# Modernized WCF



## itsreed (Dec 31, 2022)

Is the OPC working on an updated English language version of the WCF?
Is there a study committee working on this?


----------



## JH (Dec 31, 2022)




----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 31, 2022)

itsreed said:


> Is the OPC working on an updated English language version of the WCF?
> Is there a study committee working on this?


Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.

Reactions: Like 10 | Amen 2


----------



## Jake (Dec 31, 2022)

There is one on their website here: https://opc.org/documents/MESV.html

I'm unaware if anything newer is in the works.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 31, 2022)

Yes, there is such a committee. They are well at work on it. Alan is on the committee, so he can give a more detailed update on where they are right now. Their mandate is quite narrow and well-defined. It was erected in 2018 with the following members: David Noe, Mark Bube, Glen Clary, J.V. Fesko, James Gidley, John Muether, Alan Strange, with Ryan McGraw and Tony Curto as alternates. Their mandate is limited to the following types of changes (this is from the Minutes of the 86th GA (2019, p. 337): 

a.. Morphological changes, such as "executeth" to "executes" and "hath" to "has"; b. Replacing archaic pronouns, e.g., "thou" to "you"; c. Replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, e.g., "stews" in LC 139. This includes, as in the example just given, replacing words that are still current in the language but are used in obsolete or archaic senses in the standards. d. Substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In all cases, the committee is to strive to propose changes that preserve the cadence, memorability, and dignified style of the standards.​

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Dec 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.


At a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, there is such a committee. They are well at work on it. Alan is on the committee, so he can give a more detailed update on where they are right now. Their mandate is quite narrow and well-defined. It was erected in 2018 with the following members: David Noe, Mark Bube, Glen Clary, J.V. Fesko, James Gidley, John Muether, Alan Strange, with Ryan McGraw and Tony Curto as alternates. Their mandate is limited to the following types of changes (this is from the Minutes of the 86th GA (2019, p. 337):
> 
> a.. Morphological changes, such as "executeth" to "executes" and "hath" to "has"; b. Replacing archaic pronouns, e.g., "thou" to "you"; c. Replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, e.g., "stews" in LC 139. This includes, as in the example just given, replacing words that are still current in the language but are used in obsolete or archaic senses in the standards. d. Substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In all cases, the committee is to strive to propose changes that preserve the cadence, memorability, and dignified style of the standards.​


Lane, is this an aid or is it intended to replace the OPC text of the WCF in their standards?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 31, 2022)

It’s not a crazy idea that covenantal contractual documents ought to be framed in clear language. Of course the accuracy must be maintained at all costs.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.


In talking at length with several committee members about this work, they are fully committed to as narrow a reading as possible of their mandate. They would not dream of changing sentence structure (not in the mandate). However, one other thing I did mention to the committee was other revisions on the basis of the new critical editions that have come out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Lane, is this an aid or is it intended to replace the OPC text of the WCF in their standards?


It is intended to replace the OPC text. The mandate is very clear: "The committee is authorized to propose only such changes as do not change the doctrine or meaning of the standards."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> It is intended to replace the OPC text. The mandate is very clear: "The committee is authorized to propose only such changes as do not change the doctrine or meaning of the standards."


So it is more than the WCF; e.g., if they are going after "stews" in 139.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> So it is more than the WCF; e.g., if they are going after "stews" in 139.


It is the entirety of the WS. Correction: it is the WCF, WLC, and WSC, not the other documents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> It is the entirety of the WS.


Okay. I'm not a fan. But while it has always been the case it will be more true that this will be the standards of the OPC based on the Westminster. No one is rewriting the US constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but I suppose if another country wanted to adopt both they are free to rewrite and call them something else. Obviously we have a revision process in the former in adding amendments, akin to the PCUSA changes. But no one is rewriting the originals or should be and calling them the Westminster.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Dec 31, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, there is such a committee. They are well at work on it. Alan is on the committee, so he can give a more detailed update on where they are right now. Their mandate is quite narrow and well-defined. It was erected in 2018 with the following members: David Noe, Mark Bube, Glen Clary, J.V. Fesko, James Gidley, John Muether, Alan Strange, with Ryan McGraw and Tony Curto as alternates. Their mandate is limited to the following types of changes (this is from the Minutes of the 86th GA (2019, p. 337):
> 
> a.. Morphological changes, such as "executeth" to "executes" and "hath" to "has"; b. Replacing archaic pronouns, e.g., "thou" to "you"; c. Replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, e.g., "stews" in LC 139. This includes, as in the example just given, replacing words that are still current in the language but are used in obsolete or archaic senses in the standards. d. Substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In all cases, the committee is to strive to propose changes that preserve the cadence, memorability, and dignified style of the standards.​


I often do that on the fly anyway. We use the catechisms extensively in family worship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 31, 2022)

Jake said:


> At a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.


I will grant that "stew" is no longer common terminology. I'm sure most of us here know it means 'brothel,' but most in the wider world would not.


----------



## itsreed (Dec 31, 2022)

Jake said:


> At a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.


That one tripped me up in my licensure exam; showed I hadn’t given the 
LC as much attention as I should have.


----------



## itsreed (Dec 31, 2022)

I appreciate the concerns of those who aren’t in favor of such a project.
And I’m looking forward to examining the result of this committee.
Maybe this coming summer?


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 31, 2022)

Hopefully they’ll at least have the honesty to not call it the Westminster Confession, but something else, after they change the text.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## itsreed (Dec 31, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Hopefully they’ll at least have the honesty to not call it the Westminster Confession, but something else, after they change the text.


