KJV & wcf i:8

Status
Not open for further replies.

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Further, Adam, even if my first post were an oversimplification, the fact that you told me it was an oversimplification using modern English instead of King James English undermines the defense of the KJV as "vulgar".

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 02:38:57 EST-----

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.


:offtopic:

You speak Zulu? That. is. awesome.
 

rpavich

Puritan Board Freshman
This is priceless...

Further, Adam, even if my first post were an oversimplification, the fact that you told me it was an oversimplification using modern English instead of King James English undermines the defense of the KJV as "vulgar".
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
Ken,
If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I'm not questioning the confessionality of USING the KJV. So, I'm certainly not questioning the fidelity of any pastor on the basis of which Bible he uses. I'm only questioning the confessionality of KJV-onlyism.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Ken,
If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I'm not questioning the confessionality of USING the KJV. So, I'm certainly not questioning the fidelity of any pastor on the basis of which Bible he uses. I'm only questioning the confessionality of KJV-onlyism.

*Moderator's Note*

I am not accusing anyone. I am simply framing the acceptable parameters of this discussion. It is acceptable to 'question the confessionality' of both KJO and CTO. It is NOT acceptable to pass a verdict upon ministers who are either KJO or CTO.
 

Christusregnat

Puritan Board Professor
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.

Seth,

The inspiration question is irrelevant, since the LXX was used in Hellenistic synagogues all over the empire. I used it as an obvious example that is easily verifiable.

Second, just because the word "Koine" appears before Greek does not mean that the LXX and the NT used the same version of Greek. We have roughly two to three hundred years between the LXX and the NT, with Philip's Greek (one of many Greek dialects) overcoming other forms. Next, we have the shift from Greek to Roman rule, with corresponding changes in politics, philosophy and language. It would be quite a stretch to say that the language remained the same for 200 - 300 years; particularly with the upheavals in the political climate.

Third, as I said, Helenists used the LXX as their liturgical bible. Also, if you want to get really deep, the non-Helenists used the Hebrew Bible (not even an Aramaic version) in their synagogues, and this version was likewise used liturgically by Jesus and the Apostles.

Cheers,
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have gone on record here as being willing to have an "updated KJV" with some archaisms changed, though keeping those which maintain linguistic precision such as the "ye"s, and also the "thee"s and "thou"s. But I am not willing to give up the accuracy / faithfulness of the KJV to the Hebrew and Greek for the sake of more modern speech in versions based upon (what I maintain are) inaccurate original language texts. The "vulgar" referred to in WCF 1:8 is more adhered to in a mildly antiquated translation of faithful texts than a more modern translation of unfaithful texts. What profit "vulgar" if the translation is inaccurate?

I am not begging the question as we have gone around on this issue of accuracy before and there is plenty of material here and elsewhere at PB on it.

Clark, do I understand you to say that KJO (more on that term in a moment) is unconfessional? I don't like the term, as applied to me at any rate, as it implies a disregard and / or disdain for the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and the worth of other translations, even those based on CT texts. I do find value in those CT texts although for me it is limited.

The pew Bible at my church is NKJV (it was a choice between that or the ESV, as the Bibles were given us by the planting church), and I read the Scripture from that version, though I usually preach from the KJV.

The Authorized Version unconfessional? How far have we fallen? (If this is indeed what you mean.) The post-Reformation church did not think so, nor did many of the framers of the WCF and 1689. I do not use the NKJV or even Jay Green's Modern King James Version so as to supplant the AV, because of the latter's better accuracy resulting from better texts and superior language in the translation. Remember, I said I would welcome a faithful updated version, but there is not one available yet.

With regard to the OP, when I do read the from the AV and come across some difficult or archaic language, I will clarify it for the congregation (many of whom do not have English as their first language).

There are those who will say that it is unconfessional to read other than the AV in public worship, as well as vice versa — but I hold with neither of these views.
 
Last edited:

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
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.

