# Vulgar A.V.



## Glenn Ferrell (Jul 13, 2009)

I have no desire to reopen the discussion of a recent thread as far too many posts strayed from the original question, “Does the KJV qualify as ‘vulgar language’ as required by WCF I:8?” However, other responsibilities prevented me from getting back to the thread to consider the many replies and respond before the discussion was closed. 

A few afterthoughts:

1) The AV was not standard English when it was fresh. It gave us a sort of Hebraicized English with its formal equivalent style of translation. This style did not make the text beyond understanding; and left ambiguities of the original as ambiguities rather than force a particular interpretation into the translation.

2) That said, the wide circulation and use of the AV and Shakespeare did much to standardize the English language, much as the Quran did for Arabic and Cervantes did for Spanish. I dispute the contention English has changed more in the last four hundred years than any equivalent time before. There is far greater difference between the Chaucer’s English and the AV than between the AV and today. Canterbury Tales to the AV was approximately 220 years.

3) “Vulgar” may mean “common” much the same as “koine.” Koine was the common international language of the Greco-Hellenistic world. Paul wrote the Romans in Koine, not Latin. The AV is common to English speaking peoples. One will find churches in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India, and North America using the AV and understanding it. The AV is a truly “common” translation of the scriptures. For the same reason, the 1650 Scottish Psalter is the “common” Psalter of the English language.

4) While I’m not opposed to the use of different translations of the Bible or Psalter, and would favor a modern, international, ecclesiastical, Reformed translation of the Bible based upon the TR, we don’t have such.

5) Having read and considered the previous thread, I will continue to read the AV in public worship, when necessary providing a brief preface of obscure words, phrases or grammar, the same way I might explain some strange Hebrew cultural or historical reference in the text. I do the same when we regularly sing from the 1650 Psalter. I do so without any concern I may be violating the intent of WCF I:8. It is important we read, hear, sing, pray and preach with understanding. If the AV is not understandable, neither are the Westminster Standards.

BTW, here in the Treasure Valley of Idaho, where one often encounters KJV-Only cultists and Mormons, the AV is more readily accepted by them as authoritative. 

Also, I can’t tolerate “churchy” language, practice or piety; but, dignity and reverence in public worship is not the same. When unbelievers dare enter the precincts of mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and church of the firstborn, they might expect it to look and sound different than the world. So, they have to stain a little to here the accents of Sion; I have to do that when I’m in New Jersey, Boston, Glasgow or London. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate those fine places or would not visit them again, even though many of the inhabitants don't speak a vulgar English.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 13, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> 2) That said, the wide circulation and use of the AV and Shakespeare did much to standardize the English language, much as the Quran did for Arabic and Cervantes did for Spanish. I dispute the contention English has changed more in the last four hundred years than any equivalent time before. There is far greater difference between the Chaucer’s English and the AV than between the AV and today. Canterbury Tales to the AV was approximately 220 years.



My wife and I were having a conversation the other day as we're getting an Authorized Version for our 3-year-old's birthday. My wife thought a modern version would be better, but we agreed that English was hammered out on the anvil of the AV and Shakespeare.

Also, the point about Chaucer is an excellent one. I had thought of Wycliff as well, and Tyndale's translation in the light of the radical changes in English from the 14th to the 16th Centuries.

Cheers,


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jul 13, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> ..we agreed that English was hammered out on the anvil of the AV and Shakespeare.
> 
> Also, the point about Chaucer is an excellent one. I had thought of Wycliff as well, and Tyndale's translation in the light of the radical changes in English from the 14th to the 16th Centuries.



Told my wife when we met, “We look enough alike we might be distant relatives.”

She asked, “Is this need to marry a cousin some sort of hillbilly thing?”

Come to find out, Chaucer was her 15th great-grandfather, and my 18th great-grandfather.

Of course, almost everyone who had western European ancestors in the American British colonies is related in multiple ways.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 13, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > ...we agreed that English was hammered out on the anvil of the AV and Shakespeare.
> ...



I can't say that I have Chaucer, but I've got a line of Sir Knight Murray's in my past, tracing all the way to Freskin of Moravia:

FRESKIN DE MORAVIA

In our line are rebels against the English (praise the Lord), as well as ardent supporters of the Reformation (one smote the duke of Argyl on the cheek when he was cheeky about the reformation).

