KJV & wcf i:8

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimV

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

No. No way.

the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.

To say the 1611 version uses the Vulgar Tongue is bizarre. The arguments supporting this use the same basic logic as those arguments supporting unicorns, dragons and troglodytes.

But, WCF 1.8 doesn't say that the KJV, or any other translation shouldn't be used in the pulpit, does it? Is it just me? Isn't the idea that a vulgar translation be available? And don't we have several?

I mean really! I love the KJV. And there isn't any major Reformed denomination that forbids it's use in the pulpit, is there? Thousands of brilliant people, and none of them claim the KJV is against the WCF? Isn't that weighty?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I mean really! I love the KJV. And there isn't any major Reformed denomination that forbids it's use in the pulpit, is there? Thousands of brilliant people, and none of them claim the KJV is against the WCF? Isn't that weighty?

Which part is weighty, the fact that it isn't forbidden, or the fact that you love it? :lol:

Seriously, this argument should bear weight, as does the argument that many brilliant people use the NIV.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
To say the 1611 version uses the Vulgar Tongue is bizarre.

University level English teachers don't seem to think so, as they generally classify the language of 1611 as belonging to "Modern English."

I wouldn't ordinarily reference Wikipedia, but its article on early modern English states the matter plainly when it maintains,

Current readers of English are generally able to understand Early Modern English, though occasionally with difficulties arising from grammar changes, changes in the meanings of some words, and spelling differences.
 

bookslover

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

LOL. The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.

The purpose of the Bible is to communicate God's thoughts to His people. When the language used fails to do this due to obsolescence, it's time to update the language.

Beautiful language is nice. But, when it comes to the Bible, beauty of language must take a back seat to accurate communication - because of the very nature of the Bible.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
LOL. The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.

The fact that there is a King James dictionary demonstrates that her translators valued accuracy above all else.
 

N. Eshelman

Puritan Board Senior
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?


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.

According to the definition as 'ordinary language' the KJV does NOT constitute the vulgar tongue. This very text from the WCF was what made me switch from using the KJV as well. I think that the issue is SO important as to not be a hindrance to the Gospel. We need to be able to set our own traditions aside, despite all the arguments for them, and understand that the Gospel is what is at stake. And if people cannot understand the Scriptures- they will not be saved.

And for the argument that 'anyone can learn the KJV English'... true... but would you be so insensitive as to say that anyone can learn the Greek and Hebrew to learn the Scriptures?

Glenn, consider this matter seriously.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
How is the KJV a hindrace to the message of the Gospel?

How is the Gospel at stake with the KJV?

When it comes to understanding the Scriptures:

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 1 (OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES):

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them

The fact is more people have come to know the Gospel with the KJV than with any other translation out there.
 

KMK

Administrator
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?


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.

According to the definition as 'ordinary language' the KJV does NOT constitute the vulgar tongue. This very text from the WCF was what made me switch from using the KJV as well. I think that the issue is SO important as to not be a hindrance to the Gospel. We need to be able to set our own traditions aside, despite all the arguments for them, and understand that the Gospel is what is at stake. And if people cannot understand the Scriptures- they will not be saved.

And for the argument that 'anyone can learn the KJV English'... true... but would you be so insensitive as to say that anyone can learn the Greek and Hebrew to learn the Scriptures?

Glenn, consider this matter seriously.

Are you saying that the Gospel in modern translations does not need to be explained?

I am glad that you take the matter seriously, but to imply that those who prefer KJV are simply following 'tradition' and are 'insensitive' is to belie the fact that you have not or do not understand the arguments in this thread.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I think that the issue is SO important as to not be a hindrance to the Gospel.

Making sure the gospel is not hindered is of utmost importance, therefore ministers of the gospel should be careful to preach the true gospel and not leave the untrained reader to understand the Scriptures without a guide, Acts 8:31.
 

Claudiu

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

LOL. The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.

.


Huh? That argument doesn't really hold when you think about it. We have dictionaries for the modern English as well. Having a dictionary does not mean that a language is obsolete.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 12:44:35 EST-----

One can read the Westminster Confession of Faith with KJV Scripture Proofs but not be able to read the KJV. :scratch:


:agree:

Thats what I was thinking earlier
 

N. Eshelman

Puritan Board Senior
How is the KJV a hindrace to the message of the Gospel?