Seth,

The inspiration question is irrelevant, since the LXX was used in Hellenistic synagogues all over the empire. I used it as an obvious example that is easily verifiable.

Second, just because the word "Koine" appears before Greek does not mean that the LXX and the NT used the same version of Greek. We have roughly two to three hundred years between the LXX and the NT, with Philip's Greek (one of many Greek dialects) overcoming other forms. Next, we have the shift from Greek to Roman rule, with corresponding changes in politics, philosophy and language. It would be quite a stretch to say that the language remained the same for 200 - 300 years; particularly with the upheavals in the political climate.

Third, as I said, Helenists used the LXX as their liturgical bible. Also, if you want to get really deep, the non-Helenists used the Hebrew Bible (not even an Aramaic version) in their synagogues, and this version was likewise used liturgically by Jesus and the Apostles.

Cheers,

It seems (and please let me know if I misread your post) that you are arguing, not against the position that the King James is not in the vulgar tongue (my argument) but that a translation in the vulgar tongue is not necessary (the WCF position).

If the Apostles used a non-vulgar translation and the Helenists used a non-vulgar translation and the non-Helenists used a non-vulgar translation, then it's ok for us to use a non-vulgar translation. Is that what you're saying?

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 04:05:41 EST-----

Remember, I said I would welcome an faithful updated version, but there is not one available yet.

Although I prefer the NKJV (and therefore, I do believe a faithful updated version of the KJV is available), I have great sympathy for this position.
 

Grillsy

Puritan Board Junior
So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.

I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are verboten.

Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is perhaps permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.

Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV at all, only that the position of KJV only is contrary to the confession.
 

Grillsy

Puritan Board Junior
So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.

I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are verboten.

Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is perhaps permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.

Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV at all, only that the position of KJV only is contrary to the confession.

I see, I see. I did NOT mean to be harsh or divisive when I asked that. I apologize. I do want to violate board rules. I had no intention.
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.

I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are verboten.

Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is perhaps permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.

Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV at all, only that the position of KJV only is contrary to the confession.

I see, I see. I did mean to be harsh or divisive when I asked that. I apologize. I do want to violate board rules. I had no intention.

Oh, I'm not saying you did break any rule or were harsh or anything like that. I think it is an interesting question, but the mods have made it clear that they don't want it discussed here, so I abide by there request.

If you'd like to discuss, you can shoot me a PM, I'll give you my e-mail and we can talk "off-board".
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.

I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are verboten.

Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is perhaps permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.

Exactly, you are welcome to ask this question elsewhere, but not here on PB.

Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV at all, only that the position of KJV only is contrary to the confession.

The problem with this is the elusive definition of 'KJV Onlyism'. If you are referring to those who hold the KJV is inspired in the same way as the originals, then yes, it is unconfessional and you wouldn't find any of them on PB anyway.

The problem is many lump KJ preferred folks under the KJO label and everything gets confused. I suppose the same could be said for those of the CT preferred position.
 
Last edited:

timmopussycat

Puritan Board Junior
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,

For this argument to be valid, a forgotten premise must be inserted.
"The pace of linguistic change between the time of the LXX and Pentecost was no slower than today." I doubt this premise could be proved true.

The rate of change between the vulgar tongue (as defined in post 21) of the English at Shakespeare's day and our speech today has been the greatest rate of change in a single language in history. New words were invented almost daily or borrowed from other languages to describe innovations, grammar rules changed (second person cannot be differentiated from third etc.)

The koine of Egypt and Palestine c170 BC did not face many new developments or foreign impositions between 170 BC and 33AD.
 

reformedminister

Puritan Board Sophomore
The fact that you have considered using a different translation clearly evidences a self examination of your practices and shows humility instead of being "stiffnecked" (KJV), which means stubborn. The KJV has a certain hallowed antiquity because it has been around for a long time and has been cherished by many. It is true that it has some archaic language but for the most part it is not hard to understand. In churches that use it regularly, the people get used to it. I have several translations but use my KJV mostly. I have a KJV "family Bible" that we use in family worship and I read and preach from the KJV every Sunday. In our family worship and church services I explain some of the language that may be hard to understand for the average listener. Some might argue that with a newer translation you don't have to. This may be true but it is not necessary. Pray about it brother and change only if you feel led to, not simply because someone is telling you that you should (who doesn't even worship with you regularly). :2cents:
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
Clark, do I understand you to say that KJO (more on that term in a moment) is unconfessional?

