KJV & wcf i:8

Status
Not open for further replies.

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.

But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel? The authority is in the words, and it is recognized by the Spirit. The style does not lend any authority to it whatsoever, and if it attempts to or seems to, then that is a problem. While he was not averse to high style, Paul made it clear that his message's power was not dependent on its style.

It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.

Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.

Tim, will you at least acknowledge "vulgar" can be used to mean "mother tongue" as well as "contemporary idiom" — two separate and distinct definitions?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.

But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel?

Are you saying the Reformers were in error when they chose Elizabethan English rather than the conversational English of their day? If so, then it is you who might take exception to 1:8, not the KJ user.

It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.

Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.

How about a website where everyone could enter in their age, demographics, education etc. and be provided with a version that is a perfect match. Then everyone could have their own custom Bible, whether a gardener, a high school student, or even a pastor.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
6. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
7. lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting.

–noun 8. Archaic. the common people.
9. Obsolete. the vernacular.

Tim, will you at least acknowledge "vulgar" can be used to mean "mother tongue" as well as "contemporary idiom" — two separate and distinct definitions?

No, that would be bizarre.

Mother tongue is just another word we could all fight over. You and I both have a background in languages, and I can't read the Canterbury Tales in the original without great difficulty and occasional reference to translating help. And the time difference between the time the CT was written and the KJV is less than between the KJV's time and today. Granted the language may have changed less in the last 400 years, but where's the line between mother tongue drawn? Can you give me a date?

Is this "mother tongue"? It's only 200 years before the KJV:

1: Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
2: The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour
4: Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5: Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
6: Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
7: Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
8: Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
9: And smale foweles maken melodye,
10: That slepen al the nyght with open ye
11: (so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
12: Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
13: And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
14: To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15: And specially from every shires ende


And BTW when I read WCF 1.8 I don't see any blanket prohibition against using non vulgar language from the pulpit, but I'm no lawyer.
 
Last edited:

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.

But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel?

Are you saying the Reformers were in error when they chose Elizabethan English rather than the conversational English of their day? If so, then it is you who might take exception to 1:8, not the KJ user.

First of all, even if I were to say that they were in error on their choice of Elizabethan English, that would not require me to take an exception to 1.8. That's a non sequitur.

But secondly, I don't think the language of the KJV was foreign to the literate of the age. It is foreign to most in our day and age. I'm not arguing for a lack of style. In Paul's argument that I referenced, he uses literary conventions. But the reformers didn't opt for an archaic style. No one is suggesting that the Bible be translated on a 1st grade reading level. But it should at least be translated in current English. Style, even high style, so long as it it does not obscure the message, isn't really a problem. But when the message is obscured for the sake of a high style, that is a problem. The reformers did not obscure the message, because Elizabethan English was easily understood at the time. That's not the case today.

It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.

Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.

How about a website where everyone could enter in their age, demographics, education etc. and be provided with a version that is a perfect match. Then everyone could have their own custom Bible, whether a gardener, a high school student, or even a pastor.

Or how about a version where you have to have been raised with an esoteric language or have a masters in English literature to read it ... oh, we already have that -- the KJV. Two can do sarcasm. But it isn't really helpful. Ridiculous rhetoric doesn't move the conversation forward.

I've got to pack for international travel. I can see that this conversation isn't going anywhere. Two sides are entrenched and nobody's listening to the other side. So, I'll bow out of this conversation.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel?

Are you saying the Reformers were in error when they chose Elizabethan English rather than the conversational English of their day? If so, then it is you who might take exception to 1:8, not the KJ user.

First of all, even if I were to say that they were in error on their choice of Elizabethan English, that would not require me to take an exception to 1.8. That's a non sequitur.

But secondly, I don't think the language of the KJV was foreign to the literate of the age. It is foreign to most in our day and age. I'm not arguing for a lack of style. In Paul's argument that I referenced, he uses literary conventions. But the reformers didn't opt for an archaic style. No one is suggesting that the Bible be translated on a 1st grade reading level. But it should at least be translated in current English. Style, even high style, so long as it it does not obscure the message, isn't really a problem. But when the message is obscured for the sake of a high style, that is a problem. The reformers did not obscure the message, because Elizabethan English was easily understood at the time. That's not the case today.

It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.

Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.

How about a website where everyone could enter in their age, demographics, education etc. and be provided with a version that is a perfect match. Then everyone could have their own custom Bible, whether a gardener, a high school student, or even a pastor.

