KJV & wcf i:8

Status
Not open for further replies.

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:

What is dissipation (Titus 1:6) = The AV uses "riot"

perpetrate (Ruth 4:5) = AV has "raise up"

Syrtis (Acts 27:17) = AV uses "quicksands"

Satraps (Dan.6:2) = AV uses "princes"

Ascent of Heres (Judges 8:13) = AV uses "the sun was up"

*Pergamum did you see the ascent of the heres?


Offal (Lev. 4:11) = AV has "Dung"

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-bible-how-overcome-language-barrier-40664/index2.html
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.

That is incorrect. According to the person giving the account, the words were used in the public school in North Carolina.

I suppose it is possible that someone somewhere used "wist" (most likely in a discussion of Shakespeare in a school), but I have lived 40 years in the US in several regions, and have attended several top 10 universities, and I can say that I have never once in my life ever heard someone use the word (apart from the KJV) nor have I ever even heard a report of the same.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I suppose it is possible that someone somewhere used "wist" (most likely in a discussion of Shakespeare in a school), but I have lived 40 years in the US in several regions, and have attended several top 10 universities, and I can say that I have never once in my life ever heard someone use the word (apart from the KJV) nor have I ever even heard a report of the same.

If one examines the "prevenient" discussion he will see the context in which the words were being discussed and will not approach the thread "unwittingly." :)
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:

What is dissipation (Titus 1:6) = The AV uses "riot"

perpetrate (Ruth 4:5) = AV has "raise up"

Syrtis (Acts 27:17) = AV uses "quicksands"

Satraps (Dan.6:2) = AV uses "princes"

Ascent of Heres (Judges 8:13) = AV uses "the sun was up"

*Pergamum did you see the ascent of the heres?


Offal (Lev. 4:11) = AV has "Dung"

That is confusing, picking and chosing and shows a lack of basic vocabulary. Paul Brenner was called a Satrap in Iraq in all the major newspapers, for just one example.

Gill, what's a munition? Without looking it up.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
Tim,

Don't go after me, I am not a bible translation.

I' m just pointing out that in addition to the KJV, contemporary translations also used words not normally found in today's English.

I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.

Yes, the problem is with the way English has been taught in schools as a medium of individualist self-expression rather than a language whereby we seek to communicate within society and culture.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
MUNITION
KJV Dictionary - munition

MUNI'TION, n. L. munitio, from munio, to fortify.

1. Fortification.

2. Ammunition; whatever materials are used in war for defense, or for annoying an enemy. The word includes guns of all kinds, mortars, &c. and their loading.

3. Provisions of a garrison or fortress, or for ships of war,and in general for an army; stores of all kinds for a fort, an army or navy.

Munition-ships, ships which convey military and naval stores of any kind, and attend or follow a fleet to supply ships of war.

KJV Dictionary - munition
 

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
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 think it is probably safe to ignore anything that that pastor might have to say.

I wonder if he sees the irony of invoking the WCF to say that the KJV is not in the vulgar tongue.
 
Last edited:

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.

Yes, the problem is with the way English has been taught in schools as a medium of individualist self-expression rather than a language whereby we seek to communicate within society and culture.

I agree. It seems people would rather have something translated to them in an "easier" way, instead of really actually learning English.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
I wish I could have used the same argument that is being used against the KJV here when I was in College, especially as a Biology major.

Imagine asking today's Science authors or Scientist to change words like photosynthesis, mitochondria, mitosis, telephase, etc. because poor little Johnnny cannot understand them in today's English. Yeah Right!


The Church in a way does have its own language or key words belonging only to the Church just like any other study, system, institution, sport, etc. For example, justification, propitiation, mortification, sanctification, atonement, hell, etc. Should we change these words as well, since I never hear these word being use in the street?

Of course not, some words we do need to change, but others we keep and teach new believers and our children what is the understanding of these words. Common sense folks!

That's why the Puritans also wrote commentaries. I read my KJV, I listen to my pastor ( who sometimes needs to explain a certain passage from the Greek/Hebrew), I also read the KJV together with the Puritans or the Church past, I listen to another another pastor, etc.

Highly Recommend this: http://www.puritannica.com/index.html
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
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 think it is probably safe to ignore anything that that pastor might have to say.

I wonder if he sees the irony of invoking the WCF to say that the KJV is not in the vulgar tongue.

Well, if he wants to use the SMS version of the Bible, he can be hip, but I don't think any reformed preacher would.

For more info, Google Bible in text message and scroll to Bible Converted Into Text For SMS Generation : Digital-Lifestyles

(No link posted - 2nd commandment violation on that page).

But next time you see him, you can quote some Ecclesiastes to him:

Wrk hard at wateva u do. U will soon go 2 da wrld of da dead, where no 1 wrks or thinks or reasons or knws NEting.

It is beyond ridiculous to jump from saying AV language is not common English (which is demonstrably true, even of the most erudite of fora and publications in the 21st century) to hip hop garbage. No one, not the least the minister in the OP was arguing for that.