Cheers,


----------



## bookslover (Jul 13, 2009)

Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.

If you use a good modern translation (NASB, ESV), you won't need to spend valuable time explaining obsolete or obscure words.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 13, 2009)

Glenn,

The subject of manuscript transmission and translation is one that I find very interesting. You said:



> While I’m not opposed to the use of different translations of the Bible or Psalter, and would favor a modern, international, ecclesiastical, Reformed translation of the Bible based upon the TR, we don’t have such.



I mentioned in another thread recently that I am very pleased with my New King James Bible but that I have been watching and am willing to consider something else that comes along if it (1) employs a formal equivalence translation method, and (2) produces an English text superior to the NKJB. I have been waiting for over twenty years but have not seen such.

I assume that you prefer the AV to the NKJB. If that is the case what shortcomings have you encountered in the NKJB?


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 13, 2009)

Accepting that Whitaker's _Disputations_ were highly influential with respect to WCF Chapter 1, two segments from his work merit attention. The first, where he answers the Popish argument against vulgar scriptures that "languages are changed every age":
_For, in the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the vulgar tongue. Thirdy, no inconvenience will follow if interpretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and corrected._ (Disputations, 232)​
Points:
1.) It is fitting that the vulgar translations be updated when they have "become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible."
2.) The linguistic changes of which he speaks are not minute and generational, but large-scale, and in such a sense that it can be claimed that neither Hebrew, Greek nor Latin have undergone such frequent alterations. For further elucidation of what Whitaker intended by this, I submit the following.

On pp. 213-216 he deals with the reading of the Old Testament in Hebrew among the Jews at the time of Christ. Whitaker confesses that the language spoken by the common man was not the Hebrew contained in the scriptures which Christ commanded them to search; this Hebrew, he claims, was only able to be spoken by the 'better educated;' it could, nevertheless, be _understood_ by all, though it was not their common tongue. What mattered to Whitaker's definition of _the vulgar tongue_ was not the form of language which was commonly spoken by the people, but that which is intelligible and understandable to hearing; not what they speak, but which they can know. He opposes _vulgar_ not to older or different forms of the language, but to entirely different and unintelligible languages. This should play a large part in our understanding of the phrase "vulgar tongue" as used by the Confession.

If we adopt this definition, I think it should certainly be granted that our older translations would count as the vulgar tongue, objectively speaking; at the very least, only a minute handful of words would require updating (at the most) for it to be considered vulgar by any in accordance with the above reading; for, regarding words such as _thou_ and _thee_, or the _-eth_ and _-est_ endings, even though we do not speak with them in our current idiom, they are plainly intelligible to all in hearing.


----------



## KMK (Jul 13, 2009)

bookslover said:


> Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.
> 
> If you use a good modern translation (NASB, ESV), you won't need to spend valuable time explaining obsolete or obscure words.



This would only be true if you were addressing an audience that had never heard the KJ before. But in a church where the KJ is used it is not necessary. 

Besides, 'valuable time' would be wasted as well explaining things in modern versions such as whether 'you' is plural or singular.

Also, a word is not 'obsolete' because moderns do not use it. A word can only be 'obsolete' when a different word is more readily used _that has the exact same meaning_. The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 13, 2009)

Great post! It gave me food for thought, and a great idea for a paper.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Jul 14, 2009)

KMK said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.
> ...



I guess the KJ works in churches where you don't plan on having any visitors. Or if your church doesn't have anyone like me who have read Old English and have read the KJ, but it takes twice as long to figure out what it's saying. I prefer to read the Bible in a language I can understand.


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



The attitude that we must preach to the lowest possible denominator in case a totally unchurched visitor happens by is what led to Purpose Driven. I don't think the unchurched visitor should be allowed to dictate which version we use.

That said, I agree you should read a Bible you can understand. That is what 1:8 is all about.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 14, 2009)

KMK said:


> The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.



And what, pray tell, is so valuable about a word like "wist," a word no longer used by ordinary English speakers?

