# KJV & wcf i:8



## Glenn Ferrell

A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?


----------



## sastark

Dost thou speak thusly?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The KJV fits the definition of "Vulgar Language". Anyone can and does understand KJV English, just as much as they understand NASB or ESV English.


----------



## Fly Caster

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The KJV fits the definition of "Vulgar Language". Anyone can and does understand KJV English, just as much as they understand NASB or ESV English.



...or the English of the Confession.


----------



## chbrooking

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The KJV fits the definition of "Vulgar Language". Anyone can and does understand KJV English, just as much as they understand NASB or ESV English.



I disagree. I had the privilege of teaching Bible in a public school in North Carolina. The community was made up mostly of KJ Only churches. As a result, the kids really struggled to make sense out of the text. Two obvious examples are "wist" (from _wissen_ "to know") as in "Wist ye not..." and "prevent" in Ps. 119:148 which someone on this board mentioned recently.

Language changes. The Bible wasn't written in some special revelatory language that people were expected to adapt to. And it would really be a stretch to call KJV English "the vulgar tongue" (In my humble opinion).


----------



## Jake

Realistically, KJV does not use language that is too far removed from our English. If you were to change the plural of verbs to end in s rather than th and change the pronouns to our modern usage (at the risk of losing some specificity, but we lack that in our modern language), then you are left with something that is understandable most of the time, minus some awkwardness and a few unknown words (but you're bound to run into that, right?). This is what is done with the American King James Version for example.

My point, however, is that if people can grow used to these few differences, you are essentially speaking in what is "generally used, applied, or accepted" as the dictionary defines vulgar. If you get to the point where the language and vocabulary of the translation itself requires explanation, then you need a new translation. This may be the case with some congregations, but it depends on their education level and environment.


----------



## Claudiu

It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.

Somethings are better left in a certain way. For example Shakespeare's works would not be the same if they were translated into a more modern way. Similarly, when we read Spurgeon, his way of speaking is different from ours today, yet we can still understand him. Our language has evolved, but I don't think it has evolved enough to be to the point where it is non-understandable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a KJV-only person, but the way the KJV reads is beautiful, in my opinion. It has its own style, some prefer the KJV because of the way its written. However, if people are not understanding the Word of God because the stumbling block is the language then I would suggest a translation that works for them. We have other excellent translations out there that one should be able to use to be able to understand the Bible.

So, in the end, I think it depends on the people. If they can understand the KJV, then go for it. But if someone does not understand the KJV, then it would be better if they read (or listen) to a translation they can understand


----------



## JM

My children have been raised on it, they do sometimes struggle especially in the OT, but seem to understand it fairly well. We have a dozen or so translations but use the AV for family reading and worship time. Our Pastor preaches from it as well.


----------



## rbcbob

Glenn Ferrell said:


> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, *therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come*, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
> I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?




We need to understand the word *vulgar* in the sense used by the Westminster Divines in the middle of the 17th century. 

Vulgar, adj. *1391*, common, ordinary, in Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe, borrowed from the Latin vulgaris of or pertaining to the common people … The meaning of course, low, ill-bred, is first recorded in English in *1643*. The sense of common or customarily used, vernacular … is first recorded in English in *1483* … The meaning of make vulgar, coarsen, is first recorded in English in *1756*
CHAMBERS DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY

As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.

Obviously, as the word has been changing, it increasingly connoted to the hearer the idea of low, undignified, coarse and improper.

Thus added pressure is upon the Church to retranslate the original to achieve the goal of perspicuity, and yet not fall into the trap of being trendy.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

I regularly use a distinct form for the 2nd person plural pronoun.

"We give thanks to God always for you all..." [1 Thess 1:2a]

I am 60 years old and grew up in southern Appalachia, where our speech was not far removed from 1611. "Fetch those victuals in that tow sack, and mete out a mess for that sottish and churlish chapman."


----------



## sastark

I find the irony of defending the language of the KJV as "vulgar" by posting in non-KJV-English quite hilarious.


----------



## Claudiu

JM said:


> My children have been raised on it, they do sometimes struggle especially in the OT, but seem to understand it fairly well. We have a dozen or so translations but use the AV for family reading and worship time. Our Pastor preaches from it as well.



Just another example that it can be done.
I think there was a study out there that showed that the KJV was at an easier level to read than most modern translations (I don't remember where I had seen/heard it and the truthfulness of it).

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 12:55:42 EST-----



sastark said:


> I find the irony of defending the language of the KJV as "vulgar" by posting in non-KJV-English quite hilarious.



Your wai of postin can b consered nonvulgar, the new wai of internet speach is tha way 2 talk now. This way of talk iz way cooler. n every1 iz doin it theez dayz

.....more people are writing/speaking like that now-a-days, but does that mean we have to? 

People can read a college textbook and consider it too hard to understand and not in their language. 

Some people talk in a high style...others in a middle, or low.


----------



## sastark

cecat90 said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the irony of defending the language of the KJV as "vulgar" by posting in non-KJV-English quite hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wai of postin can b consered nonvulgar, the new wai of internet speach is tha way 2 talk now. This way of talk iz way cooler. n every1 iz doin it theez dayz
> 
> .....more people are writing/speaking like that now-a-days, but does that mean we have to?
> 
> People can read a college textbook and consider it too hard to understand and not in their language.
> 
> Some people talk in a high style...others in a middle, or low.
Click to expand...



Fair enough. But NO ONE speaks King James English today. And yet we are to consider it "vulgar"?


----------



## chbrooking

I get the impression "vulgar" is being redefined in order to accommodate the KJV. For purposes of clarity, "vulgar" doesn't mean "capable of being understood." It means common or ordinary. As Seth pointed out so brilliantly above, unless you plan to conduct this discussion in KJV English, you can't very well say KJ English is the vulgar language. You might say it is capable of being understood with sufficient practice and/or education. But that's hardly what vulgar means.


----------



## rpavich

I guess my observation was that the question is not:

_Can a person figure out what the KJV is saying?_

But actually is:

_What does vulgar mean when it comes to language?_


Vulgar is "understandable by those who are listening" so while we can "suss out" what the KJV is saying, it's not even close to the way we speak or write, and that disqualifies it as "vulgar" right?

If you want an illustration just do a search on Google for "KJV language changes" There are 860 words that have so changed meaning that there is a "software KJV dictionary" to make sense of them. Here is the text of the ad:

"_Is the King James Bible full of hard to understand, archaic, obsolete words? Do you know the meanings of *"avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"? *
The King James Bible can be difficult to understand for many people who are not accustomed to its vocabulary. Using the King James Dictionary you can now learn the meaning of all those *obsolete, extinct Bible words,* like *"concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist"...*

The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.

Have you ever been puzzled by a word in the King James Bible and tried to look it up using a regular dictionary like Websters or the American Heritage Dictionary? Don't despair... Go directly to our handy dictionary containing over 860 words deemed archaic and find its definition quickly..."_

Wouldn't this qualify the KJV as NOT our common language?


----------



## KMK

Rev Winzer made this excellent point in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-bible-how-overcome-language-barrier-40664/index2.html



> The problem with making lists of archaic words is the fact that while there is a Bible which contains them they are obviously not redundant but have a continuing linguistic context in which they are employed. One only needs to notice how a newspaper column can use the phrase "love thy neighbour" for literary effect in order to show how shallow is this idea that the AV uses outdated English.


----------



## chbrooking

I thanked a post and it disappeared!!!???
Claudiu, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to destroy your post. I only wanted to thank you.


----------



## Claudiu

chbrooking said:


> I get the impression "vulgar" is being redefined in order to accommodate the KJV. For purposes of clarity, "vulgar" doesn't mean "capable of being understood." It means common or ordinary. As Seth pointed out so brilliantly above, unless you plan to conduct this discussion in KJV English, you can't very well say KJ English is the vulgar language. You might say it is capable of being understood with sufficient practice and/or education. But that's hardly what vulgar means.





There must be a consensus upon the definition of what vulgar is.