To tar the (unnamed) man with such is a violation of the 9th commandment.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
I tend to avoid the KJV just because it sounds "Churchy" and people tend to be so familiar with the phraseology that they tune it out a bit. I'm more inclined toward modern translation for this reason (and there's always the NKJV, if you're worried about "modern translation"--ironic given that the KJV was written to compete with the Geneva Bible).
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Let me also add that I would not agree with the position described in the OP that WCF 1.8 prohibits the use of the KJV.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
:eek:

Ebonibible - Genesis Chapter 1

[1] In da beginnin' Big Daddy created da heaven an' da earth.

[2] And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep. And da Spirit o' Big Daddy groved upon da face o' da waters.

This can't be a modern English translation? It's got to be a joke.
 
Last edited:

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
It is beyond ridiculous to jump from saying AV language is not common English (which is demonstrably true, even of the most erudite of fora and publications in the 21st century) to hip hop garbage. No one, not the least the minister in the OP was arguing for that.

To tar the (unnamed) man with such is a violation of the 9th commandment.

Since your posts are almost always directly on target, I'll take your chastisement to heart. You are correct, I can't know what the speaker would consider to be vulgar tongue. By reaching for an extreme example, I may well have wronged a man that I don't know.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
I guess I was correct about the vicious verbal stares. :)

Please note that nothing disparaging was said about the KJV. Nevertheless, since the claim was made that it isn't the way we speak today, and since the claim was made that the WCF 1.8 speaks of putting the Bible in the hands of the common man, those who love the KJV got all up in arms. Can somebody explain that?

Let me also add that I would not agree with the position described in the OP that WCF 1.8 prohibits the use of the KJV.

For the record, neither do I. I never said that it prohibits the use of the KJV. I was very explicit about that.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
I know some people feel the few places in the NKJV they disagree with totally make it intolerable, but other than the plural ye, which of course is not inspired and was not in Greek or Heb, I see no reason to hold onto the passing language of the KJV

The issue is the TR primarily manuscript and the NKJV is faithful enough.

If children are not brought up on KJV in childhood, it is quite difficult if not impossible for them to understand so many passages it is an unnecessary burden and hindrance to put on them, akin to the Jewish of the Way who held onto the OT laws.

Isn't it time we let go of that and if you don't like the NKJV then lets get a new and more accurate translation of the TR.

Seems like the others can keep pumping out new translations one after another.

I find youth have more errors in understanding and lack understanding of many passages due to the KJV than the "errors" one may accuse the ESV of or even NASB.

The NIV however easy to read makes too many assumptions to be a reliable translation.

So why don't we have a better TR translation in the current and evolving language? Because of some zealous attachments to the KJV of many of the TR men.

I still use the TR mainly because I have so much of it memorized and can use Strong's to study easier.

But to my grandchildren we read out of NKJV and our church uses ESV so they may switch for ease and consistency.

Again to me, the argument to hold on to KJV to prevent error, causes more lack of proper Biblical understanding in youth than they will miss or than there are erros in the text of more modern translations.

So if you raise your kids on KJV fine, if not those coming to the church older, I would discourage it. We should be freeks to the world by our lifestyle, not our language.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
To the OP, I've taught Sunday School for adults and VBS for kids. I was pressured not to use the KJV, but I use it anyway, as it is the Bible I'm used to using. Neither the adults or kids had any problems. Especially the kids. Afterwards, the people pressuring me relaxed and went with what I was using. They thought it would be a problem, but it turned out not to be one.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?

Considering how much he English language has changed in the last 400 years, the answer is no. The Elizabethan/Jacobean language of the KJV is no longer current English - just as the language we use now will probably be outdated 400 years from now.
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I know some people feel the few places in the NKJV they disagree with totally make it intolerable, but other than the plural ye, which of course is not inspired and was not in Greek or Heb, I see no reason to hold onto the passing language of the KJV...

Not to be too technical but the ye's and thee's are in the Greek and Hebrew. The problem is modern English has no way of distinguishing between the singular and plural 2nd person as KJV English did. This causes no short amount of issues when narcissistic Americans get a hold of a modern translations and assume automatically every "you" is singular.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
I know some people feel the few places in the NKJV they disagree with totally make it intolerable, but other than the plural ye, which of course is not inspired and was not in Greek or Heb, I see no reason to hold onto the passing language of the KJV...

Not to be too technical but the ye's and thee's are in the Greek and Hebrew. The problem is modern English has no way of distinguishing between the singular and plural 2nd person as KJV English did. This causes no short amount of issues when narcissistic Americans get a hold of a modern translations and assume automatically every "you" is singular.

In the South we still distinguish between singular and plural in the 2nd person.

2nd Person Sing: You
2nd Person Plural; Y'all

:)
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.

That is incorrect. According to the person giving the account, the words were used in the public school in North Carolina.

But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
OP question: Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?

Yes.

First of all, the WCF's use of "vulgar language" is not how we have generally been using it here in this thread.

OED, vulgar 1.) The common or usual language of a country....4. a) Written or spoken, translated into, the usual language of a country.

OED, vernacular [from a Latin root meaning native, indigenous] 3. a) Of literary works, etc.: The native language of a particular country or people.

