilation of knowledge at the beginning of the Millennium when our Master returns. God certainly COULD perform a miracle and give us all the ability to understand each other's languages; however, we have no such promise in the Scriptures, and I think it's presumptuous on our part to EXPECT God to perform such a miracle. I believe that God gave us brains and the abilities to learn and memorize things for a reason! Those tasks may become easier for us in our new bodies, but even THAT is an assumption on which we can't count!

However, I certainly do not mean any disrespect to others in using these names and phrases.


Shalom, Mungo.

Mungo said:
Hi Retrobyter,

I'm not embittered at all.

I just think you are trying to be over prescriptive and impose your own particular flavour of rules on a language that basically doesn't have such a prescriptive level. You want a nice tidy set of rules and spelling that you can be logical about. But English isn't like that.

Take your statements in the OP

The word "too" is a synonym for the word "also." If you can replace the word in your message with "also," then it is spelled "t - o - o" with 2 o's.

Fine, but too is not only a synonym for also.

Take the sentence "He jumped too high and banged his head on the ceiling". It's not a synonym for also there.

And
Everything else will probably be the word "to," which is either a preposition meaning "toward" or a part of the infinitive form of a verb, like "to cry" or "to laugh."

Well no. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary lists 7 different uses as a preposition and two as an "infinitve marker". For example in your limited list of two possibilities where would you put "The car does 10 miles to the gallon"?

I'll give you a couple of examples to ponder how they fit into your tidy world, and then I will leave leave this thread to you:-

1. Some words mean the opposite of itself, as with cleave. Cleave can mean to separate (as to cleave in two) or to join (as inTherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”).

2. Words often have multiple meanings, for example “call” has, according to the Collins Concise English Dictionary, 28 meanings as a verb and 18 as a noun.


English is not a tidy language. It's wonderfully flexible and ever changing and can't be corralled into a set of nice tidy boxes..


Au revoir
Yes, you are right. I was probably being overly simplistic in my presentation of these three homonyms. However, my point was to give the average guy or gal a simple "rule of thumb" to remember the "correct spellings" (as I'm sure your Concise Oxford English Dictionary would call "correct spellings").

Personally, I wouldn't use the sentence, "The car does 10 miles to the gallon." I would say, "The car goes 10 miles per gallon," but that's just me.

You're right that I would rather the English language to be a "nice, tidy language," but I'm not naive to think such a "package" could be realized. Nevertheless, we DO have some basic rules that we teach kids that we as adults have either forgotten or neglected, and as I've said, I'm only trying to provide a foundation for good communication. That's all.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
133
63
71
Manitoba Canada
Retro ..... do you have any info on "future generation" as used in Psalm 102:18

I have one source that shows the early Hebrew was written as .... "The last generation"

I need to be very accurate on the true and original meaning if you are able to help me. Thanks.

Below are several typical (modern) translations

................................................
This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord.

Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the Lord:

This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord.

May this be put on record for a future generation; may a people yet to be created praise Adonai.

This shall be written for a dor acharon (future generation); and the people which shall be created shall praise Hashem.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Arnie.

Arnie Manitoba said:
Retro ..... do you have any info on "future generation" as used in Psalm 102:18

I have one source that shows the early Hebrew was written as .... "The last generation"

I need to be very accurate on the true and original meaning if you are able to help me. Thanks.

Below are several typical (modern) translations

................................................
This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord.

Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the Lord:

This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord.

May this be put on record for a future generation; may a people yet to be created praise Adonai.

This shall be written for a dor acharon (future generation); and the people which shall be created shall praise Hashem.
Sure. The Hebrew words ARE "ldowr acharown" which is properly translated as "to/for-a-cycle last-one" or "to/for a last cycle." Since this is usually talking about the "circle of life," from the time a person is born until he fathers a child, it is often translated as "generation." However, be aware that the word simply means "cycle" and may refer to ANY cycle, depending on the context.

Hope this helps you.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, everyone.

Just another quick observation:

Be careful when you're using the homonyms, "there," "their," and "they're." These are EASILY misapplied and misunderstood!

"There" is an adverb that describes WHERE a thing or person is (generally speaking, Mungo). "He is over THERE."

"Their" is an adjective pronoun that is used as a possessive. "It is THEIR nation." = "That nation belongs to THEM."

"They're" is a contraction of the words "they" and "are," and the apostrophe takes the place of the missing "a." "They're going to the store."

So, when someone says "there fooling themselves," do they really mean "they are fooling themselves"? If so, then it should be "THEY'RE fooling themselves." When they say "there opinion is wrong," do they mean it is the opinion OF those people? If so, it should be "their opinion is wrong."

Again, this is just to help improve understanding the FIRST TIME, so one doesn't have to go back and clarify what they meant.