----------



## Jake

cecat90 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> My children have been raised on it, they do sometimes struggle especially in the OT, but seem to understand it fairly well. We have a dozen or so translations but use the AV for family reading and worship time. Our Pastor preaches from it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example that it can be done.
> I think there was a study out there that showed that the KJV was at an easier level to read than most modern translations (I don't remember where I had seen/heard it and the truthfulness of it).
Click to expand...


I believe it is lower level than some on the Flesch-Kincaid because of use of many smaller (less syllables) words. However, just because a word is smaller doesn't mean it is more understandable. KJV also has many words that are more dynamic than modern translations, which may make it easier to understand, but less accurate. For example, penny instead of denarius. There is a list here of some words in NIV vs. those supposedly easier in KJV: Archaic Words in the NIV by Dr. Laurence Vance

But, there are some modern translations that are at a higher reading level. New American Standard Bible is generally considered to be at a high school level and as such has many words that are harder to understand. There are modern translations that are simpler to understand while retaining accurarcy. ESV is at a lower reading level than KJV and the vocabulary is probably understood by most people, but it is not much more dynamic. Then there are translations like New Century Version/International Children's Bible and New International Reader's Version which simplify the text down for children while still being somewhat accurate. You can find a modern translation for many reading levels. 

However, I do not think that overall the average American can dive into the KJV with as good of understanding as a more modern translation, but they can still figure it out.


----------



## chbrooking

KMK said:


> Rev Winzer made this excellent point in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-bible-how-overcome-language-barrier-40664/index2.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with making lists of archaic words is the fact that while there is a Bible which contains them they are obviously not redundant but have a continuing linguistic context in which they are employed. One only needs to notice how a newspaper column can use the phrase "love thy neighbour" for literary effect in order to show how shallow is this idea that the AV uses outdated English.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the reason the paper can use that phrase is that "love thy neighbor" is a justly famous biblical verse and is a part of the cultural air that even the pagan among us breathes. But we must not make the mistake of saying that, since something can, with some effort, be understood, then it fulfills the requirement of WCF 1.8. As the list of obsolete words demonstrates, let alone the endings that have passed out of use, KJ English cannot be considered the vulgar language. And that's the question of the OP. That's the requirement of the confession. The fact that you like the KJV has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. The fact that you are capable of understanding it doesn't either. The question is . . . is it written in the language of everyday discourse? No. It's not.


----------



## rbcbob

rbcbob said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, *therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come*, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
> I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to understand the word *vulgar* in the sense used by the Westminster Divines in the middle of the 17th century.
> 
> Vulgar, adj. *1391*, common, ordinary, in Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe, borrowed from the Latin vulgaris of or pertaining to the common people … The meaning of course, low, ill-bred, is first recorded in English in *1643*. The sense of common or customarily used, vernacular … is first recorded in English in *1483* … The meaning of make vulgar, coarsen, is first recorded in English in *1756*
> CHAMBERS DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY
> 
> As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.
> 
> Obviously, as the word has been changing, it increasingly connoted to the hearer the idea of low, undignified, coarse and improper.
> 
> Thus added pressure is upon the Church to retranslate the original to achieve the goal of perspicuity, and yet not fall into the trap of being trendy.
Click to expand...


Some of the later posts may have missed this.


----------



## Claudiu

chbrooking said:


> I thanked a post and it disappeared!!!???
> Claudiu, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to destroy your post. I only wanted to thank you.





Oh ok, I'm not sure what to believe now. Whether KJV is vulgar or not...thats why I deleted the post. 

But you are right, we need a clear definition of what vulgar is, otherwise we will think we are talking about the same thing when we really are probably not.

Until then, I guess I will be divided on the issue.


----------



## KMK

Here is another recent thread on this subject: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/modern-english-translation-wcf-41346/


----------



## Jake

chbrooking said:


> I get the impression "vulgar" is being redefined in order to accommodate the KJV. For purposes of clarity, "vulgar" doesn't mean "capable of being understood." It means common or ordinary. As Seth pointed out so brilliantly above, unless you plan to conduct this discussion in KJV English, you can't very well say KJ English is the vulgar language. You might say it is capable of being understood with sufficient practice and/or education. But that's hardly what vulgar means.



I think the point of the word vulgar was that the language was actually what the people were speaking rather than something that needs translation. The RCC church was using the Latin Vulgate in times past and the ministers had to translate for the common people attending the church. Quite often the ministers themselves didn't have good knowledge of Latin anyway. This meant that the Bible was effectively hidden.

I think that if the Bible can be read and can be understood without translation from someone else, it falls within the WCF for being vulgar. If people understand the KJV without a minister having to translate for them, it's probably okay. Otherwise, a new translation is needed.


----------



## chbrooking

From my Mac: "belonging to the masses"
Miriam-Webster: "of or relating to the common people, plebeian, generally current, public , of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind"

Someone got the OED?


----------



## Claudiu

Jake said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the impression "vulgar" is being redefined in order to accommodate the KJV. For purposes of clarity, "vulgar" doesn't mean "capable of being understood." It means common or ordinary. As Seth pointed out so brilliantly above, unless you plan to conduct this discussion in KJV English, you can't very well say KJ English is the vulgar language. You might say it is capable of being understood with sufficient practice and/or education. But that's hardly what vulgar means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point of the word vulgar was that the language was actually what the people were speaking rather than something that needs translation. The RCC church was using the Latin Vulgate in times past and the ministers had to translate for the common people attending the church. Quite often the ministers themselves didn't have good knowledge of Latin anyway. This meant that the Bible was effectively hidden.
> 
> I think that if the Bible can be read and can be understood without translation from someone else, it falls within the WCF for being vulgar. If people understand the KJV without a minister having to translate for them, it's probably okay. Otherwise, a new translation is needed.
Click to expand...


Thats the way I'm leaning. If a congregation can understand the KJV without any major problems then I would consider it "vulgar" for that congregation.


----------



## Jake

chbrooking said:


> Someone got the OED?



"characteristic of the common people"


----------



## Claudiu

chbrooking said:


> From my Mac: "belonging to the masses"
> Miriam-Webster: "of or relating to the common people, plebeian, generally current, public , of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind"
> 
> Someone got the OED?





What could be vulgar in one church may not be vulgar in another...right?


----------



## chbrooking

cecat90 said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my Mac: "belonging to the masses"
> Miriam-Webster: "of or relating to the common people, plebeian, generally current, public , of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind"
> 
> Someone got the OED?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could be vulgar in one church may not be vulgar in another...right?
Click to expand...


Sure, if one's in France and one's in Spain.


----------



## Jake

cecat90 said:


> What could be vulgar in one church may not be vulgar in another...right?



Exactly. An inner city church of recent converts and people born in raised in families reading the KJV frequently would need different translations.


----------



## KMK

BTW, have we all 'counted the cost' in allowing 1:8 to dogmatically define our Bible? What would the phrase "kept pure in all ages" imply? I am not going to derail this thread but just want to offer a word of caution.


----------



## chbrooking

Are you suggesting that there's no such thing thing as current English?

How will we ever educate our children? Give me a break! The language of commerce, the language of the news media, the language of textbooks, etc. -- these are the common tongue. Ask a publisher whether it would be okay to write your book in KJ style English. Go to work for a newspaper and try it. We all know what common English is. WE'RE USING IT! If you love the KJV, great. But don't engage in special pleading to call it the vulgar language.

WCF 1.8 does not require you to read a more current version. It only calls into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position.


----------



## sastark

KMK said:


> BTW, have we all 'counted the cost' in allowing 1:8 to dogmatically define our Bible? What would the phrase "kept pure in all ages" imply? I am not going to derail this thread but just want to offer a word of caution.



I prefer the NKJV for this reason. TR based, modern language version of the Bible. (See, you can support the TR and not prefer the KJV.)


----------



## Claudiu

chbrooking said:


> Are you suggesting that there's no such thing thing as current English?
> 
> How will we ever educate our children? Give me a break! The language of commerce, the language of the news media, the language of textbooks, etc. -- these are the common tongue. Ask a publisher whether it would be okay to write your book in KJ style English. Go to work for a newspaper and try it. We all know what common English is. WE'RE USING IT! If you love the KJV, great. But don't engage in special pleading to call it the vulgar language.
> 
> WCF 1.8 does not require you to read a more current version. It only calls into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position.





