1) Something jumped out at me when I was reading the other day. Deu. 3:11 mentions the size of the bed of a giant (King Of of Bashan) as being “…4 cubits in width according to the standard [or common] cubit”. Why add this whole clause “according to the standard cubit” unless this isn’t the cubit they usually used (royal cubits?) Previously I’d done a little
preliminary research on the cubit and which cubit length would Moses have measured the tabernacle in, seeing good arguments for the length being in royal cubits. I’d like to investigate this anomaly usage of cubit further, but this little gem seems to be one more piece of evidence in favor of that argument. And evidence that the enemy king’s bed was slightly smaller than it sounds ;-).
2) Thou. I was reading up on some biblical Greek grammar stuff, and came across an explanation of why “you” is the same for singular and plural in English. Basically, English *used to* have different conjugations for the two, thou art for the singular, and you are for the plural. Using the plural address (you are) was also occasionally used as a polite/formal version for the singular, and the singular (thou art) was considered more
intimate/informal. Over time the singular informal was replaced with the
formal or plural usage (hence why it is you are not you is). Understanding
this makes it so much more clear why old hymns are so chock full of
vocabulary that sounds antiquated or colloquial today. Why would a hymn say “thou art strong ” rather than “you are strong”? Because it was
emphasizing the familiar intimate relationship we have with God. To someone from that era, a modern worship song that uses you eg “you are my all in all” would sound like God is formal and distant, not accurately representing the character of God.