Well, I’d settle for: WCF, OPC version. Similar to nomenclature used in English translations of original biblical languages.


----------



## ZackF (Dec 31, 2022)

itsreed said:


> Well, I’d settle for: WCF, OPC version. Similar to nomenclature used in English translations of original biblical languages.


Or just state that the language has been updated like tons of other works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 31, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Hopefully they’ll at least have the honesty to not call it the Westminster Confession, but something else, after they change the text.


If we want to be super technical, the OPC never had the Westminster Confession as a doctrinal standard.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 31, 2022)

Call it the "Westminster (Philly) Confession of Faith."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> If we want to be super technical, the OPC never had the Westminster Confession as a doctrinal standard.


Correct, and ought not to claim to. The baptists updated the WCF to fit their beliefs, and called the result something different, which was the right thing to do.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Call it the "Westminster (Philly) Confession of Faith."


Or just the Philadelphia Confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2022)

Clearly no American Presbyterian denomination wanted to lose the continuity in renaming the standards revered by Presbyterianism. But at minimum, "as adoped by" (which the OPC has in their title), or "as modified by" should be part of the title. That being said, why aren't study guides good enough? I don't understand the push for this. As I said already, we aren't rewriting the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, or Shakespeare; that is what study guides and if rewritten "for Dummies" are for. You can publish a Westminster Confession for Dummies but you surely don't want it to be your doctrinal statement..

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 31, 2022)

what difference is this to the many different forms of the Heidelberg Catechism, which all retain its name?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Clearly no American Presbyterian denomination wanted to lose the continuity in renaming the standards revered by Presbyterianism. But at minimum, "as adoped by" (which the OPC has in their title), or "as modified by" should be part of the title. That being said, why aren't study guides good enough? I don't understand the push for this. As I said already, we aren't rewriting the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, or Shakespeare; that is what study guides and if rewritten "for Dummies" are for. You can publish a Westminster Confession for Dummies but you surely don't want it to be your doctrinal statement..



Why not just learn Greek and Hebrew and read the scriptures in the original language instead of producing (fallible) translations of them in modern vernacular language? (Obviously I do not actually advocate this).

To be quite blunt, I do not see updating the _language_ of the WCF as anything even remotely close to updating the _substance_ of the WCF.

If the new thing the OPC makes contains the same ideas as the original WCF as writ, then it's the WCF.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2022)

This may be considered minor, but one consequence of this project is that the OPC will then have a different version than the rest of the American Presbyterian denominations.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## ZackF (Dec 31, 2022)

fredtgreco said:


> This may be considered minor, but one consequence of this project is that the OPC will then have a different version than the rest of the American Presbyterian denominations.


I would be shocked if the PCA didn't adopt it.


----------



## itsreed (Dec 31, 2022)

fredtgreco said:


> This may be considered minor, but one consequence of this project is that the OPC will then have a different version than the rest of the American Presbyterian denominations.


We can fix


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Why not just learn Greek and Hebrew and read the scriptures in the original language instead of producing (fallible) translations of them in modern vernacular language? (Obviously I do not actually advocate this).
> 
> To be quite blunt, I do not see updating the _language_ of the WCF as anything even remotely close to updating the _substance_ of the WCF.
> 
> If the new thing the OPC makes contains the same ideas as the original WCF as writ, then it's the WCF.


If we were talking the substance everyone here would be in agreement in condemning it. Fred's point w.r.t. American cousin denominations is not without merit, but my point stands I think. The Westminster Standards are the historical documents of Presbyterianism, like the constitution and declaration are to the USA. The PCUSA derived sister denominations have till something changes a shared text and history w.r.t the PCUSA revisions. And if the point raised just now, that this is going to mean a drive to adopted this in the PCA, it is nothing short of creating a scandal. I would not seek to leave a denomination that forced this, but I sure would not look to join one if I were looking for a move.


----------



## Edward (Dec 31, 2022)

Jake said:


> Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant.


That's disappointing. I suppose Shakespeare isn't taught in school any more. I expect they'd go with more genteel "prostitutes" rather than "whores. They'll lose my respect if they go with the politically correct "sex workers".


----------



## Edward (Dec 31, 2022)

itsreed said:


> Is the OPC working on an updated English language version of the WCF?


I remember buying a copy of the WCF in modern English back in the 1980s. I think some folks in Jackson worked on it.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 31, 2022)

itsreed said:


> I appreciate the concerns of those who aren’t in favor of such a project.
> And I’m looking forward to examining the result of this committee.



I have no problem with a revision as long as there is a large enough group of godly divines whose qualifications come close to the original authors.

The OPC has a two-column page where they show the changes from the original. They have a statement after completing their one-paragraph introduction to the Revision.

Though the American revisions to the Confession of Faith are not insignificant, yet, compared to the total length of the Confession, they are quite minor, involving 145 words out of 12,063. Below is a comparison of the two versions (differences are highlighted in italics).

I don't have the time to critique the changes, but I would not call them "quite minor." The primary hatchet job was on the role of the civil magistrate. They removed him from all powers to be involved in religious affairs. The 17th-century divines that comprised the Assembly would _never_ have approved this change. It puts the civil realm outside the authority of our Great King, the King of Kings. Of the three major spheres of authority, the civil government is the most powerful of the three. He alone makes laws that powerfully affect the other two. I.e., family and Church, civil authorities alone are given the sword's power–corrosion–even unto death. Do you think our King sees the "powers that be" in the world excluded from His governance? And let me warn you. Don't let the language (highlighted in red) fool you. It may sound fair and equitable, but is it? In the Revision, the civil ruler is forbidden to give _"preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest,"_ Neither may he define a Christian or a Church. This equitable-sounding duty of the civil ruler effectively accomplishes the exact opposite. In giving equal standing to the Roman antichrist (please note the _lowercase_ 'a'), the Mormans, the apostate churches, and their women "ministers," the lbgtq+_ _ _ _so-called_ churches, etc.–to treat the _corrupt_ and the _incorrupt_, the saints and the sinners alike is to show favoritism evil. Haven't we seen this operative principle in government turn this country upside down? It is to call evil good and good evil.