I don't know if this was intended for me. But, while we all know what the common English is (we are writing in it right now), in some places it could be said that the KJV would be easily understand. But looking at what vulgar means I would say that the KJV is not the vulgar language for the majority of English speaking people. 

I already stated I'm not trying to plead a KJV-only position.


----------



## chbrooking

It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came across that way. The "you" was plural -- wouldn't it be nice if we DID still use ye, thou, etc. to distinguish?


----------



## Claudiu

Jake said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What could be vulgar in one church may not be vulgar in another...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. An inner city church of recent converts and people born in raised in families reading the KJV frequently would need different translations.
Click to expand...




Thats what I was thinking

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 01:44:41 EST-----



chbrooking said:


> It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came across that way.





Alright, no worries


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> Are you suggesting that there's no such thing thing as current English?
> 
> How will we ever educate our children? Give me a break! The language of commerce, the language of the news media, the language of textbooks, etc. -- these are the common tongue. Ask a publisher whether it would be okay to write your book in KJ style English. Go to work for a newspaper and try it. We all know what common English is. WE'RE USING IT! If you love the KJV, great. But don't engage in special pleading to call it the vulgar language.
> 
> WCF 1.8 does not require you to read a more current version. It only calls into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position.



The fact that you are using this argument proves that KJV English is not 'a foreign tongue'. It is too a large extent 'uncommon' English, but it is still English. The term 'vulgar' is being used by the Divines in opposition to the common practice of the Romanists in their day to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the people. KJV fans do not fall into this category. The KJV fan says, "If you can create a more modern English version that retains the accuracy and majesty of the KJV, go right ahead."

As I said before, if 1:8 can call into question the confessionality of a KJV-Only position, it can do the same with a CT-only position as well.


----------



## larryjf

I would have to say that if "vulgar" means, in our case, "modern English," then the KJV English is fine since it is modern English.
I would say that Middle or Old English would not classify as "vulgar"


----------



## chbrooking

As Seth pointed out, the issue isn't the text, but the translation. CT is an entirely different subject.


----------



## Claudiu

So back to the OP..."Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?"

What do you guys think...in a simple answer.
I just want to see what people really think about this.


----------



## TimV

> It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.



Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.


----------



## chbrooking

cecat90 said:


> So back to the OP..."Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?"
> 
> What do you guys think...in a simple answer.
> I just want to see what people really think about this.



No.


----------



## Christusregnat

Glenn Ferrell said:


> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
> I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?



I was wondering where my father-in-law got this argument; he got it from Peter!

Vulgar cannot mean totally current, otherwise, the NT's use of the LXX would violate the "vulgar" principal, as would the NT's use of Aramaic and Hebrew. The people could understand the LXX, even though not in their current tongue.

Cheers,


----------



## Claudiu

I think it can be regarded as a vulgar language for some people. In certain cases I can see a congregation that would be able to say that the KJV is vulgar for them. 

But on a whole, for example, looking at America, I wouldn't regard it as vulgar because the majority of people would not understand it.


----------



## rbcbob

Okay guys ... bear with me I am having a Rod Serling moment here ...

*Did anyone, anyone read post #21?*

*Hello ............*


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> As Seth pointed out, the issue isn't the text, but the translation. CT is an entirely different subject.



I agree it is an entirely different subject. What I am saying is, 1:8 can and will be used to call into question both the KJV-only _and_ the CT-only positions.

As a word of warning, (not to anyone in particular) the moderators frown on implications that ministers are in violation of their vows based upon which version they use. We have been down this road before.


----------



## Claudiu

TimV said:


> It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
Click to expand...




That argument doesn't hold though.
One has to learn English, wether it be the "modern"/current English we use or KJV English.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
Click to expand...


?????? 

What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.


----------



## Jake

larryjf said:


> I would have to say that if "vulgar" means, in our case, "modern English," then the KJV English is fine since it is modern English.
> I would say that Middle or Old English would not classify as "vulgar"



It's hard to draw the line that distinct. If we update the middle English Wycliffe (I'm using the 1395 version) to modern spelling, we coud argue that much of it is still understandable. Or is 1395 starting early modern? 

Take for instance John 3:16 with my updated spelling, as best as I can tell:

For God loved so the world, that he gave his own begotten son, that each man that believes in him perish not, but have everlasting life.

or from Luke 10:27-28

27 He answered, and said, Thou (You) shall love thy (your) Lord God of all thine (your) heart, and of all thy (your) soul, and of all thy (your) strength, and of all thy your) mind; and thy (your) neighbor as thyself (youself).
28 And Jesus said to him, Thou hast (You have) answered rightly; do this thing, and thou (you) shall live.

You can't draw a line that distinctly, as Wycliffe may be more understandable (words, ignoring spelling) that KJV in some places.


----------



## rbcbob

rbcbob said:


> okay guys ... Bear with me i am having a rod serling moment here ...
> 
> *did anyone, anyone read post #21?*
> 
> *hello ............*



bump


----------



## Jake

KMK said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be the considered the vulgar language. Some people say they "don't understand" the KJV. There are some who really do have a hard time understanding it, but if one really wants to, he or she can come to understand the language of the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the KJV fits the definition of vulgar aside, you've just contradicted yourself. If you have to learn it, it's not vulgar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??????
> 
> What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.
Click to expand...


I think the point is that you have to learn something extra in order to read or understand something in particular, it's not vulgar. A native English speaker that dropped out of school would be able to understand some English translations with no problems, but to understand KJV, they may need extra learning, such as what the different pronouns mean, and the many archaic words. It is not vulgar if they need to learn more in order to understand the language of it.


----------



## wallingj

Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.


----------



## Christusregnat

sastark said:


> Dost thou speak thusly?



This is an oversimplification. The Apostles, who quoted from the LXX did not speak the same dialect of Greek, and yet they still quoted freely from it. This argument is not sound.

Cheers,


----------



## rbcbob

wallingj said:


> Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.



thanks .....


----------



## Claudiu

rbcbob said:


> As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.



Are you suggesting that vulgar applies to what the congregation would consider vulgar?


----------



## wallingj

rbcbob said:


> wallingj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, using the definition (etymology) provided in post 21 I would hold the KJV is not in the vulgar language. This is the first argument of the the OP. I feel we then moved to the silent question should the KJV still be used, and if so would it be in violation of the WCF. I would answer the question using the WCF again and state, because even though it is not in common English today, but in still in a from of recognizable English, that we follow the principal of Christian liberty outlined in the confession. Neither the KJV or CT party should judge the either, both camps have good translations, and clearly neither is the orginal autographs of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks .....
Click to expand...

Your welcome, I almost could feel you pain!


----------



## rbcbob

cecat90 said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that vulgar applies to what the congregation would consider vulgar?
Click to expand...


No, not at all. Just providing historical context to help understand how to apply the exhortation in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## sastark

Christusregnat said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dost thou speak thusly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an oversimplification. The Apostles, who quoted from the LXX did not speak the same dialect of Greek, and yet they still quoted freely from it. This argument is not sound.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


There are many ways you are wrong, Adam. First, the Apostles were inspired in their quotation of the LXX. Can the same be claimed for every person who uses the KJV, today?

Secondly, on what basis do you claim that the Septuagint is a different dialect of Greek than what the Apostles spoke? Both the LXX and the NT were written in Koine Greek.

Thirdly, WCF 1.8 does not speak to what version you and I (or a pastor) can _quote_ from. I'm not advocating that pastor's never reference the KJV ever again. I'm advocating the translation of Scripture into the vulgar tongue of the people. King James English is not the vulgar tongue.


----------



## rpavich

Man oh man...this is getting snagged up fast.

It seems easy enough.

IS the english used in the KJV how we commonly talk and write?

NO...there is not a one of us who speaks like the king james reads

then it's not the "vulgar language" of our time and place.


simple.


----------



## TimV

> What language does not need to be learned? Why am I buying all of these English language textbooks for my children if it is something that doesn't have to be learned? Perhaps it is this paradigm that has allowed the English language to deteriorate into what it is now.