How is the Gospel at stake with the KJV?

When it comes to understanding the Scriptures:

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 1 (OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES):

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them

The fact is more people have come to know the Gospel with the KJV than with any other translation out there.

Gil,

I acknowledge that the KJV is a wonderful and faithful translation. I also am a TR man, which makes me love it even more... but I do believe that if people are not able to understand the words of the Scriptures then we must have a translation which is understood.

The masses do not speak this way and many people actually get caught up in the style of the language instead of hearing the message.

I was saved by God's grace via the KJV. But the fact is that most people read at a 4th grade reading level.... we are a culture that is far from KJV-speak. You know I prefer the ESV (which is also on a 12th grade reading level, along with the KJV), but my main reason is so that I can preach the Scriptures without having to first take the translation and make it in current usage.

I was talking with our friend, Edgar I., about this earlier in the week (before I saw the post), and for someone who ministers in two languages, such as you and Edgar do, you should realize the importance of having a clear translation.

The Gospel is at stake when people stumble over our use and love for something that is not essential to the Gospel. God condescended to give us the Gospel of life and we should not have to teach people archaic language in order to explain the wonder and beauty of that condescension.

Well get sushi soon and talk more about this! :) I am on my way to Seattle tomorrow and will be back in a week and a half. Let's get together. :worms:
 

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
but I do believe that if people are not able to understand the words of the Scriptures then we must have a translation which is understood.


I don't think anyone is arguing against not using another translation. Rather, I think we are arguing for the point that we should be able to use whatever translation: Be it ESV, NKJV or even the KJV (which many people are on the side of saying that it is not vulgar).

I think the best translation should be used... one that people will understand. If someone needs the ESV, let them use it. If people are able to understand the KJV why take it away?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The Gospel is at stake when people stumble over our use and love for something that is not essential to the Gospel. God condescended to give us the Gospel of life and we should not have to teach people archaic language in order to explain the wonder and beauty of that condescension.

If what you say is true, you will need to teach people 'modern' language as well.

Look, the parts of the Gospel that are difficult to understand in the KJV, are difficult to understand, period. (There isn't a modern English word with which to accurately translate ἱλαστήριον, for example.) As preachers, we better be explaining the Gospel no matter which version we use.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Is it not important to use the definition of "vulgar" as it was meant in the Confession? Was it "the contemporary dialect" of a nation's or people's language, or was it simply "the mother tongue" of that nation or people? To impose a definition of vulgar (and there are a number) not meant will lead us down the wrong trail, and into all sorts of "bizarre" conclusions!

Most English Bibles fall into the category of "our vulgar tongue" — with some folks preferring the latest English and some the old standard, but they're all in the ballpark. What a tempest in a teapot!
 
Last edited:

N. Eshelman

Puritan Board Senior
The Gospel is at stake when people stumble over our use and love for something that is not essential to the Gospel. God condescended to give us the Gospel of life and we should not have to teach people archaic language in order to explain the wonder and beauty of that condescension.

If what you say is true, you will need to teach people 'modern' language as well.

Look, the parts of the Gospel that are difficult to understand in the KJV, are difficult to understand, period. (There isn't a modern English word with which to accurately translate ἱλαστήριον, for example.) As preachers, we better be explaining the Gospel no matter which version we use.

Agreed.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
I think that the discussion is muddied by the sentimental attachment Reformed Christians often have towards Reformation Bibles. Hey, I don't use the KJV hardly at all but asked my wife for an Allan KJV for my birthday.

I would love to hear an historian weigh in here. However, absent that, my guess is that vulgar was contrasted with Latin. If you really push the limits of the term, you could end up with a Good News for Modern Man or CEV only position as compatible with the confession. :lol:
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
If you really push the limits of the term, you could end up with a Good News for Modern Man or CEV only position as compatible with the confession. :lol:
Exactly. The recent New Living Translation Study Bible immediately came to my mind when reading this thread.