I could go on another thousand words, but I will stop at this. _But what a difference 145 words can make._

Chapter 23
Of the Civil Magistrate​​3. (Completely rewritten) _Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance_.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 31, 2022)

The current edition in the OPC of our doctrinal standards is entitled _The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. _

In 2006, the then-Committee on Christian Education and Publications (PCA) sought permission, through Roy Taylor (then SC of the GA), to use the precise same edition as the OPC had published of the Standards to serve in and for the PCA. This was all duly approved and published the next year. The reason for this was that proof texts had never been adopted by either church for the LC and the OPC had done the work and approved a set that the PCA then used. So the OPC and the PCA have the precise same forms of the WS, including the same proof texts.

To answer Fred's concern, when we started this process five years ago, the SC of our GA, working with our Committee on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations, corresponded with bodies in and out of NAPARC having the WS as their doctrinal standards, seeking objections, input, etc. We did receive some input from a couple of smaller Presbyterian bodies raising some concerns; we received no official opposition from the PCA but a good deal of unofficial encouragement. We've done all this quite in the open and in consultation with other WS bodies.

I'll not repeat our narrow mandate to update language (Lane set that forth well). This committee is planning on making its final report at the upcoming GA (2023). If the GA so chooses it may then give the work of this committee on which I serve with others (as Lane noted) to a new committee to then work through all of these as set forth in FG 32.3, which would require the work of that next committee to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the GA, sent out to the presbyteries for a 2/3 approval, and then back to the GA for a 2/3 approval of that GA.

Much process then must transpire before any of this updating of the language would be finally approved. I've elsewhere written in defense of the restricted language updating (reflected in GA Minutes) and shall not burden the board rehearsing that here.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## hammondjones (Dec 31, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> what difference is this to the many different forms of the Heidelberg Catechism, which all retain its name?



Side comment: 
I do find it somewhat ironic (jealous maybe?) that the standards originally written in English are less immediately understandable than those originally written in another tongue get to be, on account of their need to be translated.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 31, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The current edition in the OPC of our doctrinal standards is entitled _The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. _
> 
> In 2006, the then-Committee on Christian Education and Publications (PCA) sought permission, through Roy Taylor (then SC of the GA), to use the precise same edition as the OPC had published of the Standards to serve in and for the PCA. This was all duly approved and published the next year. The reason for this was that proof texts had never been adopted by either church for the LC and the OPC had done the work and approved a set that the PCA then used. So the OPC and the PCA have the precise same forms of the WS, including the same proof texts.
> 
> ...



After a process like that, Alan, it should be ready for general use by, oh, say, 2142. Heh.

This is an excellent idea, by the way. It's perfectly possible to update the _language_ of the standards without damaging their _substantive content._ Languages are living things, and change over time. Since we don't live in the 1640s, this update will help folks understand the standards better.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 31, 2022)

bookslover said:


> After a process like that, Alan, it should be ready for general use by, oh, say, 2142. Heh.


I see you're quite the optimist, Rich.  

Happy New Year to you and yours! And to all of you!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 31, 2022)

Edward said:


> That's disappointing. I suppose Shakespeare isn't taught in school any more. I expect they'd go with more genteel "prostitutes" rather than "whores. They'll lose my respect if they go with the politically correct "sex workers".


I didn't finish school terribly long ago, and Shakespeare is definitely taught. In High School we read Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet.
Now, having taught in the inner city, I feel safe saying many inner city English teachers are not doing much with Shakespeare. Some are, but many are not.


----------



## dhh712 (Jan 1, 2023)

Polanus1561 said:


> It’s not a crazy idea that covenantal contractual documents ought to be framed in clear language. Of course the accuracy must be maintained at all costs.


I agree. I always thought the -eth's and thous etc. were just slightly jarring (when I started reading the ESV after reading through the Geneva Bible a couple times, it really was a lot less... disjointing. I remember thinking for some reason specifically about how Romans was just read a lot more clearly and had more of a "together-ness" about the book; I can't think of the right word there). 

That being said, I had no problem reading the WCF in its current form--thought it was a phenomenal explanation of Scripture, was completely blown away by how clear it made God's word (it was what led to my conversion). But whenever this new version comes out, I'd really like to read through it again since it's been about 10 years since I last read it (maybe it will be even more clear!!).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2023)

Although I am firmly anti-KJV only regarding language, I'm not so sure about updating the confession. I get why it is done and I don't really oppose it. I do think the syntax of the standards communicates meaning in and of itself. It's not simply updating "doth" and "hath." An idiot can learn what that means in ten seconds. It's also the syntax. Take the answer from the catechism: "Some sins in themselves and by reason of their several aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than others." I fear updating that syntax would lose much.

And "stews" actually is more vivid and powerful term than brothels (though we probably don't need to be more vivid on that point."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Jan 1, 2023)

Polanus1561 said:


> what difference is this to the many different forms of the Heidelberg Catechism, which all retain its name?