Yes, but the emphasis must be on the 'O', something that you apparently ignored when you made the following comment:

The Authorized Version unconfessional? How far have we fallen? (If this is indeed what you mean.)

There are those who will say that it is unconfessional to read other than the AV in public worship, as well as vice versa — but I hold with neither of these views.

And I neither hold to AVO nor Non-AV. I have been answering the initial post, and not commenting on the virtues of the KJV. The only reason confessionality of the AVO position came up was because of the 'O' and WCF 1.8. I think they are incompatible.

I'm not sure what is unclear about the KJV-only position. What needs clarifying? It's not a question of the value of the KJV (which I affirm); it's a matter of the exclusive claims of the AVO position (which I not only deny, but find contrary to WCF 1.8).

And I have not delved into the text behind the translation at all.

I do not see where my position is unclear. But if it is, let me clarify:

1. WCF 1.8 requires translation into the vernacular.
2. KJ English hardly qualifies as the vernacular.
3. KJO partisans require reading a non-vernacular version. And so, I find their position out of accord with the confession.
4. I am not denying the beauty, majesty or accuracy (or any other virtue) of the KJV. I'm not commenting on it at all, except to say that it is not in the vernacular.
5. WCF 1.8 does not prohibit using a non-vernacular version. So use of the KJV is not unconfessional. Refusing to permit the use of a vernacular version is.
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
When did we ever get to talking about KJV only?
I don't think anybody in this thread mentioned that it should be KJV only, but rather that they like the KJV over other translations.
 

brianeschen

Puritan Board Junior
When did we ever get to talking about KJV only?
I don't think anybody in this thread mentioned that it should be KJV only, but rather that they like the KJV over other translations.
Yes and in that sense it could be KJO where the "o" means "over". I trust that clears things up.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
The shift in the conversation happened at post 32 (mine).
If you think about it, the OP is only a significant matter for KJO partisans.

Around post 32, people had begun to get defensive about the use of the KJV. I wanted to clarify that my arguments do not impugn the use of the KJV, they only permit (actually require) translation into the vernacular -- something that is only at odds with a KJO position.

So it's not exactly a hijacking or a derailment. It's relevant to the OP.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I do not see where my position is unclear. But if it is, let me clarify:

1. WCF 1.8 requires translation into the vernacular.
2. KJ English hardly qualifies as the vernacular.
3. KJO partisans require reading a non-vernacular version. And so, I find their position out of accord with the confession.
4. I am not denying the beauty, majesty or accuracy (or any other virtue) of the KJV. I'm not commenting on it at all, except to say that it is not in the vernacular.
5. WCF 1.8 does not prohibit using a non-vernacular version. So use of the KJV is not unconfessional. Refusing to permit the use of a vernacular version is.

You are arguing with the wind, my friend. There are no KJOs, as you describe them, on PB.

The question is, are you saying that anyone who disagrees with premiss #2 is unconfessional?
 

Christusregnat

Puritan Board Professor
It seems (and please let me know if I misread your post) that you are arguing, not against the position that the King James is not in the vulgar tongue (my argument) but that a translation in the vulgar tongue is not necessary (the WCF position).

If the Apostles used a non-vulgar translation and the Helenists used a non-vulgar translation and the non-Helenists used a non-vulgar translation, then it's ok for us to use a non-vulgar translation. Is that what you're saying?

Seth,

Good question. My point is that we may be misunderstanding what the divines meant by "vulgar". My contention is that older version of the same language are not outside of the bounds of vulgarity. Of course, exceptions would be when a older version becomes unintelligible, such as Wycliffe's English.