The vulgar language is the language of the common folk, Ken.

In my church I'm the only one who speaks Zulu. That doesn't make Zulu the vulgar language of my church.

You don't have to buy English text books for your children to have them learn English, since their playmates all speak English. They grow up speaking English. Therefore English is the vulgar language of your children.

You would have to buy text books, or hire a teacher or something for them to learn Zulu. Therefore it would be improper to call Zulu the vulgar language of your church, even though one of your kids learned it.

It ain't that difficult, and the definition of vulgar as used in the WCF isn't relative.


----------



## sastark

Further, Adam, even if my first post were an oversimplification, the fact that you told me it was an oversimplification using modern English instead of King James English undermines the defense of the KJV as "vulgar".

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 02:38:57 EST-----



TimV said:


> The vulgar language is the language of the common folk, Ken.
> 
> In my church I'm the only one who speaks Zulu. That doesn't make Zulu the vulgar language of my church.
> 
> You don't have to buy English text books for your children to have them learn English, since their playmates all speak English. They grow up speaking English. Therefore English is the vulgar language of your children.
> 
> You would have to buy text books, or hire a teacher or something for them to learn Zulu. Therefore it would be improper to call Zulu the vulgar language of your church, even though one of your kids learned it.
> 
> It ain't that difficult, and the definition of vulgar as used in the WCF isn't relative.






You speak Zulu? That. is. awesome.


----------



## rpavich

This is priceless...



> Further, Adam, even if my first post were an oversimplification, the fact that you told me it was an oversimplification using modern English instead of King James English undermines the defense of the KJV as "vulgar".


----------



## chbrooking

Ken,
If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I'm not questioning the confessionality of USING the KJV. So, I'm certainly not questioning the fidelity of any pastor on the basis of which Bible he uses. I'm only questioning the confessionality of KJV-onlyism.


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> Ken,
> If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I'm not questioning the confessionality of USING the KJV. So, I'm certainly not questioning the fidelity of any pastor on the basis of which Bible he uses. I'm only questioning the confessionality of KJV-onlyism.



*Moderator's Note*

I am not accusing anyone. I am simply framing the acceptable parameters of this discussion. It is acceptable to 'question the confessionality' of both KJO and CTO. It is NOT acceptable to pass a verdict upon ministers who are either KJO or CTO.


----------



## Christusregnat

sastark said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dost thou speak thusly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an oversimplification. The Apostles, who quoted from the LXX did not speak the same dialect of Greek, and yet they still quoted freely from it. This argument is not sound.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many ways you are wrong, Adam. First, the Apostles were inspired in their quotation of the LXX. Can the same be claimed for every person who uses the KJV, today?
> 
> Secondly, on what basis do you claim that the Septuagint is a different dialect of Greek than what the Apostles spoke? Both the LXX and the NT were written in Koine Greek.
> 
> Thirdly, WCF 1.8 does not speak to what version you and I (or a pastor) can _quote_ from. I'm not advocating that pastor's never reference the KJV ever again. I'm advocating the translation of Scripture into the vulgar tongue of the people. King James English is not the vulgar tongue.
Click to expand...


Seth,

The inspiration question is irrelevant, since the LXX was used in Hellenistic synagogues all over the empire. I used it as an obvious example that is easily verifiable.

Second, just because the word "Koine" appears before Greek does not mean that the LXX and the NT used the same version of Greek. We have roughly two to three hundred years between the LXX and the NT, with Philip's Greek (one of many Greek dialects) overcoming other forms. Next, we have the shift from Greek to Roman rule, with corresponding changes in politics, philosophy and language. It would be quite a stretch to say that the language remained the same for 200 - 300 years; particularly with the upheavals in the political climate.

Third, as I said, Helenists used the LXX as their liturgical bible. Also, if you want to get really deep, the non-Helenists used the Hebrew Bible (not even an Aramaic version) in their synagogues, and this version was likewise used liturgically by Jesus and the Apostles.

Cheers,


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I have gone on record here as being willing to have an "updated KJV" with some archaisms changed, though keeping those which maintain linguistic precision such as the "ye"s, and also the "thee"s and "thou"s. But I am not willing to give up the accuracy / faithfulness of the KJV to the Hebrew and Greek for the sake of more modern speech in versions based upon (what I maintain are) inaccurate original language texts. The "vulgar" referred to in WCF 1:8 is more adhered to in a mildly antiquated translation of faithful texts than a more modern translation of unfaithful texts. What profit "vulgar" if the translation is inaccurate?

I am not begging the question as we have gone around on this issue of accuracy before and there is plenty of material here and elsewhere at PB on it.

Clark, do I understand you to say that KJO (more on that term in a moment) is unconfessional? I don't like the term, as applied to me at any rate, as it implies a disregard and / or disdain for the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and the worth of other translations, even those based on CT texts. I do find value in those CT texts although for me it is limited. 

The pew Bible at my church is NKJV (it was a choice between that or the ESV, as the Bibles were given us by the planting church), and I read the Scripture from that version, though I usually preach from the KJV.

The Authorized Version unconfessional? How far have we fallen? (If this is indeed what you mean.) The post-Reformation church did not think so, nor did many of the framers of the WCF and 1689. I do not use the NKJV or even Jay Green's Modern King James Version so as to supplant the AV, because of the latter's better accuracy resulting from better texts *and* superior language in the translation. Remember, I said I would welcome a faithful updated version, but there is not one available yet.

With regard to the OP, when I do read the from the AV and come across some difficult or archaic language, I will clarify it for the congregation (many of whom do not have English as their first language).

There are those who will say that it is unconfessional to read _other_ than the AV in public worship, as well as vice versa — but I hold with neither of these views.


----------



## sastark

Christusregnat said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an oversimplification. The Apostles, who quoted from the LXX did not speak the same dialect of Greek, and yet they still quoted freely from it. This argument is not sound.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ways you are wrong, Adam. First, the Apostles were inspired in their quotation of the LXX. Can the same be claimed for every person who uses the KJV, today?
> 
> Secondly, on what basis do you claim that the Septuagint is a different dialect of Greek than what the Apostles spoke? Both the LXX and the NT were written in Koine Greek.
> 
> Thirdly, WCF 1.8 does not speak to what version you and I (or a pastor) can _quote_ from. I'm not advocating that pastor's never reference the KJV ever again. I'm advocating the translation of Scripture into the vulgar tongue of the people. King James English is not the vulgar tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seth,
> 
> The inspiration question is irrelevant, since the LXX was used in Hellenistic synagogues all over the empire. I used it as an obvious example that is easily verifiable.
> 
> Second, just because the word "Koine" appears before Greek does not mean that the LXX and the NT used the same version of Greek. We have roughly two to three hundred years between the LXX and the NT, with Philip's Greek (one of many Greek dialects) overcoming other forms. Next, we have the shift from Greek to Roman rule, with corresponding changes in politics, philosophy and language. It would be quite a stretch to say that the language remained the same for 200 - 300 years; particularly with the upheavals in the political climate.
> 
> Third, as I said, Helenists used the LXX as their liturgical bible. Also, if you want to get really deep, the non-Helenists used the Hebrew Bible (not even an Aramaic version) in their synagogues, and this version was likewise used liturgically by Jesus and the Apostles.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


It seems (and please let me know if I misread your post) that you are arguing, not against the position that the King James is not in the vulgar tongue (my argument) but that a translation in the vulgar tongue is not necessary (the WCF position).

If the Apostles used a non-vulgar translation and the Helenists used a non-vulgar translation and the non-Helenists used a non-vulgar translation, then it's ok for us to use a non-vulgar translation. Is that what you're saying?

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 04:05:41 EST-----



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Remember, I said I would welcome an faithful updated version, but there is not one available yet.



Although I prefer the NKJV (and therefore, I do believe a faithful updated version of the KJV is available), I have _great_ sympathy for this position.


----------



## Grillsy

So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.


----------



## sastark

Grillsy said:


> So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
> But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.



I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are _verboten_. 

Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is _perhaps_ permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.

Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV *at all*, only that the position of KJV *only* is contrary to the confession.