Those are fresh translations from another language to English. Don't different denominations take different English translations of the 3 Forms as authoritative? I'll admit ignorance here as I'm not as familiar with Continental Reformed churches.



RamistThomist said:


> Although I am firmly anti-KJV only regarding language, I'm not so sure about updating the confession. I get why it is done and I don't really oppose it. I do think the syntax of the standards communicates meaning in and of itself. It's not simply updating "doth" and "hath." An idiot can learn what that means in ten seconds. It's also the syntax. Take the answer from the catechism: "Some sins in themselves and by reason of their several aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than others." I fear updating that syntax would lose much.
> 
> And "stews" actually is more vivid and powerful term than brothels (though we probably don't need to be more vivid on that point."


Have you studied the differences with the EPC modernization? I believe the EPC modernized language version is also the official version of the denomination, right? I've noticed in a few sections I've looked at some possible theological differences made with modernizing the language.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 1, 2023)

Now if only the OPC would revisit John Murray's minority opinion on exclusive Psalms.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 1, 2023)

RamistThomist said:


> Although I am firmly anti-KJV only regarding language, I'm not so sure about updating the confession. I get why it is done and I don't really oppose it. I do think the syntax of the standards communicates meaning in and of itself. It's not simply updating "doth" and "hath." An idiot can learn what that means in ten seconds. It's also the syntax. Take the answer from the catechism: "Some sins in themselves and by reason of their several aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than others." I fear updating that syntax would lose much.
> 
> And "stews" actually is more vivid and powerful term than brothels (though we probably don't need to be more vivid on that point."



I am in favour of replacing doth and hath with their equivalents, but I am suspicious of any further updating for precisely this reason.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 1, 2023)

Firstly, despite my careful rehearsal of the narrowness of the OPC committee's mandate, several here are significantly exaggerating the scope of the changes in view. Secondly, as to not calling the WS anymore, you still call the 1769 KJV the KJV even though the changes introduced are in the thousands, and include grammatical, typographical, and punctuational changes by the thousands. If you are going to be even remotely consistent on this point, you CANNOT call modern printings of the KJV by the same name. Be extremely wary of applying a standard to the WS that you have no intention of applying even to Scripture itself. Folks, the changes being contemplated (the last time I saw a list) are in the very low dozens. No change would even be contemplated that changed the meaning or syntax of a single sentence in the WS.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> Firstly, despite my careful rehearsal of the narrowness of the OPC committee's mandate, several here are significantly exaggerating the scope of the changes in view. Secondly, as to not calling the WS anymore, you still call the 1769 KJV the KJV even though the changes introduced are in the thousands, and include grammatical, typographical, and punctuational changes by the thousands. If you are going to be even remotely consistent on this point, you CANNOT call modern printings of the KJV by the same name. Be extremely wary of applying a standard to the WS that you have no intention of applying even to Scripture itself. Folks, the changes being contemplated (the last time I saw a list) are in the very low dozens. No change would even be contemplated that changed the meaning or syntax of a single sentence in the WS.


Lane, If there are so few, why can't these simply be done with a dozen footnotes rather than in the text, assuming these are not textual issues that Bowers raised.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 1, 2023)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Lane, If there are so few, why can't these simply be done with a dozen footnotes rather than in the text, assuming these are not textual issues that Bowers raised.


I could be wrong here (as I was not at the 2017 GA when it was proposed), so I don't want to speak for anyone else's reasons for it, but for myself, I see the updating of the language proposed as a way of speaking more clearly to a modern language audience, and as a way of affirming its continuing relevance as a confessional standard. It's not just a "back then" document, it is also a "here and now" document. I would imagine (or at least hope) that the modern language would then be in the text, and the original wording in a footnote. 

As a matter of curiosity, why do you seem to be more opposed to these changes than to the KJV changes?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 1, 2023)

The OPC approved the Modern English Study Version at their general assembly in 1993. This edition is included in the Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand together with the original WCF. Is this modern revision different from the MESV?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 1, 2023)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The OPC approved the Modern English Study Version at their general assembly in 1993. This edition is included in the Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand together with the original WCF. Is this modern revision different from the MESV?


Stephen, the OPC only approved the MESV for study, not for its doctrinal standards. What is happening today is a desire to see the WS speak in modern language the same substance so as to be more accessible. so, no, not the same thing, and for a different purpose.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 1, 2023)

I think it is good to have a modernized alternative reading of the WS for those who _need_ such a work to understand it. People can argue that 'It's not that difficult' to learn the archaic language as they do for the KJV, but not everyone is willing to go to those lengths, and why should they have to ?

In my congregation I once did an informal poll among some members from Guyana, Cuba, Korea, and South Africa. We use 1984 NIV pew Bibles and I wanted to know if those for whom English was not their first language would be comfortable with either the KJV, or something like the NASB, ESV. Independently given the question all preferred to remain with the NIV because it was easier to understand.

Finally, a man I worked with for 20 years, have known for forty, a voracious reader of best sellers, novels and junk such as that ... I gave him a copy of the WCF published by BOT and he soon returned it to me, saying he couldn't understand it. The archaisms were more trouble than it was worth to him.

Like the New Living Translation a simplified modern English version of the WS would open that to a much wider readership than it has enjoyed up until now. In my humble opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> I could be wrong here (as I was not at the 2017 GA when it was proposed), so I don't want to speak for anyone else's reasons for it, but for myself, I see the updating of the language proposed as a way of speaking more clearly to a modern language audience, and as a way of affirming its continuing relevance as a confessional standard. It's not just a "back then" document, it is also a "here and now" document. I would imagine (or at least hope) that the modern language would then be in the text, and the original wording in a footnote.
> 
> As a matter of curiosity, why do you seem to be more opposed to these changes than to the KJV changes?