Cheers,
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
Ken,
Precisely (about the wind) -- which is why I was stunned by the sudden vicious verbal stares I was getting.

No. I don't think agreement with #2 is required by the confession. I think, though, that there appeared to be a developing concensus on that -- until people sensed a threat to their precious KJV. There seemed to be a desperate attempt to redefine vulgar to permit the KJV to fit within it. I found that kind of silly. And since there are no KJO in the sense that I was describing, no one should have found my position offensive -- but some did.
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
The shift in the conversation happened at post 32 (mine).
If you think about it, the OP is only a significant matter for KJO partisans.

Around post 32, people had begun to get defensive about the use of the KJV. I wanted to clarify that my arguments do not impugn the use of the KJV, they only permit (actually require) translation into the vernacular -- something that is only at odds with a KJO position.

So it's not exactly a hijacking or a derailment. It's relevant to the OP.



Nobody here is arguing for KJV only, at least I think.
Those who mentioned that the KJV can still be considered vulgar are only defending the use of KJV as a translation that can still be used for today. While the KJV can be used, so can other modern translations.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 05:44:04 EST-----

Ken,
Precisely (about the wind) -- which is why I was stunned by the sudden vicious verbal stares I was getting.

No. I don't think agreement with #2 is required by the confession. I think, though, that there appeared to be a developing concensus on that -- until people sensed a threat to their precious KJV. There seemed to be a desperate attempt to redefine vulgar to permit the KJV to fit within it. I found that kind of silly. And since there are no KJO in the sense that I was describing, no one should have found my position offensive -- but some did.

I don't think people were threatened, but rather just trying to make a point that the KJV can be still vulgar.

I don't think there was a desperate attempt either.

The disagreement is over whether the KJV is vulgar or not. Some think it is, others don't. So we shouldn't even be bringing up KJO in my opinion
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Ken,
Precisely (about the wind) -- which is why I was stunned by the sudden vicious verbal stares I was getting.
:lol:


No. I don't think agreement with #2 is required by the confession. I think, though, that there appeared to be a developing concensus on that -- until people sensed a threat to their precious KJV. There seemed to be a desperate attempt to redefine vulgar to permit the KJV to fit within it. I found that kind of silly. And since there are no KJO in the sense that I was describing, no one should have found my position offensive -- but some did.

That was a misapprehension on your part. This is something that has been vigorously defended on PB for years. I for one find the argument that the KJ is not 'English' anymore, or that we shouldn't teach our children English but adapt our Bible to their vernacular reckless. Think about where that leads. As Tim pointed out, the English vernacular changes so fast it would require a new version on a yearly basis.

This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.
 
Last edited:

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.

But the problem is, that's not what the divines wrote. They wrote "vulgar" not "not in Latin".

I agree with the problem of modern English changing too rapidly, but a new translation once every...I don't know...400 YEARS seems reasonable to me.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.

But the problem is, that's not what the divines wrote. They wrote "vulgar" not "not in Latin".

I agree with the problem of modern English changing too rapidly, but a new translation once every...I don't know...400 YEARS seems reasonable to me.

Point taken.
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.

But the problem is, that's not what the divines wrote. They wrote "vulgar" not "not in Latin".

I agree with the problem of modern English changing too rapidly, but a new translation once every...I don't know...400 YEARS seems reasonable to me.



That means we still got to 2011 :lol:
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If "prevent" and "wist" disqualify the AV from being regarded as "vulgar English," then "wicked" and "awesome" equally disqualify modern versions.
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
Hard to use CT versions of the bible in my opinion with certain passages missing regarding the Trinity and the Lord's prayer. See WSC questions 6 and 107 as well as the WCF on the Trinity.:2cents:
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
If "prevent" and "wist" disqualify the AV from being regarded as "vulgar English," then "wicked" and "awesome" equally disqualify modern versions.

Not so. In the latter case, the word is used in different ways by different people. That does not mean the language has changed. (especially since the new meaning is slang). In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top