A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?

__________________
Glenn Ferrell
Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Boise, Idaho

http://sovereignredeemer.org

http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_de...formationidaho


Nec Tamen Consumebatur


The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. - Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

Dost thou speak thusly?

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

The KJV fits the definition of "Vulgar Language". Anyone can and does understand KJV English, just as much as they understand NASB or ESV English.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

...or the English of the Confession.

__________________
Timothy
Member, PCA
Kingsport, TN

I disagree. I had the privilege of teaching Bible in a public school in North Carolina. The community was made up mostly of KJ Only churches. As a result, the kids really struggled to make sense out of the text. Two obvious examples are "wist" (from wissen "to know") as in "Wist ye not..." and "prevent" in Ps. 119:148 which someone on this board mentioned recently.

Language changes. The Bible wasn't written in some special revelatory language that people were expected to adapt to. And it would really be a stretch to call KJV English "the vulgar tongue" (IMHO).

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD

Realistically, KJV does not use language that is too far removed from our English. If you were to change the plural of verbs to end in s rather than th and change the pronouns to our modern usage (at the risk of losing some specificity, but we lack that in our modern language), then you are left with something that is understandable most of the time, minus some awkwardness and a few unknown words (but you're bound to run into that, right?). This is what is done with the American King James Version for example.

My point, however, is that if people can grow used to these few differences, you are essentially speaking in what is "generally used, applied, or accepted" as the dictionary defines vulgar. If you get to the point where the language and vocabulary of the translation itself requires explanation, then you need a new translation. This may be the case with some congregations, but it depends on their education level and environment.

__________________
Jake; Hold to Original WCF, member of SBC; Greater Atlanta, Georgia Area

The cross does not give us a minor shift or two with regard to a few of our ethical and moral and religious values; the cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ. —Albert N. Martin

It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.

Somethings are better left in a certain way. For example Shakespeare's works would not be the same if they were translated into a more modern way. Similarly, when we read Spurgeon, his way of speaking is different from ours today, yet we can still understand him. Our language has evolved, but I don't think it has evolved enough to be to the point where it is non-understandable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a KJV-only person, but the way the KJV reads is beautiful, IMO. It has its own style, some prefer the KJV because of the way its written. However, if people are not understanding the Word of God because the stumbling block is the language then I would suggest a translation that works for them. We have other excellent translations out there that one should be able to use to be able to understand the Bible.

So, in the end, I think it depends on the people. If they can understand the KJV, then go for it. But if someone does not understand the KJV, then it would be better if they read (or listen) to a translation they can understand

__________________
Claudiu
Reformed Baptist
attending Immanuel Baptist Church
Sacramento, CA

My children have been raised on it, they do sometimes struggle especially in the OT, but seem to understand it fairly well. We have a dozen or so translations but use the AV for family reading and worship time. Our Pastor preaches from it as well.

__________________
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham

We need to understand the word vulgar in the sense used by the Westminster Divines in the middle of the 17th century.

Vulgar, adj. 1391, common, ordinary, in Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe, borrowed from the Latin vulgaris of or pertaining to the common people … The meaning of course, low, ill-bred, is first recorded in English in 1643. The sense of common or customarily used, vernacular … is first recorded in English in 1483 … The meaning of make vulgar, coarsen, is first recorded in English in 1756
CHAMBERS DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY

As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.

Obviously, as the word has been changing, it increasingly connoted to the hearer the idea of low, undignified, coarse and improper.

Thus added pressure is upon the Church to retranslate the original to achieve the goal of perspicuity, and yet not fall into the trap of being trendy.

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

I regularly use a distinct form for the 2nd person plural pronoun.

"We give thanks to God always for you all..." [1 Thess 1:2a]

I am 60 years old and grew up in southern Appalachia, where our speech was not far removed from 1611. "Fetch those victuals in that tow sack, and mete out a mess for that sottish and churlish chapman."

I find the irony of defending the language of the KJV as "vulgar" by posting in non-KJV-English quite hilarious.

Just another example that it can be done.
I think there was a study out there that showed that the KJV was at an easier level to read than most modern translations (I don't remember where I had seen/heard it and the truthfulness of it).

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 12:55:42 EST-----

Your wai of postin can b consered nonvulgar, the new wai of internet speach is tha way 2 talk now. This way of talk iz way cooler. n every1 iz doin it theez dayz

.....more people are writing/speaking like that now-a-days, but does that mean we have to?

People can read a college textbook and consider it too hard to understand and not in their language.

Some people talk in a high style...others in a middle, or low.

Fair enough. But NO ONE speaks King James English today. And yet we are to consider it "vulgar"?

I get the impression "vulgar" is being redefined in order to accommodate the KJV. For purposes of clarity, "vulgar" doesn't mean "capable of being understood." It means common or ordinary. As Seth pointed out so brilliantly above, unless you plan to conduct this discussion in KJV English, you can't very well say KJ English is the vulgar language. You might say it is capable of being understood with sufficient practice and/or education. But that's hardly what vulgar means.

I guess my observation was that the question is not:

Can a person figure out what the KJV is saying?

But actually is:

What does vulgar mean when it comes to language?


Vulgar is "understandable by those who are listening" so while we can "suss out" what the KJV is saying, it's not even close to the way we speak or write, and that disqualifies it as "vulgar" right?

If you want an illustration just do a search on Google for "KJV language changes" There are 860 words that have so changed meaning that there is a "software KJV dictionary" to make sense of them. Here is the text of the ad:

"Is the King James Bible full of hard to understand, archaic, obsolete words? Do you know the meanings of "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"?
The King James Bible can be difficult to understand for many people who are not accustomed to its vocabulary. Using the King James Dictionary you can now learn the meaning of all those obsolete, extinct Bible words, like "concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist"...