That's an interesting question. I see from you answer to Stephen on the MESV that this is tied to a view of things needing to be in modern language, whether bible version or doctrinal standards. I've explained my reticence due to the standing of the Westminster Standards as historical documents (and concerns others have expressed have resonated). I don't connect the issue to my individual freedom to use the KJV and or the NKJV. Does the OPC prohibit using the KJV? If not, then why if it is good enough the pastor can explain any hard places, is that not good enough in his teaching from the standards or agreeing to abide by them? I guess it comes down to that I see this as unnecessary and not of the weight requiring changing the standards themselves.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 1, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> Stephen, the OPC only approved the MESV for study, not for its doctrinal standards. What is happening today is a desire to see the WS speak in modern language the same substance so as to be more accessible. so, no, not the same thing, and for a different purpose.


Thanks Lane, that makes sense. Actually the 2011 Synod of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand agreed to keep the WCF as the confessional standard but allow the MESV to be used in the preaching and teaching of the churches (this is noted in our forms and confessions book).


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 1, 2023)

NaphtaliPress said:


> That's an interesting question. I see from you answer to Stephen on the MESV that this is tied to a view of things needing to be in modern language, whether bible version or doctrinal standards. I've explained my reticence due to the standing of the Westminster Standards as historical documents (and concerns others have expressed have resonated). I don't connect the issue to my individual freedom to use the KJV and or the NKJV. Does the OPC prohibit using the KJV? If not, then why if it is good enough the pastor can explain any hard places, is that not good enough in his teaching from the standards or agreeing to abide by them? I guess it comes down to that I see this as unnecessary and not of the weight requiring changing the standards themselves.


You say 


> "the pastor can explain any hard places"


If this were the only conceivable context where the WS might be used, and there were always a pastor there to explain it, then I think it wouldn't be necessary to update the language. Two points, however. 1. There might be many other contexts where having to explain archaic expressions all the time cuts down on time that might be more profitably spent explaining central gospel truths. 2. There might be contexts where there is no pastor to help explain the archaic expressions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> You say
> 
> If this were the only conceivable context where the WS might be used, and there were always a pastor there to explain it, then I think it wouldn't be necessary to update the language. Two points, however. 1. There might be many other contexts where having to explain archaic expressions all the time cuts down on time that might be more profitably spent explaining central gospel truths. 2. There might be contexts where there is no pastor to help explain the archaic expressions.


There have long been expositions and study guides. Or do an MESV version of the catechisms. Or if it has to be in the text, drop some explanatory footnotes if it is truly minor in number. I just don't see this rising to the level to require changing the actual standards; it hardly seems necessary.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Jan 1, 2023)

I find it rather comical that in many discussions the KJV randomly becomes the punching bag. Make a thread on the TR, and the KJV comes up. Make a thread on the Westminster Standards, and the KJV comes up. Just by the KJV existing, people's jimmies are rustled. It never fails

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 1, 2023)

JH said:


> I find it rather comical that in many discussions the KJV randomly becomes the punching bag. Make a thread on the TR, and the KJV comes up. Make a thread on the Westminster Standards, and the KJV comes up. Just by the KJV existing, people's jimmies are rustled. It never fails


King Jimmy gives them the Jimmies.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 1, 2023)

i submit to the mods to close this thread where OP has gotten his answer


----------



## JH (Jan 1, 2023)

Polanus1561 said:


> i submit to the mods to close this thread where OP has gotten his answer


Nah, I think there's good discussion being had here revolving around the OP's subject, and two admins seem to be joining in that discussion

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2023)

*Moderating. *Moderating is not a public discourse and mods and admins don't like to see closure become a topic where sides line up, particularly when the thread is not out of hand and no reports have been made. There is etiquette understood that if the thread author is satisfied his opening post has been addressed, all things being copacetic, it is a common courtesy that he gets to thank participants and ask that the thread be closed if he sees no need for it to continue. Mods and admins generally honor that unless the thread has morphed and air clearing remains in minds of participants. Frankly, I don't see much here that needs the thread to continue; but it's not my call to make on simply my sense when nothing has otherwise gone off the rails. If a member thinks a thread is scandalous or something is out of hand, report a post to the moderators to take action and if it is clear someone online will act, or if it is unclear, multiple mods and admins will discuss it and then act.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 1, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> You say
> 
> If this were the only conceivable context where the WS might be used, and there were always a pastor there to explain it, then I think it wouldn't be necessary to update the language. Two points, however. 1. There might be many other contexts where having to explain archaic expressions all the time cuts down on time that might be more profitably spent explaining central gospel truths. 2. There might be contexts where there is no pastor to help explain the archaic expressions.


This is absolutely the case and raises another valid line of discussion. If the standards are used in the home, as they should be, no pastor will be present for interpretation. A denomination that doesn't expect the standards to be used and understood by the laity is one generation away from losing its doctrinal distinctives.

I've used KJV in our home from time to time just to be sure my kids don't lose the literature of that era, but even with that provision, when reading a passage from the standards, I tend to make the switch to modern pronouns and verb forms just to make sure the doctrine is understood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Branson (Jan 1, 2023)

jwithnell said:


> This is absolutely the case and raises another valid line of discussion. If the standards are used in the home, as they should be, no pastor will be present for interpretation. A denomination that doesn't expect the standards to be used and understood by the laity is one generation away from losing its doctrinal distinctives.
> 
> I've used KJV in our home from time to time just to be sure my kids don't lose the literature of that era, but even with that provision, when reading a passage from the standards, I tend to make the switch to modern pronouns and verb forms just to make sure the doctrine is understood.