AMR
 

DonP

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:

Yes it would be horrible to restrict a child's vocabulary so he no longer uses words like these with his friends and teachers:
wot ye not
help meet
Smiteth
licketh
pisseth
bewrayeth
Sheweth
reconeth
quickeneth
waxeth

This is not about expanding vocabulary it is speaking the current language with proper grammar.
Though one mighteth say technically that it is the same vulgar language it is incorrect to say it is not a real hindrance to an adult or child to read this archaic and no longer used style of language, just as going back a bit further when the f , v and s are flipped among others it is still called English, yet unnecessary to not translate into current written language.

One only need look at the sales of the modern versions to see what they prefer for their understanding. They do not buy these based on the Gk text issue or anything other than readability.

Even if one would maintain a need to retain the plural and sing 2nd person, retaining the old language no longer used is not the way to do it.

I teach Sr high Sunday school also and it is more difficult to understand and often children who read king james as well as adults who do, do not understand what they read. And when it is read in another version the get clarity.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
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


Dear Pastor Ferrel,

For your consideration, I would like to take the opportunity and attempt to answer your question: "Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?"

Part of WCF 1.8 in question

therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come

The previous four pages of argument, and your friends challenge, presupposing a segregated priority and definition of "vulgar language" as a "peculiar idiom" is representative of the democratic mentality of our age, its necessary consequence is a radical truncation of Biblical Authority and should be rejected.

In this case, by direct implication, it subjugates Authority of Scripture by establishing a philological precept that holds language hostage as the true custodian and interpreter of the Word. (e.g., In this approach the philological issues and hermeneutics cannot be separated and exist independent of Scripture). Of course, the essence of the argument is rationalistic and elevates reason as having priority over the Word.

In contrast, our forebears didn't think in these democratic presuppositions, rather, their intention was to bring the Gospel unto all nations consistent with the fully orbed trajectory of Reformed theology whereby Christianity would be established as the common faith, that requires the establishment of the Scriptures in the native tongue, not a peculiar idiom. Understandability was always second to fidelity and can only be derived from fidelity - not simplicity. For the Colonial Puritans, for example, the Authorized Version quickly became the foundation upon which the entire commonwealth was structured, quoting verbatim in their charters and laws. All of life was to be anchored upon its very words. (see, Harry Stout, "Word and Order in Colonial New England," p 19-38.) Hence, "vulgar tongue" was never contemplated as lowest common denominator of intellectual society as is advocated in this thread. The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.

The Church does not need the Scriptures in a so-called "modern" idiom, it needs an accurate translation that conveys the meaning of the original languages in our native tongue. As you are well aware the same section of the WCF recognizes that the "native language" of Hebrew and Greek are authentical - hence the goal of translation is to carry that meaning as accurately as possible into the "vulgar" or native tongue of a nation. The goal is to establish the Word of God as foundational to cognitive philology in a native tongue of a nation consistent with the Great Commission, not to appeal to the individual. The purpose is to establish God's Word in an authoritative translation for the entire society to be structured as both law and gospel so that men may live godly lives and "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." (WCF 1.8)

Your friends challenge collapsing this fully orbed meaning of WCF 1.8 under the rubric of a democratic impulse that shifts the locus of cognitive philology from establishment to populism would have horrified the Westminster Divines. This principle can readily be seen in the many activities they engaged to insure that the Authorized Version was not published outside of the authorized printings because they viewed simple spelling errors as "corrupt and dangerous to religion." (See Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p 25) How much more so would they have viewed subjecting it to peculiar idioms in edition after edition after edition!

Certainly language does change and words fall out of use or change meaning but the language and spelling of the Authorized Version has been conservatively updated several times with the latest being 1769, hence the Authorized Version you are using is not the language of the 1611 translation. And of course, fidelity to the original texts made the 1611 version "out of date" in 1611 as well.

Our current editions are in "modern" English as it regards our native tongue representing the meaning of the original languages. Certainly there are a handful or two of particular terms we no longer use, but if we can publish upteen different "Life Application" Bibles with copius footnotes on every page then we can publish an edition with footnotes defining a few dozen words. (e.g., 1 Cor 10:25, (1) shambles means butcher shop or meat market).

When you preach from the Authorized Version then you preach the Word that is organically and covenantally connected to the lives of your sheep historically established in our nation consistent with the fully orbed meaning and intent of our Confession. It is a landmark of the Christian faith in our land and a hallmark of the Great Commission - you can't pull up or remove landmarks of the Church in America without serious consequences.