English has changed a lot and, I dare say, it will change even more in the next 400 years, making the KJV even more of a museum piece than it is now.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 12:33:44 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> _For, in the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the vulgar tongue._ (Disputations, 232)



First, it is true that languages "change every age." Any dictionary editor or English grammarian will tell you that. The ways in which English has changed over the centuries are easily demonstrable by competent authorities.

Second, if one uses a competent modern translation, one doesn't need "interpreters" to render the old language into the current language the book should have been published in, in the first place. That sentence was more applicable in Whitaker's day than ours, fortunately.

I once heard a sermon tape by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He as a KJV man, and read from that text. During the course of the sermon, however, he had to change and/or correct the KJV text no fewer than five times - time he could have spent interpreting the passage or applying the text. When a preacher has to spend a significant amount of his sermon time translating the English Bible into English, something's wrong...


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 14, 2009)

bookslover said:


> Second, if one uses a competent modern translation, one doesn't need "interpreters" to render the old language into the current language the book should have been published in, in the first place. That sentence was more applicable in Whitaker's day than ours, fortunately.
> 
> I once heard a sermon tape by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He as a KJV man, and read from that text. During the course of the sermon, however, he had to change and/or correct the KJV text no fewer than five times - time he could have spent interpreting the passage or applying the text. When a preacher has to spend a significant amount of his sermon time translating the English Bible into English, something's wrong...




Even using a modern version, there still has to be translation, maybe not as much as the KJV, but it still does. This of course is implied if the preacher really cares and wants the audience to really understand what is being preached from the Bible.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Jul 14, 2009)

KMK said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



That is true that we can't conform to the world's standards. We use big words like justifcation and sanctification, and visitors may have trouble understanding that. I guess it comes down to that these words are apart of modern vocabulary, while the KJV uses words that are no longer apart of our vocabulary. Also, I am sorry for being harsh in my former post. I read what I wrote again, and I believe I was not being very kind in the tone that I used. I wrote that post in haste. Please forgive me.


----------



## MW (Jul 14, 2009)

The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > ChariotsofFire said:
> ...



No need for forgiveness if no offense was taken. 

It is true that the KJV uses words that are no longer in the vocabulary of most English speakers. But this was also true in 1611. In their wisdom, the KJV translators chose accuracy over readability, majesty over modern vocabulary. 

I do not disagree with the assertion that the KJV is harder to read than modern versions. I do disagree with the assertion that readability is the most important criteria in a Bible.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.



Actually, no.

They amount to far more than the objections to Tydale's, or the Geneva Bible, that created the AV in the first place.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 14, 2009)

bookslover said:


> During the course of the sermon, however, he had to change and/or correct the KJV text no fewer than five times - time he could have spent interpreting the passage or applying the text. When a preacher has to spend a significant amount of his sermon time translating the English Bible into English, something's wrong...



I've heard the same thing done with the NKJV and the New American Standard; this is more of an argument against English _because it is not Greek or Hebrew_.

Cheers,

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 10:39:42 EST-----



fredtgreco said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.
> ...



Speaking of which, my wife and I read through the 1599 Geneva Bible in family worship (the whole thing, and the notes), and I can't recall more than two or three words we had to look up. We're currently reading through Tyndale, and the only thing that struck us as odd (but we could understand nonetheless) was "avoutry" rather than adultery.

Long story short: Tyndale and the 1599 Geneva are both intelligible. As is the AV. As is John Owen, even though the first time I read "Death of Death" I had to keep a vocabulary list of words to look up. And guess what? My vocabulary improved as a result.

Cheers,


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2009)

bookslover said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.
> ...



I would not object to a version that changed 'wist not' to 'knew not'. However, I do not agree that the Bible MUST be 'ordinary' English.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!



Rev. Greco,

Not being an AV advocate, what standard do such apply? I'm unfamiliar 

Cheers,


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!
> ...



My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that *exact same *argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"
> 
> My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that *exact same *argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.



Thanks for the insight!

I think the AV was translated for political reasons more than anything, but since the AV eventually became the more popular of the two, it is somewhat of a moot point. However, I see the logic behind what you're saying.

The only problem is that the Geneva Bible contains for more "common" language than the AV does. So, really, the argument would have been in the opposite direction: why make a new, less common translation than the old one? The answer: King James didn't like the anti-tyrannical notes in the Geneva Bible.

Cheers,


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"
> ...



Exactly!

