Last year on Sept 8, I wrote this journal for my English class at Wilson Community College. I want to share this with you all. It is about breaking English rules on Capitalization. I am updating this journal and editing it. (I got a lot to learn how to write in perfect English.)
I am really picky about capitalization. In some case, I will break the English rules because I do strongly believe some things should be capitalized at all time.
When I read about Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, I prefer that the antecedents of pronouns should be capitalized. Why? Because when I read it, I will know who is about -- Jesus, God, and Holy Spirit and other name that does refer to Him and not someone else that shouldn’t be capitalized in the pronoun. And another reason is to give Him the glory.
You will see that in the New King James’ Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB) or the updated NASB and some others translations will have that. Not all translations will do that such as King James’ Version (KJV) New International Version (NIV), and English Standard Version (ESV) and many other translations. ESV is one of the new ones. (ESV is one of my favorite translation even though they don't capitalize.)
When I find a new translation, the first thing, I look for is the capitalization of the pronouns of antecedents of Jesus, God and Holy Spirit. Also I do look to see if it’s also hold the true meaning instead of being too loose from its means.
In music worship, I love it when they do capitalize the pronouns of Jesus, God, and Holy Spirit. I have found some that didn't do it, and I did wish it did.
When I write about Jesus, God and Holy Spirit, I always capitalized the antecedents of the pronoun. I will never lower the standard of who He is.
1 comment:
One of the problems is ambiguity. Often something in scripture refers to a human type of Christ, and the NT then applies that passage to Christ, but it's original referent is a mere human being. Translations that capitalize the pronoun therefore change the meaning of the text (or at the very least do your interpretation for you, thus not being as literal a translation as they pretend to be).
Another problem with the argument for doing this is that the original translations didn't signal the divinity of a person by using any such trick. So we're adding to the text in a way that might get the meaning wrong. I'd much prefer abandoning the practice for the sake of clarity and avoiding reading something into the text that it doesn't say.
Post a Comment