In Christ,

Thomas
 

rpavich

Puritan Board Freshman
Larry,
C'mon...



Does that mean that the dictionaries of current English demonstrates that current English is also obsolete?

You completely glossed over the fact that the context of his statement was in reaction to this statement by the software manufacture of the KJV dictionary:

"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..."


You are mixing up apples and oranges; I think you know what point he was making right?
 

Grafted In

Puritan Board Freshman
"Fetch those victuals in that tow sack, and mete out a mess for that sottish and churlish chapman."[/QUOTE]

What did you say?
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Larry,
C'mon...

Does that mean that the dictionaries of current English demonstrates that current English is also obsolete?

You completely glossed over the fact that the context of his statement was in reaction to this statement by the software manufacture of the KJV dictionary:

"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..."


You are mixing up apples and oranges; I think you know what point he was making right?

I was only taking the quote from your post...the context that was provided in that post didn't include all the stuff that you've posted here.

I would suggest that if you want your post to be understood within the context of another post, then you should consider quoting all of the material you think is needed for a proper understanding of the context.

There are many times that i don't read all of the posts in a thread, but only reply to specific posts that i think need addressed.

Further, i wonder what words in the KJV would not be found in modern dictionaries. And if they are found in modern dictionaries, then there is no need for a KJV dictionary, which means the point is moot anyways.

I have actually found that learning words as they come up in the KJV has helped me in my vocabulary...and some of the words do come up still. I remember hearing on a news broadcast someone who referenced "purloining" and thinking to myself...hey, i know what that means because it's in my Bible!
 

rpavich

Puritan Board Freshman
Larry,
actually you were responding to another poster, I'm the one who posted the KJV dictionary, not what you responded to, I was just pointing out that your comment made little sense when his was taken in context which is that since we don't speak KJV language and people still read the KJV but need to know what it's saying there is a market for software to help out....no offense meant.

I'm not saying that the KJV cannot be understood, I don't think anyone would argue that, but certainly nobody here uses words and phrases as their everyday speech that the KJV does; I think that really was the point.

The fact that there is a dictionary for words in the English language? You don't really think that that has a bearing on the issue of whether the language of the KJV is "common language of the day" or not right?
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Larry,
actually you were responding to another poster, I'm the one who posted the KJV dictionary, not what you responded to, I was just pointing out that your comment made little sense when his was taken in context which is that since we don't speak KJV language and people still read the KJV but need to know what it's saying there is a market for software to help out....no offense meant.

I'm not saying that the KJV cannot be understood, I don't think anyone would argue that, but certainly nobody here uses words and phrases as their everyday speech that the KJV does; I think that really was the point.

The fact that there is a dictionary for words in the English language? You don't really think that that has a bearing on the issue of whether the language of the KJV is "common language of the day" or not right?

Correct, i don't think a dictionary proves that a language is archaic or that it's not...whether it's a KJV dictionary or a current dictionary.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:24:01 EST-----

Purloin is not archaic. It is an everyday word.

Depends on who you talk to. I don't recall seeing the word in modern versions.

How do we define archaic? Exactly how "common" does it have to be to not be archaic?
We certainly can't count the KJV as archaic if our objective measurement for such is the use of Modern English...since the KJV uses Modern English.

By the way, I say all of this while reading the ESV :eek:
 

rpavich

Puritan Board Freshman
Larry,
I guess this thread is done for me...all that can be said has been I guess.

PS: I meant no disrespect by my comments.

I'm also an ESV user :eek:
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Depends on who you talk to. I don't recall seeing the word in modern versions.

How do we define archaic? Exactly how "common" does it have to be to not be archaic?

Some newspapers which used the word purloin just today are Counterpunch, Calgary News, Telegraph, Lloyd's List and the Examiner, and that doesn't even exhaust the first page on Google News. Any well read English speaker knows what the word purloin means.

As to the definition of archaic, it means pertaining to a language of the past. In other words, the very opposite of vulgar.

Of course, you can defend the KJV as being vulgar English in the same way you can defend the KJV use of unicorn and dragon. You can just claim fire breathing dinosaurs existed during a time when the human race was literate and left hundreds of thousands of detailed records. And when someone points out that there's no proof, you can just say it's a matter of faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top