The standards have been used by the laity for almost 400 years, and I would assume many times in their homes, often without the help of a Pastor. Are we really so dumb now that they are no longer accessible to the lay man without the exposition of the learned? I don’t believe that is the case, at least from my experience. And even if there happens to be a word or phrase that one doesn’t know, almost everyone has some sort of immediate technological access for clarification.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## ZackF (Jan 1, 2023)

Thanks for the clarification though I had to look up “copacetic”.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 1, 2023)

JH said:


> I find it rather comical that in many discussions the KJV randomly becomes the punching bag. Make a thread on the TR, and the KJV comes up. Make a thread on the Westminster Standards, and the KJV comes up. Just by the KJV existing, people's jimmies are rustled. It never fails


I see no contradiction, nor reason to be credulous that the comparison comes up in this thread. Both texts originated within 30 years of each other, and share many of the same archaisms. That people who have been well grounded in reading them find little or no difficulty reading and understanding them... including me ... does not preclude the uninitiated in reading these texts becoming discouraged, or worse, ignoring them. Add that the proof texts are KJV. For you and I not a hindrance, but for more and more since the 'modern' editions of the Bible, harder to be understood.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 2, 2023)

ZackF said:


> Thanks for the clarification though I had to look up “copacetic”.


For anyone else struggling with the word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloraseptic

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## bookslover (Jan 2, 2023)

TylerRay said:


> For anyone else struggling with the word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloraseptic



Actually: https:www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copacetic


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 2, 2023)

bookslover said:


> Actually: https:www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copacetic


When this first came up (in this thread) I smiled that it was unfamiliar to younger folks than I am. 

I'd guess the etymology goes to the 1930s-'50s popularized in films of the time, and superseded by '_everything is cool'_ in the '60s. 

Just my guess


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 2, 2023)

Sorry; my dad used the word I think. He was not any great user of words. Texas born and raised, and became a geologist. He grew up in Cisco, Texas. He had a Latin teacher in high school named Miss Yunk. She wore button up late 19th century shoes and dress even at that time (early 20s). He could still spout off a Latin phrase or two just before he died. Or maybe as Jimmy said he picked it up latter as the cool lingo later in the 30s, as odd as that sounds to me. 


JimmyH said:


> When this first came up (in this thread) I smiled that it was unfamiliar to younger folks than I am.
> 
> I'd guess the etymology goes to the 1930s-'50s popularized in films of the time, and superseded by '_everything is cool'_ in the '60s.
> 
> Just my guess





TylerRay said:


> For anyone else struggling with the word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloraseptic





TylerRay said:


> For anyone else struggling with the word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloraseptic





ZackF said:


> Thanks for the clarification though I had to look up “copacetic”.


----------



## alexmacarie (Jan 3, 2023)

This may be of interest to those who want to replace the unambiguous singular pronouns of thee and thou with the ambiguous you and your, showing why we should retain them, especially in reference to the Most High, but they're useful for clarity in the meaning of the text too, which many here rightly care about:

"The common idea that the desire to change from the singular _thee_ and _thy_ to the plural _you_ and _your_ in addressing God is a modern phenomenon is scotched by a comment of Thomas Boston (1676-1732) in a sermon on the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer _(Works,_ vol 2, p 587). Described in the _Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_ as “a fine linguist”, Boston said:

“Observe here, by the by, that we are directed to speak to God in prayer as one. Hallowed be _Thy_ name, not _Your_ name: _Thy_ will be done, not _Your_ will. Wherefore then should any forsake such a form of sound words for such an harsh one as speaks to God by _ye_ and _your, your_ Majesty, _ye_ know all things, etc? I will not insist on what may be said to defend it, from the plurality of persons in the Godhead, the manner of speaking to kings, and from common conversation (those who use it, I suppose, doing it rather from custom than judgment). But it is not the Scripture way of speaking to God; it is not the way of this pattern of prayer; it is offensive to, and grating in, the ears of the most part of Christians, as savouring of the opinion of the plurality of Gods, and therefore ought to be forsaken. I may well say in this case, ‘But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God’ (1 Cor 11:16).”

No doubt by this quotation Boston means, with the Apostle, that the Church does not regard as negotiable or controvertible those practices in worship which have biblical authority – Paul referring to the head-covering of women in worship, and Boston to the use of the singular in addressing God in prayer. The English language affords us the opportunity to reflect faithfully this particular shade of meaning in the original. _Rev Hugh M Cartwright"
Source: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/2016/11/thy-or-your/_

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 3, 2023)

alexmacarie said:


> This may be of interest to those who want to replace the unambiguous singular pronouns of thee and thou with the ambiguous you and your, showing why we should retain them, especially in reference to the Most High, but they're useful for clarity in the meaning of the text too, which many here rightly care about:
> 
> "The common idea that the desire to change from the singular _thee_ and _thy_ to the plural _you_ and _your_ in addressing God is a modern phenomenon is scotched by a comment of Thomas Boston (1676-1732) in a sermon on the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer _(Works,_ vol 2, p 587). Described in the _Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_ as “a fine linguist”, Boston said:
> 
> ...


Though I have a very high regard for Thomas Boston, this is linguistically problematic on so many levels.
1) languages change over the course of time. The use of "you" and "your" with reference to God is simply not "offensive to and grating in the ears of the most part of Christians" in the contemporary world, probably not even the majority here on PuritanBoard. I can't imagine anyone in our context, even the rankest heathen, listening to Christians pray "Your kingdom come, your will be done" who would conclude, on linguistic grounds, that Christians believe in multiple gods. Contemporary English simply does not have a form of distinguishing between the singular and plural form of the second person. We may lament that change, but it is a reality.