And let me say again, I think that it is a pastoral decision for a Session to decide whether to use the AV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc.


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



No doubt some did!


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 14, 2009)

Also, to Pastor Greco and others: lest any ambiguity be in my post, the purpose of the citing Whitaker was _not_ to claim that the AV is vulgar _and therefore_ a new or different translation should not be used or made; but rather, to simply point out that it (among others) does probably fit the WCF's definition of "vulgar tongue," and that it is therefore not counter-confessional to use it.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...





> *Glenn,
> 
> The subject of manuscript transmission and translation is one that I find very interesting.* You said:
> Quote:
> ...



*Fred, I raised a question (above) for Glenn early in this thread and he hasn’t been able to get to it. Perhaps you could provide some helpful comments.*

*I believe that the translator is obligated to give us the best English (in our case) rendering possible in keeping with the meaning of the original word (formal equivalence)*.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"
> 
> My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that *exact same *argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.



When the ESV &c are brought forward a person needs to become an expert in text critical matters, your conclusion is an apples and oranges comparison, is not related to this issue.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 06:27:06 EST-----



Christusregnat said:


> So, really, the argument would have been in the opposite direction: why make a new, less common translation than the old one? The answer: King James didn't like the anti-tyrannical notes in the Geneva Bible.



How would you, then, explain why the Puritans were pushing for a new translation, why a bill was already extant in Parliament under Queen Elizabeth to engage it, when James took the throne and addressed it?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

Thomas2007 said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"
> ...



Whenever *any* translation is brought forward, textual issues are brought to the fore - and that was also true of the creation of the AV. Your point is a _non sequitor_.


----------



## MW (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!



This suggests that AV advocates oppose modern versions on the basis that there should be no new translations, which is false.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 14, 2009)

Thomas2007 said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > So, really, the argument would have been in the opposite direction: why make a new, less common translation than the old one? The answer: King James didn't like the anti-tyrannical notes in the Geneva Bible.
> ...



If what you are saying is true, why did it take so long for the AV to overtake the Geneva Bible's popularity? Why did the Puritans use the Geneva Bible?

Perhaps some citations would be helpful.

Cheers,


----------



## bookslover (Jul 14, 2009)

KMK said:


> I do not agree that the Bible MUST be 'ordinary' English.



Of course the Bible must be in ordinary English - that's the language ordinary English-speakers speak. When the OT authors wrote in Hebrew, they wrote in the ordinary Hebrew of the day. When the NT authors wrote in Greek, they wrote in koine, the ordinary Greek of the first-century (as opposed to Attic Greek). And, I'd bet that when a French translation is made, ordinary modern French is used. So, why should Bible translators today not use ordinary English when translating the Bible?

An English Bible translation should strive for both accuracy and readability. The talk one sometimes hears about the alleged "majesty" of the KJV's language is just a figleaf to cover its obscurity. Because of the kind of book the Bible is - God's revealed Word to us - accuracy and readability must trump beauty or "majesty" of language every time. If one can translate a passage both accurately and beautifully, fine. But the former must take precedence over the latter. Due to the passage of time, the KJV fails this test.

Since it is vitally necessary that people be able to understand God's message to us, then an English translation (as well as a French one, etc.) MUST be done in ordinary language. That, after all, is really the only kind of language there is (aside from technical language).

Accurate communication is key. Hoping that modern people (especially modern young people) are going to dive head-first into 400 year old English, merely because previous generations have used it - is a hope too far.


----------



## MW (Jul 14, 2009)

bookslover said:


> Of course the Bible must be in ordinary English - that's the language ordinary English-speakers speak. When the OT authors wrote in Hebrew, they wrote in the ordinary Hebrew of the day. When the NT authors wrote in Greek, they wrote in koine, the ordinary Greek of the first-century (as opposed to Attic Greek).



This is nonsense. The Bible is in written not spoken language, and this writing or literature incorporates many contexts about which the common people were not ordinarily conversant.


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2009)

bookslover said:


> Accurate communication is key.



What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?

And as far as the younger generation goes, according to university professors they need less coddling and more rigor in English Language Arts anyway.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 14, 2009)

KMK said:


> Accurate communication is key.



