Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BTW, have we all 'counted the cost' in allowing 1:8 to dogmatically define our Bible? What would the phrase "kept pure in all ages" imply? I am not going to derail this thread but just want to offer a word of caution.
Are you suggesting that there's no such thing thing as current English?
How will we ever educate our children? Give me a break! The language of commerce, the language of the news media, the language of textbooks, etc. -- these are the common tongue. Ask a publisher whether it would be okay to write your book in KJ style English. Go to work for a newspaper and try it. We all know what common English is. WE'RE USING IT! If you love the KJV, great. But don't engage in special pleading to call it the vulgar language.
WCF 1.8 does not require you to read a more current version. It only calls into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position.
What could be vulgar in one church may not be vulgar in another...right?
Exactly. An inner city church of recent converts and people born in raised in families reading the KJV frequently would need different translations.
It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came across that way.
Are you suggesting that there's no such thing thing as current English?
How will we ever educate our children? Give me a break! The language of commerce, the language of the news media, the language of textbooks, etc. -- these are the common tongue. Ask a publisher whether it would be okay to write your book in KJ style English. Go to work for a newspaper and try it. We all know what common English is. WE'RE USING IT! If you love the KJV, great. But don't engage in special pleading to call it the vulgar language.
WCF 1.8 does not require you to read a more current version. It only calls into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position.
It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
So back to the OP..."Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?"
What do you guys think...in a simple answer.
I just want to see what people really think about this.
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?
As Seth pointed out, the issue isn't the text, but the translation. CT is an entirely different subject.
It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
I would have to say that if "vulgar" means, in our case, "modern English," then the KJV English is fine since it is modern English.
I would say that Middle or Old English would not classify as "vulgar"
okay guys ... Bear with me i am having a rod serling moment here ...
did anyone, anyone read post #21?
hello ............
It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
??????
What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.
Dost thou speak thusly?
Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.
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.
Your welcome, I almost could feel you pain!Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.
thanks .....
As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.
Are you suggesting that vulgar applies to what the congregation would consider vulgar?
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,
What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.