2) Insisting that Biblical grammar from Hebrew and Greek must be normative in shaping our English forms of worship ("the Scripture way of speaking to God") would lead to some very strange results indeed. We would have to refer to the Holy Spirit as she or it, and not he. Our word for "God" would have to be plural in form, to match the Hebrew (though the fact that the Greek and Hebrew forms don't match in both of these instances should be clues that this road leads to a dead end).

3) the reason I often hear for retaining the old forms of address _in prayer _("Thee and Thou") has more to do with a felt sense of reverence in approaching God with "special" pronouns than the oneness of God. It is clear that in Boston's context, that argument was operating the other way around. It was the advocates of "you" and "ye" who suggested their approach more fitting as "the manner of speaking to kings", not those who were using the more homely "thee" and "thou". Moreover, in the original Biblical context, there is absolutely nothing special about these pronouns: in terms of pronouns, God is addressed in prayer in the Bible exactly the same way as you would speak to a neighbor. I would suggest that it is _that _Biblical principle that is most endangered by using archaic pronouns for God in prayer. God is our King but he is also our Father.

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## alexmacarie (Jan 3, 2023)

When the English language still affords the facility for an unambiguous singular address, which is uniform throughout all Scripture in addressing God in prayer, and when English speaking churches in the UK at least have had this custom for hundreds of years, there doesn’t appear to be any compelling reason to set it aside. Nor does it seem unhelpful to distinguish between singular and plural pronouns in the text of Scripture, despite that it’s maybe not done as perfectly or consistently as you’re suggesting it may be done.

As far as addressing the Lord the way one addresses a neighbour, I’m not sure I follow that. We would speak very differently to our neighbour than we would speak to the late Queen or present King.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 3, 2023)

Can someone quickly direct me on which parts of the Standards have second person pronouns?(excluding any Scriptural references)


----------



## Taylor (Jan 3, 2023)

alexmacarie said:


> …as you’re suggesting…


Why did you refer to Dr. Duguid in the plural?

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 5 | Sad 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 3, 2023)

Polanus1561 said:


> Can someone quickly direct me on which parts of the Standards have second person pronouns?(excluding any Scriptural references)


I think almost if not exclusively in citations of Scripture in the questions and answers in the commandments and Lord's Prayer in the catechisms.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 3, 2023)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think almost if not exclusively in citations of Scripture in the questions and answers in the commandments and Lord's Prayer in the catechisms.


Then is the debate on theesthous recently in this thread not so much related to the confession but on the Scripture version to be used? Thus the OPC is being consistent in changing the language of the WS to reflect their use of modern versions?

And Bible translations are a whole another debate.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 3, 2023)

Polanus1561 said:


> Then is the debate on theesthous recently in this thread not so much related to the confession but on the Scripture version to be used? Thus the OPC is being consistent in changing the language of the WS to reflect their use of modern versions?
> 
> And Bible translations are a whole another debate.


Do the OPC standards cite a modern version or just cite the Scripture references?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 3, 2023)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Do the OPC standards cite a modern version or just cite the Scripture references?


They cite the KJV. That’s one of the issues surrounding this update. Are we going to update the translation citations? And if so, which version? It’s an important question, especially when you consider WSC 107 and its WLC counterpart. What do we do with the conclusion to the Lord’s Prayer? Either way—whether for or against—it will come across as the OPC making an official decision on a contentious textual matter.

Reactions: Like 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 3, 2023)

Taylor said:


> They cite the KJV. That’s one of the issues surrounding this update. Are we going to update the translation citations? And if so, which version? It’s an important question, especially when you consider WSC 107 and its WLC counterpart. What do we do with the conclusion to the Lord’s Prayer? Either way—whether for or against—it will come across as the OPC making an official decision on a contentious textual matter.


Seems using the NKJV might be a sensible choice, all things considered.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 3, 2023)

As I have said already, no changes in the meaning of the WS will be advocated. No change to the meaning of SC 107, for example, will be countenanced. Personally, I would prefer not going to a modern translation, but actually simply using the committee's own translation, or simply updating the KJV language, and not using a copyrighted modern Bible translation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jan 3, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> As I have said already, no changes in the meaning of the WS will be advocated. No change to the meaning of SC 107, for example, will be countenanced. Personally, I would prefer not going to a modern translation, but actually simply using the committee's own translation, or simply updating the KJV language, and not using a copyrighted modern Bible translation.


This is important to note. However, I think there is a tension here that will surely come up in debate. If the update keeps WSC 107 and its biblical text, I really think that could be understood by some to be an implicit textual endorsement. Of course, I certainly wouldn’t complain, but I have little doubt that it would generate some heat.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 3, 2023)

Taylor said:


> This is important to note. However, I think there is a tension here that will surely come up in debate. If the update keeps WSC 107 and its biblical text, I really think that could be understood by some to be an implicit textual endorsement. Of course, I certainly wouldn’t complain, but I have little doubt that it would generate some heat.


Hmm, but who will the heat be directed at? It looks like the committee simply had the mandate to look at the words and make linguistic changes. See Lane's post #5 here. Any heat ought to be raised up at the GA itself when the mandate was defined, and it was defined not to include any substantial changes such as the text of WSC 107 (if I am reading Lane's post correctly).