----------



## Grillsy

sastark said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
> But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are _verboten_.
> 
> Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is _perhaps_ permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.
> 
> Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV *at all*, only that the position of KJV *only* is contrary to the confession.
Click to expand...


I see, I see. I did NOT mean to be harsh or divisive when I asked that. I apologize. I do want to violate board rules. I had no intention.


----------



## sastark

Grillsy said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
> But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are _verboten_.
> 
> Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is _perhaps_ permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.
> 
> Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV *at all*, only that the position of KJV *only* is contrary to the confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, I see. I did mean to be harsh or divisive when I asked that. I apologize. I do want to violate board rules. I had no intention.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm not saying you did break any rule or were harsh or anything like that. I think it is an interesting question, but the mods have made it clear that they don't want it discussed here, so I abide by there request.

If you'd like to discuss, you can shoot me a PM, I'll give you my e-mail and we can talk "off-board".


----------



## KMK

sastark said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am not a KJVer. I am an ESV man.
> But I will ask this question. Are those who are contending that the KJV is not suitable for reading in the public worship setting saying that those who do use the KJV are confessionally wrong? If so, should the minister who uses it be disciplined? Not being a smartypants. That is serious question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the moderators (KMK, in post #64 for example) have made it clear that those sorts of discussions are _verboten_.
> 
> Whether or not a hypothetical pastoral candidate should have to state an exception to WCF 1.8 when being examined by his presbytery if he is a KJV only man is _perhaps_ permissible, but probably too far off topic for this thread.
Click to expand...


Exactly, you are welcome to ask this question elsewhere, but not here on PB.



sastark said:


> Also, I don't think anyone on either side is arguing for not using the KJV *at all*, only that the position of KJV *only* is contrary to the confession.



The problem with this is the elusive definition of 'KJV Onlyism'. If you are referring to those who hold the KJV is inspired in the same way as the originals, then yes, it is unconfessional and you wouldn't find any of them on PB anyway. 

The problem is many lump KJ preferred folks under the KJO label and everything gets confused. I suppose the same could be said for those of the CT preferred position.


----------



## timmopussycat

Christusregnat said:


> I was wondering where my father-in-law got this argument; he got it from Peter!
> 
> Vulgar cannot mean totally current, otherwise, the NT's use of the LXX would violate the "vulgar" principal, as would the NT's use of Aramaic and Hebrew. The people could understand the LXX, even though not in their current tongue.
> 
> Cheers,



For this argument to be valid, a forgotten premise must be inserted.
"The pace of linguistic change between the time of the LXX and Pentecost was no slower than today." I doubt this premise could be proved true. 

The rate of change between the vulgar tongue (as defined in post 21) of the English at Shakespeare's day and our speech today has been the greatest rate of change in a single language in history. New words were invented almost daily or borrowed from other languages to describe innovations, grammar rules changed (second person cannot be differentiated from third etc.) 

The koine of Egypt and Palestine c170 BC did not face many new developments or foreign impositions between 170 BC and 33AD.


----------



## reformedminister

The fact that you have considered using a different translation clearly evidences a self examination of your practices and shows humility instead of being "stiffnecked" (KJV), which means stubborn. The KJV has a certain hallowed antiquity because it has been around for a long time and has been cherished by many. It is true that it has some archaic language but for the most part it is not hard to understand. In churches that use it regularly, the people get used to it. I have several translations but use my KJV mostly. I have a KJV "family Bible" that we use in family worship and I read and preach from the KJV every Sunday. In our family worship and church services I explain some of the language that may be hard to understand for the average listener. Some might argue that with a newer translation you don't have to. This may be true but it is not necessary. Pray about it brother and change only if you feel led to, not simply because someone is telling you that you should (who doesn't even worship with you regularly).


----------



## chbrooking

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Clark, do I understand you to say that KJO (more on that term in a moment) is unconfessional?



Yes, but the emphasis must be on the 'O', something that you apparently ignored when you made the following comment:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The Authorized Version unconfessional? How far have we fallen? (If this is indeed what you mean.)





Jerusalem Blade said:


> There are those who will say that it is unconfessional to read _other_ than the AV in public worship, as well as vice versa — but I hold with neither of these views.



And I neither hold to AVO nor Non-AV. I have been answering the initial post, and not commenting on the virtues of the KJV. The only reason confessionality of the AVO position came up was because of the 'O' and WCF 1.8. I think they are incompatible.

I'm not sure what is unclear about the KJV-only position. What needs clarifying? It's not a question of the value of the KJV (which I affirm); it's a matter of the exclusive claims of the AVO position (which I not only deny, but find contrary to WCF 1.8). 

And I have not delved into the text behind the translation at all. 

I do not see where my position is unclear. But if it is, let me clarify:

1. WCF 1.8 requires translation into the vernacular.
2. KJ English hardly qualifies as the vernacular.
3. KJ*O* partisans require reading a non-vernacular version. And so, I find their position out of accord with the confession.
4. I am not denying the beauty, majesty or accuracy (or any other virtue) of the KJV. I'm not commenting on it at all, except to say that it is not in the vernacular.
5. WCF 1.8 does not prohibit using a non-vernacular version. So use of the KJV is not unconfessional. Refusing to permit the use of a vernacular version is.


----------



## Claudiu

When did we ever get to talking about KJV only?
I don't think anybody in this thread mentioned that it should be KJV only, but rather that they like the KJV over other translations.


----------



## brianeschen

cecat90 said:


> When did we ever get to talking about KJV only?
> I don't think anybody in this thread mentioned that it should be KJV only, but rather that they like the KJV over other translations.


Yes and in that sense it could be KJO where the "o" means "over". I trust that clears things up.


----------



## chbrooking

The shift in the conversation happened at post 32 (mine). 
If you think about it, the OP is only a significant matter for KJO partisans.

Around post 32, people had begun to get defensive about the use of the KJV. I wanted to clarify that my arguments do not impugn the use of the KJV, they only permit (actually require) translation into the vernacular -- something that is only at odds with a KJO position.

So it's not exactly a hijacking or a derailment. It's relevant to the OP.


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> I do not see where my position is unclear. But if it is, let me clarify:
> 
> 1. WCF 1.8 requires translation into the vernacular.
> 2. KJ English hardly qualifies as the vernacular.
> 3. KJ*O* partisans require reading a non-vernacular version. And so, I find their position out of accord with the confession.
> 4. I am not denying the beauty, majesty or accuracy (or any other virtue) of the KJV. I'm not commenting on it at all, except to say that it is not in the vernacular.
> 5. WCF 1.8 does not prohibit using a non-vernacular version. So use of the KJV is not unconfessional. *Refusing to permit the use of a vernacular version is.*



You are arguing with the wind, my friend. There are no KJOs, as you describe them, on PB.

The question is, are you saying that anyone who disagrees with premiss #2 is unconfessional?


----------



## Christusregnat

sastark said:


> It seems (and please let me know if I misread your post) that you are arguing, not against the position that the King James is not in the vulgar tongue (my argument) but that a translation in the vulgar tongue is not necessary (the WCF position).
> 
> If the Apostles used a non-vulgar translation and the Helenists used a non-vulgar translation and the non-Helenists used a non-vulgar translation, then it's ok for us to use a non-vulgar translation. Is that what you're saying?



Seth,

Good question. My point is that we may be misunderstanding what the divines meant by "vulgar". My contention is that older version of the same language are not outside of the bounds of vulgarity. Of course, exceptions would be when a older version becomes unintelligible, such as Wycliffe's English.

Cheers,


----------



## chbrooking

Ken, 
Precisely (about the wind) -- which is why I was stunned by the sudden vicious verbal stares I was getting.

No. I don't think agreement with #2 is required by the confession. I think, though, that there appeared to be a developing concensus on that -- until people sensed a threat to their precious KJV. There seemed to be a desperate attempt to redefine vulgar to permit the KJV to fit within it. I found that kind of silly. And since there are no KJO in the sense that I was describing, no one should have found my position offensive -- but some did.