What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?[/QUOTE]

If a person's ordinary English is not accurate in and of itself, then a well-translated Bible is a good step (along with other well-written literature) to correcting that. Forcing someone whose English skills are already bad to deal with 400-year-old English will not help.

As for the second-person singulars and plurals - context is everything. The context of the passage will usually tell you what you need to know.

As for those missionaries: all peoples with a spoken language have a sophisticated language system, or they wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. It may not be sophisticated in the same way that English is, but, within its own system, it's sophisticated enough to make communication possible. All languages do exactly the same things; they just do them in different ways. A missionary will only make his job that much harder by imposing non-modern English on such people.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:34:00 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the Bible must be in ordinary English - that's the language ordinary English-speakers speak. When the OT authors wrote in Hebrew, they wrote in the ordinary Hebrew of the day. When the NT authors wrote in Greek, they wrote in koine, the ordinary Greek of the first-century (as opposed to Attic Greek).
> ...



It's not nonsense. Written language may be more formally laid-out than spoken language, but it's still understandable language that communicates meaning. Paul wrote in koine Greek precisely _because_ it was the ordinary language of the people at that time. If he had writen in the Attic dialect, he would have been communicating to a much smaller audience, thereby defeating the whole purpose of writing his books of the NT in the first place.

As for obscure contexts, clear and accurate ordinary language helps make them less obscure. Besides, there are places in the Bible that are difficult to understand (Peter, call your office) no matter how clear the language is. Framing them in Elizabethan/Jacobean English certainly doesn't help.


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2009)

bookslover said:


> If a person's ordinary English is not accurate in and of itself, then a well-translated Bible is a good step (along with other well-written literature) to correcting that.



I agree.



bookslover said:


> Forcing someone whose English skills are already bad to deal with 400-year-old English will not help.



Perhaps their English skills would not be so bad if they had to deal with 400 year old English. Besides, I don't think anyone is arguing that the Bible must _only_ be translated by English that is 400 years. 



bookslover said:


> As for the second-person singulars and plurals - context is everything. * The context of the passage will usually tell you what you need to know*.



The same could be said for the word 'wist'.



bookslover said:


> A missionary will only make his job that much harder by imposing non-modern English on such people.



I agree. A missionary should be preaching and translating in their 'vulgar' language as per 1:8.


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2009)

bookslover said:


> As for the second-person singulars and plurals - context is everything. The context of the passage will usually tell you what you need to know.



There are multiple places where the context gives no idea that there is a change in person, and the failure to detect it leads to a blatant misunderstanding of the text. The most notorious case is John 3:7, which as a result of modern versions is continually misrepresented.


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2009)

bookslover said:


> It's not nonsense. Written language may be more formally laid-out than spoken language, but it's still understandable language that communicates meaning.



Yes, it is nonsense. Literature includes numerous elements of structure and symbolism which do not work in verbal communication for the simple reason that literature is read more than once and can be analysed in varying degrees of unit. One of the noteworthy features of literature is the deliberate use of archaism, which biblical scholars generally recognise as being abundantly present in the New Testament Scriptures.


----------



## TimV (Jul 15, 2009)

> What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?



Ken, there are no tribes without a sophisticated language system. One of the first things you learn when studying this stuff is that tribal languages are typically more complex than English. Your arguments aren't doing much to further your case, to be frank.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 15, 2009)

This is a very interesting thread. It's amazing what strong feelings the whole question of the AV stirs up. I'm hesitant to join in but I would really like to know if anyone thinks as I do?
I love the AV, surely one of God's most inestimable gifts to the English-speaking world. Its beauty and depth thrill me more and more as I get older. it's many times easier to understand than Shakespeare (will there ever be a campaign to modernise _his_ language I wonder?!) and many times surpasses him in glory, majesty, poetry. That's even without considering the content, which of course remains the same in any accurate version, but I feel as if nothing but the most beautiful possible language is good enough to wrap it in, at least for my personal use. If it's not stylistically the same language I encounter in the newspaper, so much the better - that's only fitting.
I understand that's a personal preference, and there's no way we can go back to exclusive-AV days.
But does no-one mourn the loss of that blessing held in common, when the AV was the only version, and a part of the cultural consciousness that even the unconverted were thoroughly familiar with?
There's another thread running, discussing someone's dictum that the modern versions are the work of Satan, and a fair amount of ridicule has been applied, which is perhaps no more than such a hasty and intemperate claim deserves. I will say this though:
Energy going into discussion, disagreement, thoughtless denunciation and ridicule wouldn't even have been a temptation before there were all the modern versions! so maybe Satan has at least a finger in it somewhere...


