# Contemporary Versions Of Historic Catechisms



## Jared (Aug 15, 2008)

I read contemporary translations of the Bible. I also like reading the Puritans and it doesn't bother me that they wrote in an archaic style, because I know that it was fitting for them and their time. But when it comes to catechisms, I would like to find one that uses more contemporary wording. I was wondering if there are any contemporary versions of historic catechisms. If you know of any, I would appreciate some links. 

Preferably Baptist.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 15, 2008)

Modern English Version of the Heidelberg Catechism (RCUS)


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 15, 2008)

Jared104 said:


> I read contemporary translations of the Bible. I also like reading the Puritans and it doesn't bother me that they wrote in an archaic style, because I know that it was fitting for them and their time. But when it comes to catechisms, I would like to find one that uses more contemporary wording. I was wondering if there are any contemporary versions of historic catechisms. If you know of any, I would appreciate some links.
> 
> Preferably Baptist.



Before you use a 'contemporary' version, make sure that such theological terms as 'propitiation' are not removed. For many of the terms there is no acceptable 'contemporary' word.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 15, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Before you use a 'contemporary' version, make sure that such theological terms as 'propitiation' are not removed. For many of the terms there is no acceptable 'contemporary' word.



I've often thought that if there isn't a contemporary version, we need to make one. NOT one that removes religious/scriptural terminology (as you mentioned above), but one that takes into account contemporary verb endings, punctuation, and grammatical structures.

For example:



> "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation."


Could be:


> "The light of nature, the works of creation, and providence show the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, leaving men unexcusable. However, these are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will which is necessary for salvation.



Maybe more people would read the confessions if they were written that way.

Edit: I just noticed you were refering to CATECHISMS, not CONFESSIONS. So--same idea, different documents?


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 15, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Before you use a 'contemporary' version, make sure that such theological terms as 'propitiation' are not removed. For many of the terms there is no acceptable 'contemporary' word.
> ...



Fixed it for you. Lacked the specificity of the original. Of course to me, the second one is more difficult to read than the first. I find the first 'sticks' to the memory better.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 15, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > > "The light of nature, the works of creation, and providence show the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, leaving men unexcusable. However, these are not sufficient to give *that* knowledge of God and *of* His will which is necessary for salvation.
> ...



 You must be familiar with the Confessions then. I'm studying them for the first time since I didn't grow up with them.

Since we're now correcting my version, I think instead of "*that *knowledge of God" I would say "*the *knowledge of God" because "the" is a definite article which is modified by the clause "which is necessary for salvation." We don't use "that" anymore the way it is in the quote above. But I agree with the addition of "of".

Anyone else want to keep it up? We'll have all the confessions and catechisms done in no time if we all pitch in.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 15, 2008)

Westminster Confession Modern English Study Version - from the OPC


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 15, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Fixed it for you. Lacked the specificity of the original. Of course to me, the second one is more difficult to read than the first. I find the first 'sticks' to the memory better.
> ...



Nope, I'm new to confessions. I just subscribed in full to the LBCF 1689 2.5 yrs ago. I'm currently memorizing the Heidelberg Catechism w/scripture proofs. After that I'll memorize the Belgic Confession, Synods of Dort, Harmony of the 3FU, LBCF 1689, WCF, and the WLC all with scripture proofs. After which I'll get an i-love-me jacket. 

BTW 'that' is still used that way in many modern texts when it is necessary to specify. So there!


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 15, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Fixed it for you. Lacked the specificity of the original. Of course to me, the second one is more difficult to read than the first. I find the first 'sticks' to the memory better.
> ...



I don't mean to show partiality among the brethren, but I like Kim's version.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 15, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > JohnGill said:
> ...



Oh yeah?!? Well nobody asked you! (Where's the pout icon on this thing? And is there an icon for stomping your foot?)

I would like it too, but I have read older books (pre-20th century) for so long now I have real trouble understanding modernized versions of such things. My mind focuses in on the lack of precision of certain modern variants. Having said that, I like G. I. Williamson's "modernizing" of the Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide. Not so different as to be a distraction. Even the lack of pronoun distinction is easy to overlook. I think he has done the same thing with the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Of course I sit around for about 3 hours a day driving and talking to myself. I also answer myself. This should come as no surprise as I work for the Post Office!  So take that into consideration when reading what I say.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 15, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> > Kim G said:
> ...



This is very strange indeed, but it makes sense. 

I, on the other hand, have been through Legal Research & Writing. My brain is trained to remove the soul from every sentence. "We don't use adverbs here," they say. "And there is a presumption against adjectives." _See also Brian A. Garner,_ *Legal Writing in Plain English* (2001).


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 15, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Ex Nihilo said:
> ...



Now that is funny. 

I went the other way. I've gone through Solomon Barrett's Principles of Grammar (Google Books) and Fowler's English (Not the King's English book) In the first one you focus on each particular part of the sentence and then build up to the whole sentence paying attention to how the meaning of a word can change from its particular meaning to its contextual meaning with respect to the entire sentence. Then you must parse the paragraph to see if the meaning has any more nuances added to it. The second helps shore up the deficiencies of modern english teaching. Then there is Lowth's English Grammar which gives you a better familiarity with the so-called archaic English.

My sister has a PhD in English and I hate studying English. My love is mathematics, computer programming, and physics. Yet I find myself studying much of the same things she has studied. 

I'm looking at going back to college getting a degree in Tech Comm, then a Masters in Philosophy and a PhD in Classical Languages or Linguistics. I have noticed the irony.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 16, 2008)

The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
Rewritten in modern English by 
Andrew Kerkham
— 1689 Modernized by A. Kerkham


----------