The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.

Have you ever been puzzled by a word in the King James Bible and tried to look it up using a regular dictionary like Websters or the American Heritage Dictionary? Don't despair... Go directly to our handy dictionary containing over 860 words deemed archaic and find its definition quickly..."

Wouldn't this qualify the KJV as NOT our common language?

__________________
Robert
Lay Person
PCA
West Virginia
Go share your faith

Rev Winzer made this excellent point in this thread: KJV Bible: How to overcome the language barrier?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I thanked a post and it disappeared!!!???
Claudiu, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to destroy your post. I only wanted to thank you.

There must be a consensus upon the definition of what vulgar is.

I believe it is lower level than some on the Flesch-Kincaid because of use of many smaller (less syllables) words. However, just because a word is smaller doesn't mean it is more understandable. KJV also has many words that are more dynamic than modern translations, which may make it easier to understand, but less accurate. For example, penny instead of denarius. There is a list here of some words in NIV vs. those supposedly easier in KJV: Archaic Words in the NIV by Dr. Laurence Vance

But, there are some modern translations that are at a higher reading level. New American Standard Bible is generally considered to be at a high school level and as such has many words that are harder to understand. There are modern translations that are simpler to understand while retaining accurarcy. ESV is at a lower reading level than KJV and the vocabulary is probably understood by most people, but it is not much more dynamic. Then there are translations like New Century Version/International Children's Bible and New International Reader's Version which simplify the text down for children while still being somewhat accurate. You can find a modern translation for many reading levels.

However, I do not think that overall the average American can dive into the KJV with as good of understanding as a more modern translation, but they can still figure it out.

Yes, but the reason the paper can use that phrase is that "love thy neighbor" is a justly famous biblical verse and is a part of the cultural air that even the pagan among us breathes. But we must not make the mistake of saying that, since something can, with some effort, be understood, then it fulfills the requirement of WCF 1.8. As the list of obsolete words demonstrates, let alone the endings that have passed out of use, KJ English cannot be considered the vulgar language. And that's the question of the OP. That's the requirement of the confession. The fact that you like the KJV has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. The fact that you are capable of understanding it doesn't either. The question is . . . is it written in the language of everyday discourse? No. It's not.

Some of the later posts may have missed this.

Oh ok, I'm not sure what to believe now. Whether KJV is vulgar or not...thats why I deleted the post.

But you are right, we need a clear definition of what vulgar is, otherwise we will think we are talking about the same thing when we really are probably not.

Until then, I guess I will be divided on the issue.

Here is another recent thread on this subject: Modern English Translation and the WCF

I think the point of the word vulgar was that the language was actually what the people were speaking rather than something that needs translation. The RCC church was using the Latin Vulgate in times past and the ministers had to translate for the common people attending the church. Quite often the ministers themselves didn't have good knowledge of Latin anyway. This meant that the Bible was effectively hidden.

I think that if the Bible can be read and can be understood without translation from someone else, it falls within the WCF for being vulgar. If people understand the KJV without a minister having to translate for them, it's probably okay. Otherwise, a new translation is needed.

From my Mac: "belonging to the masses"
Miriam-Webster: "of or relating to the common people, plebeian, generally current, public , of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind"

Someone got the OED?

Thats the way I'm leaning. If a congregation can understand the KJV without any major problems then I would consider it "vulgar" for that congregation.

"characteristic of the common people"

What could be vulgar in one church may not be vulgar in another...right?

Sure, if one's in France and one's in Spain.

Exactly. An inner city church of recent converts and people born in raised in families reading the KJV frequently would need different translations.

BTW, have we all 'counted the cost' in allowing 1:8 to dogmatically define our Bible? What would the phrase "kept pure in all ages" imply? I am not going to derail this thread but just want to offer a word of caution.

Are you suggesting that there's no such thing thing as current English?

How will we ever educate our children? Give me a break! The language of commerce, the language of the news media, the language of textbooks, etc. -- these are the common tongue. Ask a publisher whether it would be okay to write your book in KJ style English. Go to work for a newspaper and try it. We all know what common English is. WE'RE USING IT! If you love the KJV, great. But don't engage in special pleading to call it the vulgar language.

WCF 1.8 does not require you to read a more current version. It only calls into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position.

I prefer the NKJV for this reason. TR based, modern language version of the Bible. (See, you can support the TR and not prefer the KJV.)

I don't know if this was intended for me. But, while we all know what the common English is (we are writing in it right now), in some places it could be said that the KJV would be easily understand. But looking at what vulgar means I would say that the KJV is not the vulgar language for the majority of English speaking people.

I already stated I'm not trying to plead a KJV-only position.

It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came across that way. The "you" was plural -- wouldn't it be nice if we DID still use ye, thou, etc. to distinguish?

Thats what I was thinking

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 01:44:41 EST-----



Alright, no worries

The fact that you are using this argument proves that KJV English is not 'a foreign tongue'. It is too a large extent 'uncommon' English, but it is still English. The term 'vulgar' is being used by the Divines in opposition to the common practice of the Romanists in their day to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the people. KJV fans do not fall into this category. The KJV fan says, "If you can create a more modern English version that retains the accuracy and majesty of the KJV, go right ahead."

As I said before, if 1:8 can call into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position, it can do the same with a CT-only position as well.

I would have to say that if "vulgar" means, in our case, "modern English," then the KJV English is fine since it is modern English.
I would say that Middle or Old English would not classify as "vulgar"

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian ritual costs nothing and is worth nothing. True Christian religion costs all that we have and is worth everything.

As Seth pointed out, the issue isn't the text, but the translation. CT is an entirely different subject.

So back to the OP..."Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?"

What do you guys think...in a simple answer.
I just want to see what people really think about this.