Or how about a version where you have to have been raised with an esoteric language or have a masters in English literature to read it ... oh, we already have that -- the KJV. Two can do sarcasm. But it isn't really helpful. Ridiculous rhetoric doesn't move the conversation forward.

I've got to pack for international travel. I can see that this conversation isn't going anywhere. Two sides are entrenched and nobody's listening to the other side. So, I'll bow out of this conversation.

What is sarcastic about my remark? If one believes that every person has a right to a Bible that is accessible, and the technology exists to provide every person with such access, then isn't it required to do what can be done? In fact, the existence of threads such as these demonstrate that we are indeed moving in that direction. The message is, "Tell me about yourself and I will recommend a contemporary English version that best suits you, whether NKJV, NASB, ESV, CEV, NIV, NLT, etc."

I think the argument boils down to which is a higher priority, accuracy or readability. I have listened to the arguments from the other side, whether it appears that way to you or not, and I simply disagree. I believe accuracy is more important. But if the church can come up with a version that is more readable and retains the accuracy of the KJV, then count me in.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
What is sarcastic about my remark? If one believes that every person has a right to a Bible that is accessible, and the technology exists to provide every person with such access, then isn't it required to do what can be done? In fact, the existence of threads such as these demonstrate that we are indeed moving in that direction. The message is, "Tell me about yourself and I will recommend a contemporary English version that best suits you, whether NKJV, NASB, ESV, CEV, NIV, NLT, etc."

I think the argument boils down to which is a higher priority, accuracy or readability. I have listened to the arguments from the other side, whether it appears that way to you or not, and I simply disagree. I believe accuracy is more important. But if the church can come up with a version that is more readable and retains the accuracy of the KJV, then count me in.

Ken,
I am of the same disposition. I have followed (at least tried to follow) this thread and I do think some progress has been made.

For me accuracy of translation (formal equivalence) is primary followed by readability, a close second.

I have settled views about manuscript transmission history but I don't make it a hill to die on. I am pleased with my NKJB but have been willing to replace it and waiting for over twenty years for something superior to come along.
 

reformedminister

Puritan Board Sophomore
:deadhorse: I can't believe that there has been so much discussion about a so rediculous assertion. This should not even be an argument any more than allowing homosexuals to enter the pastoral ministry. There are people that need witnessed to and prayed for.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
Another weakness is when you have people who pray in KJV language and new people feel they have to speak in tongues in order to pray well or be accepted in the church.

It is Unnatural. And to have to learn a special prayer language to feel a part of the body is not seeking to edify your brother and keep them from stumbling.

At least, pray in the vulgar. -- Common language of the people. Vulgar, does not mean highest most formal language. Its vulgar, common, base borders on unseemly esp. to the higher ups who would prefer an elegant form of language.

As for vulgar meaning "mother tongue", in this case it would have to mean:
Great Great grandmother tongue.

We may say when I go to court a lawyer may speak a more formal language, or at a formal political event but these can still generally be understood as far as formality though one may be unfamiliar with it. Just as if you went into a hospital or a computer company.
But these are technical jargon unique by trade.
Now more of these terms may make there way int the general language of the people, and become part of the common vocabulary but it is not the same as choosing exclusively an antiquated style of language with old endings that are no longer acceptable grammar.

It is not vocabulary, it is grammar. "eth" is not an accepted and taught suffix or verb ending today.

If you were asked to take a test in an English class and were asked to supply proper suffixes for look and put looketh instead of looked, looking, looks, etc you would fail the test.

eth is no longer correct English, High English or any English. It is incorrect.

Just as you would flunk a spelling test to use the slightly older English as Tim sighted with flipped s,f,v etc.

This is incorrect English today. The fact there are a few word in Spanish that we can recognize does not mean Spanish is the language of the people in English.

Nor can we say that if Spanish or Italian originated from Latin that Latin is the smae language.
This is not the same as Castellano and Common Spanish both of which can be understood by most.

If our interest is in making the word of God known and the people of all levels of education given the ability to know God, then it needs to be in the most well understood and commonly taught language.

If you believe due to the elevated place of God out of respect the highest form of language should be used then we just disagree.

And I still use the KJV but will not read out of it to my grandchildren and students. They get NKJV or ESV since I submit to my church.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
This thread needs a rest.
Frankly, I haven't seen anyone deal with the Assembly's work sufficiently to support this idea WCF 1.8 obviates the KJV now. I think such an argument may not be able to escape the fact such an interpretation of 1.8 would have obviated the KJV, at the time of the Assembly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top