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2009)

JennyG said:


> There's another thread running, discussing someone's dictum that the modern versions are the work of Satan,



Are you referring to a thread here on PB? Never mind, I see it now.


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2009)

TimV said:


> > What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, there are no tribes without a sophisticated language system. One of the first things you learn when studying this stuff is that tribal languages are typically more complex than English. Your arguments aren't doing much to further your case, to be frank.



I am willing to concede upon the testimony of a man who speaks Zulu! Thanks for the correction.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 15, 2009)

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 15, 2009)

Interesting observation, Lawrence:

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.​
Thanks for sharing it.

As a poet and writer I see this as I observe the everyday speech in my country. The implications of this are significant. In the world of the unregenerate - from which most language emanates - there is a deterioration of morals, heart, and understanding, and this is reflected in the language, even among the "learned" and communicators. As the knowledge of God and things pertaining to His kingdom diminishes from the culture, a death enters into the language; though it be "lively" it has a dark leaven in it.

The church must be ware lest it be uncritical in its use of the common language.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 15, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.




Reminds me of _1984_ by George Orwell!

Hope we don't get that far though :*(


----------



## Grymir (Jul 15, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.



That's a great point!


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Interesting observation, Lawrence:
> 
> The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.​
> Thanks for sharing it.
> ...



Would an example of this be the verb 'love'? In Webster's 1828 there are only two definitions. In Mirriam Webster online there are 4, including this one: 



> 2 a: to feel a lover's passion, devotion, or tenderness for b (1): caress (2): to fondle amorously (3): to copulate with



Webster's 1828 does not have anything like this under the verb 'love', but it does under the verb 'lust'. Has 'modern' English hijacked the word 'love' to make the concept of 'lust' sound a little less wicked?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 15, 2009)

That would be a part of the issue. But, what I was addressing was the condensing/combining of conjugatory forms in verbs and declensions in nouns.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jul 15, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Glenn,
> 
> The subject of manuscript transmission and translation is one that I find very interesting. You said:
> 
> ...



Thirty years ago, I would have argued for use of a translation in the most current English available and translated from the critical text.

Somewhere in there, about twenty years ago, I settled into using the NKJV. However, over time, I became frustrated where this translation replaces ambiguities with interpretation rather than leaving the interpretation to reader and expositor.

Malcolm Watts, for TBS, offers a helpful critique of the NKJV:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A123.pdf

Several years ago, I reverted to use of the AV in my personal devotions. I found I had little trouble understanding the text, occasionally had opportunity to expand my vocabulary by looking up a more archaic word (which sometimes cast new light on the intent of the translator), and also presented God’s Word with a dignity that left me with a sense of “This is God’s Word, not the words of men.”

About two years ago, I started using the AV exclusively in public worship. I expected some objections, but found none. Rather, I begin to notice the congregants bringing nice copies of AV Bibles with them, newly purchased or pulled from storage I have not determined. I received several positive comments, but no complaints. I also read from a large pulpit Bible, make the reading of no less than two Scriptures a distinct element of worship, take at least one of the readings a portion of Scripture we’re reading consecutively, noting the reading of Scripture has value in itself and needs little comment from me, other than a couple sentences preface to provide the setting and point out any obscure phrases (sometimes historical or cultural context rather than archaic words) that we may hear with understanding.

If the NKJV had done what it proposed to do, give us a more readable rendering of the AV, simply updating the archaic words, better translations of words like unicorn, dragon and Easter, and smoothing out word order when it was truly awkward, that would have been helpful. 

I have some suspicions when a translation project is done by a publishing company with market motives rather than an ecclesiastically mandated group of scholars attempting to produce a better version of God’s Word for the Church.

But, the purpose of this thread was not to argue translations or texts; but, to point out the use of the AV for reading in public worship is not a violation of WCF I:8, which I believe has been satisfactorily done. There was no intent to be critical of those who use other translations for good reasons.


----------