----------



## Claudiu

chbrooking said:


> The shift in the conversation happened at post 32 (mine).
> If you think about it, the OP is only a significant matter for KJO partisans.
> 
> Around post 32, people had begun to get defensive about the use of the KJV. I wanted to clarify that my arguments do not impugn the use of the KJV, they only permit (actually require) translation into the vernacular -- something that is only at odds with a KJO position.
> 
> So it's not exactly a hijacking or a derailment. It's relevant to the OP.





Nobody here is arguing for KJV only, at least I think.
Those who mentioned that the KJV can still be considered vulgar are only defending the use of KJV as a translation that can still be used for today. While the KJV can be used, so can other modern translations.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 05:44:04 EST-----



chbrooking said:


> Ken,
> Precisely (about the wind) -- which is why I was stunned by the sudden vicious verbal stares I was getting.
> 
> No. I don't think agreement with #2 is required by the confession. I think, though, that there appeared to be a developing concensus on that -- until people sensed a threat to their precious KJV. There seemed to be a desperate attempt to redefine vulgar to permit the KJV to fit within it. I found that kind of silly. And since there are no KJO in the sense that I was describing, no one should have found my position offensive -- but some did.



I don't think people were threatened, but rather just trying to make a point that the KJV can be still vulgar.

I don't think there was a desperate attempt either. 

The disagreement is over whether the KJV is vulgar or not. Some think it is, others don't. So we shouldn't even be bringing up KJO in my opinion


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> Ken,
> Precisely (about the wind) -- which is why I was stunned by the sudden vicious verbal stares I was getting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't think agreement with #2 is required by the confession. *I think, though, that there appeared to be a developing concensus on that* -- until people sensed a threat to their precious KJV. There seemed to be a desperate attempt to redefine vulgar to permit the KJV to fit within it. I found that kind of silly. And since there are no KJO in the sense that I was describing, no one should have found my position offensive -- but some did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a misapprehension on your part. This is something that has been vigorously defended on PB for years. I for one find the argument that the KJ is not 'English' anymore, or that we shouldn't teach our children English but adapt our Bible to their vernacular reckless. Think about where that leads. As Tim pointed out, the English vernacular changes so fast it would require a new version on a yearly basis.
> 
> This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## sastark

KMK said:


> This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.



But the problem is, that's not what the divines wrote. They wrote "vulgar" not "not in Latin".

I agree with the problem of modern English changing too rapidly, but a new translation once every...I don't know...400 YEARS seems reasonable to me.


----------



## KMK

sastark said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is, that's not what the divines wrote. They wrote "vulgar" not "not in Latin".
> 
> I agree with the problem of modern English changing too rapidly, but a new translation once every...I don't know...400 YEARS seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...


Point taken.


----------



## Claudiu

sastark said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my contention: 'vulgar' does not mean 'vernacular'. The Divines were not in a battle over which vernacular the Bible should be read, but a battle with Rome over whether the Bible was so erudite that it should only be read in Latin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is, that's not what the divines wrote. They wrote "vulgar" not "not in Latin".
> 
> I agree with the problem of modern English changing too rapidly, but a new translation once every...I don't know...400 YEARS seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...




That means we still got to 2011


----------



## MW

If "prevent" and "wist" disqualify the AV from being regarded as "vulgar English," then "wicked" and "awesome" equally disqualify modern versions.


----------



## Claudiu

armourbearer said:


> If "prevent" and "wist" disqualify the AV from being regarded as "vulgar English," then "wicked" and "awesome" equally disqualify modern versions.



Interesting point


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Hard to use CT versions of the bible in my opinion with certain passages missing regarding the Trinity and the Lord's prayer. See WSC questions 6 and 107 as well as the WCF on the Trinity.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> If "prevent" and "wist" disqualify the AV from being regarded as "vulgar English," then "wicked" and "awesome" equally disqualify modern versions.



Not so. In the latter case, the word is used in different ways by different people. That does not mean the language has changed. (especially since the new meaning is slang). In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.



That is incorrect. According to the person giving the account, the words were used in the public school in North Carolina.


----------



## SolaGratia

New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:

What is dissipation (Titus 1:6) = The AV uses "riot"

perpetrate (Ruth 4:5) = AV has "raise up"

Syrtis (Acts 27:17) = AV uses "quicksands"

Satraps (Dan.6:2) = AV uses "princes"

Ascent of Heres (Judges 8:13) = AV uses "the sun was up"

*Pergamum did you see the ascent of the heres? 


Offal (Lev. 4:11) = AV has "Dung"

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-bible-how-overcome-language-barrier-40664/index2.html


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect. According to the person giving the account, the words were used in the public school in North Carolina.
Click to expand...


I suppose it is possible that someone somewhere used "wist" (most likely in a discussion of Shakespeare in a school), but I have lived 40 years in the US in several regions, and have attended several top 10 universities, and I can say that I have never once in my life ever heard someone use the word (apart from the KJV) nor have I ever even heard a report of the same.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> I suppose it is possible that someone somewhere used "wist" (most likely in a discussion of Shakespeare in a school), but I have lived 40 years in the US in several regions, and have attended several top 10 universities, and I can say that I have never once in my life ever heard someone use the word (apart from the KJV) nor have I ever even heard a report of the same.



If one examines the "prevenient" discussion he will see the context in which the words were being discussed and will not approach the thread "unwittingly."


----------



## TimV

> New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:
> 
> What is dissipation (Titus 1:6) = The AV uses "riot"
> 
> perpetrate (Ruth 4:5) = AV has "raise up"
> 
> Syrtis (Acts 27:17) = AV uses "quicksands"
> 
> Satraps (Dan.6:2) = AV uses "princes"
> 
> Ascent of Heres (Judges 8:13) = AV uses "the sun was up"
> 
> *Pergamum did you see the ascent of the heres?
> 
> 
> Offal (Lev. 4:11) = AV has "Dung"



That is confusing, picking and chosing and shows a lack of basic vocabulary. Paul Brenner was called a Satrap in Iraq in all the major newspapers, for just one example. 

Gill, what's a munition? Without looking it up.


----------



## SolaGratia

Tim,

Don't go after me, I am not a bible translation. 

I' m just pointing out that in addition to the KJV, contemporary translations also used words not normally found in today's English.

I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Without looking it up.



Why isn't he permitted to look it up? Vocabulary building exercises generally utilise a dictionary.


----------



## MW

SolaGratia said:


> I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.



Yes, the problem is with the way English has been taught in schools as a medium of individualist self-expression rather than a language whereby we seek to communicate within society and culture.


----------



## SolaGratia

MUNITION
KJV Dictionary - munition

MUNI'TION, n. L. munitio, from munio, to fortify.

1. Fortification.

2. Ammunition; whatever materials are used in war for defense, or for annoying an enemy. The word includes guns of all kinds, mortars, &c. and their loading.

3. Provisions of a garrison or fortress, or for ships of war,and in general for an army; stores of all kinds for a fort, an army or navy.

Munition-ships, ships which convey military and naval stores of any kind, and attend or follow a fleet to supply ships of war.

KJV Dictionary - munition


----------



## Edward

Glenn Ferrell said:


> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
> I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?



I think it is probably safe to ignore anything that that pastor might have to say. 

I wonder if he sees the irony of invoking the WCF to say that the KJV is not in the vulgar tongue.


----------



## Claudiu

armourbearer said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I beginning to think that the problem is not with any English translation, but with the English speaking Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the problem is with the way English has been taught in schools as a medium of individualist self-expression rather than a language whereby we seek to communicate within society and culture.
Click to expand...


I agree. It seems people would rather have something translated to them in an "easier" way, instead of really actually learning English.


----------



## SolaGratia

I wish I could have used the same argument that is being used against the KJV here when I was in College, especially as a Biology major. 

Imagine asking today's Science authors or Scientist to change words like photosynthesis, mitochondria, mitosis, telephase, etc. because poor little Johnnny cannot understand them in today's English. Yeah Right! 


The Church in a way does have its own language or key words belonging only to the Church just like any other study, system, institution, sport, etc. For example, justification, propitiation, mortification, sanctification, atonement, hell, etc. Should we change these words as well, since I never hear these word being use in the street?

