KJV & wcf i:8

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 
Last edited:

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
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.

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.)
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
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 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.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
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?
 

Claudiu

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

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



Thats what I was thinking

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

It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came across that way.



Alright, no worries :)
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.

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.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
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"
 

chbrooking

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

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
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.

Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
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.

No.
 

Christusregnat

Puritan Board Professor
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?

I was wondering where my father-in-law got this argument; he got it from Peter!

Vulgar cannot mean totally current, otherwise, the NT's use of the LXX would violate the "vulgar" principal, as would the NT's use of Aramaic and Hebrew. The people could understand the LXX, even though not in their current tongue.

Cheers,
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
I think it can be regarded as a vulgar language for some people. In certain cases I can see a congregation that would be able to say that the KJV is vulgar for them.

But on a whole, for example, looking at America, I wouldn't regard it as vulgar because the majority of people would not understand it.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
Okay guys ... bear with me I am having a Rod Serling moment here ...

Did anyone, anyone read post #21?

Hello ............:gpl:
 

KMK

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

I agree it is an entirely different subject. What I am saying is, 1:8 can and will be used to call into question both the KJV-only and the CT-only positions.

As a word of warning, (not to anyone in particular) the moderators frown on implications that ministers are in violation of their vows based upon which version they use. We have been down this road before.
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
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.

Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.



That argument doesn't hold though.
One has to learn English, wether it be the "modern"/current English we use or KJV English.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.

Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.

??????

What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
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"

It's hard to draw the line that distinct. If we update the middle English Wycliffe (I'm using the 1395 version) to modern spelling, we coud argue that much of it is still understandable. Or is 1395 starting early modern?

Take for instance John 3:16 with my updated spelling, as best as I can tell:

For God loved so the world, that he gave his own begotten son, that each man that believes in him perish not, but have everlasting life.

or from Luke 10:27-28

27 He answered, and said, Thou (You) shall love thy (your) Lord God of all thine (your) heart, and of all thy (your) soul, and of all thy (your) strength, and of all thy your) mind; and thy (your) neighbor as thyself (youself).
28 And Jesus said to him, Thou hast (You have) answered rightly; do this thing, and thou (you) shall live.

You can't draw a line that distinctly, as Wycliffe may be more understandable (words, ignoring spelling) that KJV in some places.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
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.

Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.

??????

What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.

I think the point is that you have to learn something extra in order to read or understand something in particular, it's not vulgar. A native English speaker that dropped out of school would be able to understand some English translations with no problems, but to understand KJV, they may need extra learning, such as what the different pronouns mean, and the many archaic words. It is not vulgar if they need to learn more in order to understand the language of it.
 

wallingj

Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.

thanks .....
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
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.

Are you suggesting that vulgar applies to what the congregation would consider vulgar?
 

wallingj

Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.

thanks .....
Your welcome, I almost could feel you pain!;)
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
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.

Are you suggesting that vulgar applies to what the congregation would consider vulgar?

No, not at all. Just providing historical context to help understand how to apply the exhortation in the Westminster Standards.
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Dost thou speak thusly?

This is an oversimplification. The Apostles, who quoted from the LXX did not speak the same dialect of Greek, and yet they still quoted freely from it. This argument is not sound.

Cheers,

There are many ways you are wrong, Adam. First, the Apostles were inspired in their quotation of the LXX. Can the same be claimed for every person who uses the KJV, today?

Secondly, on what basis do you claim that the Septuagint is a different dialect of Greek than what the Apostles spoke? Both the LXX and the NT were written in Koine Greek.

Thirdly, WCF 1.8 does not speak to what version you and I (or a pastor) can quote from. I'm not advocating that pastor's never reference the KJV ever again. I'm advocating the translation of Scripture into the vulgar tongue of the people. King James English is not the vulgar tongue.
 

rpavich

Puritan Board Freshman
Man oh man...this is getting snagged up fast.

It seems easy enough.

IS the english used in the KJV how we commonly talk and write?

NO...there is not a one of us who speaks like the king james reads

then it's not the "vulgar language" of our time and place.


simple.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.

The vulgar language is the language of the common folk, Ken.

In my church I'm the only one who speaks Zulu. That doesn't make Zulu the vulgar language of my church.

You don't have to buy English text books for your children to have them learn English, since their playmates all speak English. They grow up speaking English. Therefore English is the vulgar language of your children.

You would have to buy text books, or hire a teacher or something for them to learn Zulu. Therefore it would be improper to call Zulu the vulgar language of your church, even though one of your kids learned it.

It ain't that difficult, and the definition of vulgar as used in the WCF isn't relative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top