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.
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.
In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.
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.
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"
Without looking it up.
I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!! )