Of course not, some words we do need to change, but others we keep and teach new believers and our children what is the understanding of these words. Common sense folks!

That's why the Puritans also wrote commentaries. I read my KJV, I listen to my pastor ( who sometimes needs to explain a certain passage from the Greek/Hebrew), I also read the KJV together with the Puritans or the Church past, I listen to another another pastor, etc.

*Highly Recommend this*: http://www.puritannica.com/index.html


----------



## fredtgreco

Edward said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is probably safe to ignore anything that that pastor might have to say.
> 
> I wonder if he sees the irony of invoking the WCF to say that the KJV is not in the vulgar tongue.
> 
> Well, if he wants to use the SMS version of the Bible, he can be hip, but I don't think any reformed preacher would.
> 
> For more info, Google Bible in text message and scroll to Bible Converted Into Text For SMS Generation : Digital-Lifestyles
> 
> (No link posted - 2nd commandment violation on that page).
> 
> But next time you see him, you can quote some Ecclesiastes to him:
> 
> Wrk hard at wateva u do. U will soon go 2 da wrld of da dead, where no 1 wrks or thinks or reasons or knws NEting.
Click to expand...


It is beyond ridiculous to jump from saying AV language is not common English (which is demonstrably true, even of the most erudite of fora and publications in the 21st century) to hip hop garbage. No one, not the least the minister in the OP was arguing for that.

To tar the (unnamed) man with such is a violation of the 9th commandment.


----------



## Philip

I tend to avoid the KJV just because it sounds "Churchy" and people tend to be so familiar with the phraseology that they tune it out a bit. I'm more inclined toward modern translation for this reason (and there's always the NKJV, if you're worried about "modern translation"--ironic given that the KJV was written to compete with the Geneva Bible).


----------



## fredtgreco

Let me also add that I would not agree with the position described in the OP that WCF 1.8 prohibits the use of the KJV.


----------



## JM

> Ebonibible - Genesis Chapter 1
> 
> [1] In da beginnin' Big Daddy created da heaven an' da earth.
> 
> [2] And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep. And da Spirit o' Big Daddy groved upon da face o' da waters.



This can't be a modern English translation? It's got to be a joke.


----------



## Edward

fredtgreco said:


> It is beyond ridiculous to jump from saying AV language is not common English (which is demonstrably true, even of the most erudite of fora and publications in the 21st century) to hip hop garbage. No one, not the least the minister in the OP was arguing for that.
> 
> To tar the (unnamed) man with such is a violation of the 9th commandment.



Since your posts are almost always directly on target, I'll take your chastisement to heart. You are correct, I can't know what the speaker would consider to be vulgar tongue. By reaching for an extreme example, I may well have wronged a man that I don't know.


----------



## chbrooking

I guess I was correct about the vicious verbal stares. 

Please note that nothing disparaging was said about the KJV. Nevertheless, since the claim was made that it isn't the way we speak today, and since the claim was made that the WCF 1.8 speaks of putting the Bible in the hands of the common man, those who love the KJV got all up in arms. Can somebody explain that?



fredtgreco said:


> Let me also add that I would not agree with the position described in the OP that WCF 1.8 prohibits the use of the KJV.



For the record, neither do I. I never said that it prohibits the use of the KJV. I was very explicit about that.


----------



## DonP

I know some people feel the few places in the NKJV they disagree with totally make it intolerable, but other than the plural ye, which of course is not inspired and was not in Greek or Heb, I see no reason to hold onto the passing language of the KJV 

The issue is the TR primarily manuscript and the NKJV is faithful enough. 

If children are not brought up on KJV in childhood, it is quite difficult if not impossible for them to understand so many passages it is an unnecessary burden and hindrance to put on them, akin to the Jewish of the Way who held onto the OT laws.

Isn't it time we let go of that and if you don't like the NKJV then lets get a new and more accurate translation of the TR. 

Seems like the others can keep pumping out new translations one after another. 

I find youth have more errors in understanding and lack understanding of many passages due to the KJV than the "errors" one may accuse the ESV of or even NASB. 

The NIV however easy to read makes too many assumptions to be a reliable translation. 

So why don't we have a better TR translation in the current and evolving language? Because of some zealous attachments to the KJV of many of the TR men. 

I still use the TR mainly because I have so much of it memorized and can use Strong's to study easier. 

But to my grandchildren we read out of NKJV and our church uses ESV so they may switch for ease and consistency. 

Again to me, the argument to hold on to KJV to prevent error, causes more lack of proper Biblical understanding in youth than they will miss or than there are erros in the text of more modern translations.

So if you raise your kids on KJV fine, if not those coming to the church older, I would discourage it. We should be freeks to the world by our lifestyle, not our language.


----------



## Grymir

To the OP, I've taught Sunday School for adults and VBS for kids. I was pressured not to use the KJV, but I use it anyway, as it is the Bible I'm used to using. Neither the adults or kids had any problems. Especially the kids. Afterwards, the people pressuring me relaxed and went with what I was using. They thought it would be a problem, but it turned out not to be one.


----------



## bookslover

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?



Considering how much he English language has changed in the last 400 years, the answer is no. The Elizabethan/Jacobean language of the KJV is no longer current English - just as the language we use now will probably be outdated 400 years from now.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

PeaceMaker said:


> I know some people feel the few places in the NKJV they disagree with totally make it intolerable, but other than the plural ye, which of course is not inspired and was not in Greek or Heb, I see no reason to hold onto the passing language of the KJV...



Not to be too technical but the ye's and thee's are in the Greek and Hebrew. The problem is modern English has no way of distinguishing between the singular and plural 2nd person as KJV English did. This causes no short amount of issues when narcissistic Americans get a hold of a modern translations and assume automatically every "you" is singular.


----------



## LawrenceU

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know some people feel the few places in the NKJV they disagree with totally make it intolerable, but other than the plural ye, which of course is not inspired and was not in Greek or Heb, I see no reason to hold onto the passing language of the KJV...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to be too technical but the ye's and thee's are in the Greek and Hebrew. The problem is modern English has no way of distinguishing between the singular and plural 2nd person as KJV English did. This causes no short amount of issues when narcissistic Americans get a hold of a modern translations and assume automatically every "you" is singular.
Click to expand...


In the South we still distinguish between singular and plural in the 2nd person.

2nd Person Sing: You
2nd Person Plural; Y'all


----------



## chbrooking

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the former case, the words are never used by anyone anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect. According to the person giving the account, the words were used in the public school in North Carolina.
Click to expand...


But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

*OP question: Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?*

Yes.

First of all, the WCF's use of "vulgar language" is not how we have generally been using it here in this thread.

OED, vulgar 1.) The common or usual language of a country....4. a) Written or spoken, translated into, the usual language of a country.

OED, vernacular [from a Latin root meaning native, indigenous] 3. a) Of literary works, etc.: The native language of a particular country or people.

In the Preface of the 1611 AV, ¶ 8, it says, 

"...the godly-learned... for the behalf and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they... provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated."​
The clear sense of the words "vulgar language" as used by the Westminster divines is the native language of one's country, its mother tongue, and not one imposed by ecclesiastics, as Rome had done with Latin.

In this light the KJV as well as the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc., all being in the native language of English, all qualify to fall under the term vulgar or mother tongue. Therefore, it is false to say the use of only the KJV in the public worship of the church is unconfessional because the English language has changed since the last updating edition of that Bible. It is still in the vulgar or mother tongue of the English-speaking peoples.

Clark, when you say you are receiving "vicious verbal stares" from folks for your position on the KJVO, I gather you mean perceived hostility. It appears (in post #81) you thought "people sensed a threat to their precious KJV" and were giving you an evil eye of sorts. I couldn't see it, but then I'm not in your shoes (although "precious KJV" could be taken as slightly sarcastic) . Whether that is accurate or not — just so you know — I have come on strongly here at PB about the *imperative* of graciousness and loving kindness toward opponents in these textual discussions, as put forth in the beginning of this thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/.

Soon enough we will be a community under fire from the unbelieving culture, and we have need of unity in mutual forbearance, respect, and love, that we may stand as one people in the presence our God, not allowing non-essentials to divide and embitter us.