In the Preface of the 1611 AV, ¶ 8, it says,

"...the godly-learned... for the behalf and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they... provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated."​

The clear sense of the words "vulgar language" as used by the Westminster divines is the native language of one's country, its mother tongue, and not one imposed by ecclesiastics, as Rome had done with Latin.

In this light the KJV as well as the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc., all being in the native language of English, all qualify to fall under the term vulgar or mother tongue. Therefore, it is false to say the use of only the KJV in the public worship of the church is unconfessional because the English language has changed since the last updating edition of that Bible. It is still in the vulgar or mother tongue of the English-speaking peoples.

Clark, when you say you are receiving "vicious verbal stares" from folks for your position on the KJVO, I gather you mean perceived hostility. It appears (in post #81) you thought "people sensed a threat to their precious KJV" and were giving you an evil eye of sorts. I couldn't see it, but then I'm not in your shoes (although "precious KJV" could be taken as slightly sarcastic) . Whether that is accurate or not — just so you know — I have come on strongly here at PB about the imperative of graciousness and loving kindness toward opponents in these textual discussions, as put forth in the beginning of this thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/.

Soon enough we will be a community under fire from the unbelieving culture, and we have need of unity in mutual forbearance, respect, and love, that we may stand as one people in the presence our God, not allowing non-essentials to divide and embitter us.

Steve
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
vulgar |ˈvəlgər|
adjective
lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined : the vulgar trappings of wealth.
• making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude : a vulgar joke.
• dated characteristic of or belonging to the masses.
DERIVATIVES
vulgarity |ˌvəlˈgaritē| noun ( pl. -ties)
vulgarly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin vulgaris, from vulgus ‘common people.’ The original sense was [used in ordinary calculations] (surviving in vulgar fraction ) and [in ordinary use, used by the people] (surviving in vulgar Latin and vulgar tongue ).


vulgar tongue
noun ( the vulgar tongue) dated
the national or vernacular language of a people (used typically to contrast such a language with Latin).

vernacular |vərˈnakyələr|
noun
1 (usu. the vernacular) the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region : he wrote in the vernacular to reach a larger audience. See note at dialect .
• [with adj. ] the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.
2 architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings : buildings in which Gothic merged into farmhouse vernacular.
adjective
1 (of language) spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language.
• (of speech or written works) using such a language : vernacular literature.
2 (of architecture) concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
vulgar |ˈvəlgər|
adjective
lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined : the vulgar trappings of wealth.
• making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude : a vulgar joke.
• dated characteristic of or belonging to the masses.
DERIVATIVES
vulgarity |ˌvəlˈgaritē| noun ( pl. -ties)
vulgarly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin vulgaris, from vulgus ‘common people.’ The original sense was [used in ordinary calculations] (surviving in vulgar fraction ) and [in ordinary use, used by the people] (surviving in vulgar Latin and vulgar tongue ).


vulgar tongue
noun ( the vulgar tongue) dated
the national or vernacular language of a people (used typically to contrast such a language with Latin).

vernacular |vərˈnakyələr|
noun
1 (usu. the vernacular) the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region : he wrote in the vernacular to reach a larger audience. See note at dialect .
• [with adj. ] the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.
2 architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings : buildings in which Gothic merged into farmhouse vernacular.
adjective
1 (of language) spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language.
• (of speech or written works) using such a language : vernacular literature.
2 (of architecture) concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.

See also post #21 for historical context (both world history and this thread!!! :lol:)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.

It wasn't that the language was unfamiliar, but merely the use of a few words which they had not associated with that specific context. Words + context = meaning. The answer is to tell people what the words mean in that context, not to restrict their vocabulary.
 
Last edited:

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.

It wasn't that the language was unfamiliar, but merely the use of a few words which thy had not associated with that specific context. Words + context = meaning. The answer is to tell people what the words mean in that context, not to restrict their vocabulary.

Not to restrict their vocabulary...I like that :up:
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
vulgar |ˈvəlgər|
adjective
lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined : the vulgar trappings of wealth.
• making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude : a vulgar joke.
• dated characteristic of or belonging to the masses.
DERIVATIVES
vulgarity |ˌvəlˈgaritē| noun ( pl. -ties)
vulgarly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin vulgaris, from vulgus ‘common people.’ The original sense was [used in ordinary calculations] (surviving in vulgar fraction ) and [in ordinary use, used by the people] (surviving in vulgar Latin and vulgar tongue ).


vulgar tongue
noun ( the vulgar tongue) dated
the national or vernacular language of a people (used typically to contrast such a language with Latin).

vernacular |vərˈnakyələr|
noun
1 (usu. the vernacular) the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region : he wrote in the vernacular to reach a larger audience. See note at dialect .
• [with adj. ] the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.
2 architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings : buildings in which Gothic merged into farmhouse vernacular.
adjective
1 (of language) spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language.
• (of speech or written works) using such a language : vernacular literature.
2 (of architecture) concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.

See also post #21 for historical context (both world history and this thread!!! :lol:)

Just some dictionary use to make sure we were all singing off of the same page:sing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top