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2023)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Sorry; my dad used the word I think. He was not any great user of words. Texas born and raised, and became a geologist. He grew up in Cisco, Texas. He had a Latin teacher in high school named Miss Yunk. She wore button up late 19th century shoes and dress even at that time (early 20s). He could still spout off a Latin phrase or two just before he died. Or maybe as Jimmy said he picked it up latter as the cool lingo later in the 30s, as odd as that sounds to me.



Doesn't seem to have Latin origins 
OED says: 





Almost sounds like it has an origin in early 20th century African American culture!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 3, 2023)

Logan said:


> Doesn't seem to have Latin origins
> OED says:
> 
> View attachment 9925
> ...


You really looked it up!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 3, 2023)

I can't type out everything I've been thinking about regarding an update to language. One of the differences between a Bible translation and this translation is that the "autograph" of the Standards is in English. Every translation from a Biblical text into another language is never really just a translation but involves some interpretive (theological) moves. 

On the one hand, I'm not really concerned about the ocre theological ideas coming over from one translation oft the WCF into another. We don't fret about translations to other languages inisting that they retain the English and use gramattico-historical tools on the fly to make sue of the document. In a real sense, updating the language is an interpretive endavor (even with arcane words) so you are losing things in modernizing even if they are minor but I'm not too concerned about the final product being unrecognizable or thinking that those who adopt it are somehow not Westminsterian.

On the other hand, I would prefer for a project like this, to be a pedagogical tool. Something that makes the actual constitution more udnerstandable. I'd prefer that we retain the original langague as the standard for office bearers and force ourselves to have to study the arcane phrases where they arise. A single word (or even a noun declension) many not make it to the translation so it's good to have the "official" consitituon correspond to the original. 

I'm not a prophet, but I'd be surprised if the OPC adopts the modernized version as the new standard. It's not that I don't think the committee itself is filled with Godly men and they'll do a much better job than I. I will likely use and commend the use of their modernization for others to make it more understandable to most readers. I simply believe that many Elders are like myself and probably don't want the underlying Constitution to change even if we agree that the changes are not fully substantial. Enough understand how translation works and it really wouldn't be worth making a translation the new Constitutional standard when it can serve well as a pedagogical tool.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Wednesday at 12:59 PM)

I'm struggling to think what, exactly, needs updating. If the issue is particular words which are no longer in use (and "stews" seems to be the go to example. Any others?) then, as has been suggested, a discreet footnote giving the definition would address that. In terms of the style of language, who doesn't know what "hath" or "taketh" or "sheweth" mean? If the updating is restricted to changing hath to has, taketh to takes and sheweth to shows then that would, I suppose, be a minor updating but it would also be unnecessary. This leads me to suspect that the changes will be considerably more than merely dropping a few "eths" and substituting brothels for stews. Of course one must wait to see what the final result will be. But I think there is very good reason to be concerned.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Wednesday at 1:10 PM)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm struggling to think what, exactly, needs updating. If the issue is particular words which are no longer in use (and "stews" seems to be the go to example. Any others?) then, as has been suggested, a discreet footnote giving the definition would address that. In terms of the style of language, who doesn't know what "hath" or "taketh" or "sheweth" mean? If the updating is restricted to changing hath to has, taketh to takes and sheweth to shows then that would, I suppose, be a minor updating but it would also be unnecessary. This leads me to suspect that the changes will be considerably more than merely dropping a few "eths" and substituting brothels for stews. Of course one must wait to see what the final result will be. But I think there is very good reason to be concerned.


Is not the testimony here of the brothers who are involved in this work, enough to suspend any doubts, at least for now?

And footnotes in confessions sound good on paper, but I don't think it suits the presentation of confessions to have footnotes. No one footnotes a wedding vow for instance (poor example maybe). Let the words be the words you mean and understand; simple.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Wednesday at 1:33 PM)

Polanus1561 said:


> Is not the testimony here of the brothers who are involved in this work, enough to suspend any doubts, at least for now?
> 
> And footnotes in confessions sound good on paper, but I don't think it suits the presentation of confessions to have footnotes. No one footnotes a wedding vow for instance (poor example maybe). Let the words be the words you mean and understand; simple.



A footnote giving a translation of a word hardly seems problematic. Or one could just google it.

As I said I will wait and see.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Wednesday at 1:56 PM)

Polanus1561 said:


> And footnotes in confessions sound good on paper, but I don't think it suits the presentation of confessions to have footnotes. No one footnotes a wedding vow for instance (poor example maybe). Let the words be the words you mean and understand; simple.


I've wondered about this with the creeds. Jesus descending into hell, and believing in one holy catholic church. We put foot notes at the bottom, but I wonder if the words could just be substituted.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Wednesday at 1:58 PM)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I've wondered about this with the creeds. Jesus descending into hell, and believing in one holy catholic church. We put foot notes at the bottom, but I wonder if the words could just be substituted.


Which footnoted version are you talking about on the AC?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Wednesday at 4:18 PM)

Polanus1561 said:


> Which footnoted version are you talking about on the AC?


I'm not sure. It's the one we use in our worship guide. The footnotes at the bottom put "the grave" instead of hell, and "universal" instead of catholic.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Wednesday at 4:29 PM)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I'm not sure. It's the one we use in our worship guide. The footnotes at the bottom put "the grave" instead of hell, and "universal" instead of catholic.


I don't know what you are referring to; anyway, my focus is on church official documents that would present such footnotes.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Yesterday at 5:04 AM)

Taylor said:


> Why did you refer to Dr. Duguid in the plural?



He was using the plural, addressing all who hold the contrary view.


----------