Steve


----------



## Rich Koster

*vulgar* |ˈvəlgər|
adjective
lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined : the vulgar trappings of wealth.
• making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude : a vulgar joke.
• dated characteristic of or belonging to the masses.
DERIVATIVES
vulgarity |ˌvəlˈgaritē| noun ( pl. -ties)
vulgarly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin vulgaris, from vulgus ‘common people.’ The original sense was [used in ordinary calculations] (surviving in vulgar fraction ) and [in ordinary use, used by the people] (surviving in vulgar Latin and vulgar tongue ).


*vulgar tongue*
noun ( the vulgar tongue) dated
the national or vernacular language of a people (used typically to contrast such a language with Latin).

*vernacular *|vərˈnakyələr|
noun
1 (usu. the vernacular) the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region : he wrote in the vernacular to reach a larger audience. See note at dialect .
• [with adj. ] the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.
2 architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings : buildings in which Gothic merged into farmhouse vernacular.
adjective
1 (of language) spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language.
• (of speech or written works) using such a language : vernacular literature.
2 (of architecture) concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.


----------



## rbcbob

Rich Koster said:


> *vulgar* |ˈvəlgər|
> adjective
> lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined : the vulgar trappings of wealth.
> • making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude : a vulgar joke.
> • dated characteristic of or belonging to the masses.
> DERIVATIVES
> vulgarity |ˌvəlˈgaritē| noun ( pl. -ties)
> vulgarly adverb
> ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin vulgaris, from vulgus ‘common people.’ The original sense was [used in ordinary calculations] (surviving in vulgar fraction ) and [in ordinary use, used by the people] (surviving in vulgar Latin and vulgar tongue ).
> 
> 
> *vulgar tongue*
> noun ( the vulgar tongue) dated
> the national or vernacular language of a people (used typically to contrast such a language with Latin).
> 
> *vernacular *|vərˈnakyələr|
> noun
> 1 (usu. the vernacular) the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region : he wrote in the vernacular to reach a larger audience. See note at dialect .
> • [with adj. ] the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.
> 2 architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings : buildings in which Gothic merged into farmhouse vernacular.
> adjective
> 1 (of language) spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language.
> • (of speech or written works) using such a language : vernacular literature.
> 2 (of architecture) concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.



See also post #21 for historical context (both world history and this thread!!! )


----------



## MW

chbrooking said:


> But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.



It wasn't that the language was unfamiliar, but merely the use of a few words which they had not associated with that specific context. Words + context = meaning. The answer is to tell people what the words mean in that context, not to restrict their vocabulary.


----------



## Claudiu

armourbearer said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't that the language was unfamiliar, but merely the use of a few words which thy had not associated with that specific context. Words + context = meaning. The answer is to tell people what the words mean in that context, not to restrict their vocabulary.
Click to expand...


Not to restrict their vocabulary...I like that


----------



## Rich Koster

rbcbob said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> *vulgar* |ˈvəlgər|
> adjective
> lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined : the vulgar trappings of wealth.
> • making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude : a vulgar joke.
> • dated characteristic of or belonging to the masses.
> DERIVATIVES
> vulgarity |ˌvəlˈgaritē| noun ( pl. -ties)
> vulgarly adverb
> ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin vulgaris, from vulgus ‘common people.’ The original sense was [used in ordinary calculations] (surviving in vulgar fraction ) and [in ordinary use, used by the people] (surviving in vulgar Latin and vulgar tongue ).
> 
> 
> *vulgar tongue*
> noun ( the vulgar tongue) dated
> the national or vernacular language of a people (used typically to contrast such a language with Latin).
> 
> *vernacular *|vərˈnakyələr|
> noun
> 1 (usu. the vernacular) the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region : he wrote in the vernacular to reach a larger audience. See note at dialect .
> • [with adj. ] the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.
> 2 architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings : buildings in which Gothic merged into farmhouse vernacular.
> adjective
> 1 (of language) spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language.
> • (of speech or written works) using such a language : vernacular literature.
> 2 (of architecture) concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See also post #21 for historical context (both world history and this thread!!! )
Click to expand...


Just some dictionary use to make sure we were all singing off of the same page


----------



## TimV

> What do you guys think...in a simple answer.
> I just want to see what people really think about this.



No. No way.



> the terminology used by people belonging to a specified group or engaging in a specialized activity : gardening vernacular.



To say the 1611 version uses the Vulgar Tongue is bizarre. The arguments supporting this use the same basic logic as those arguments supporting unicorns, dragons and troglodytes.

But, WCF 1.8 doesn't say that the KJV, or any other translation shouldn't be used in the pulpit, does it? Is it just me? Isn't the idea that a vulgar translation be available? And don't we have several?

I mean really! I love the KJV. And there isn't any major Reformed denomination that forbids it's use in the pulpit, is there? Thousands of brilliant people, and none of them claim the KJV is against the WCF? Isn't that weighty?


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> I mean really! I love the KJV. And there isn't any major Reformed denomination that forbids it's use in the pulpit, is there? Thousands of brilliant people, and none of them claim the KJV is against the WCF? Isn't that weighty?



Which part is weighty, the fact that it isn't forbidden, or the fact that you love it? 

Seriously, this argument should bear weight, as does the argument that many brilliant people use the NIV.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> To say the 1611 version uses the Vulgar Tongue is bizarre.



University level English teachers don't seem to think so, as they generally classify the language of 1611 as belonging to "Modern English."

I wouldn't ordinarily reference Wikipedia, but its article on early modern English states the matter plainly when it maintains,



> Current readers of English are generally able to understand Early Modern English, though occasionally with difficulties arising from grammar changes, changes in the meanings of some words, and spelling differences.


----------



## bookslover

rpavich said:


> The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.



LOL. The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.

The purpose of the Bible is to communicate God's thoughts to His people. When the language used fails to do this due to obsolescence, it's time to update the language.

Beautiful language is nice. But, when it comes to the Bible, beauty of language must take a back seat to accurate communication - because of the very nature of the Bible.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.



This statement indicates a gross misunderstanding as to the nature and function of a dictionary.


----------



## KMK

bookslover said:


> LOL. The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.



The fact that there is a King James dictionary demonstrates that her translators valued accuracy above all else.


----------



## N. Eshelman

rbcbob said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, *therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come*, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
> I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to understand the word *vulgar* in the sense used by the Westminster Divines in the middle of the 17th century.
> 
> Vulgar, adj. *1391*, common, ordinary, in Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe, borrowed from the Latin vulgaris of or pertaining to the common people … The meaning of course, low, ill-bred, is first recorded in English in *1643*. The sense of common or customarily used, vernacular … is first recorded in English in *1483* … The meaning of make vulgar, coarsen, is first recorded in English in *1756*
> CHAMBERS DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY
> 
> As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.
> 
> Obviously, as the word has been changing, it increasingly connoted to the hearer the idea of low, undignified, coarse and improper.
> 
> Thus added pressure is upon the Church to retranslate the original to achieve the goal of perspicuity, and yet not fall into the trap of being trendy.
Click to expand...


According to the definition as 'ordinary language' the KJV does NOT constitute the vulgar tongue. This very text from the WCF was what made me switch from using the KJV as well. I think that the issue is SO important as to not be a hindrance to the Gospel. We need to be able to set our own traditions aside, despite all the arguments for them, and understand that the Gospel is what is at stake. And if people cannot understand the Scriptures- they will not be saved. 

And for the argument that 'anyone can learn the KJV English'... true... but would you be so insensitive as to say that anyone can learn the Greek and Hebrew to learn the Scriptures? 

Glenn, consider this matter seriously.


----------



## SolaGratia

How is the KJV a hindrace to the message of the Gospel?

How is the Gospel at stake with the KJV?

When it comes to understanding the Scriptures:

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 1 (OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES):

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, *we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word*: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

*7*. *All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them*

The fact is more people have come to know the Gospel with the KJV than with any other translation out there.


----------



## KMK

nleshelman said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, *therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come*, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.​
> I told him I’d think about it. Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to understand the word *vulgar* in the sense used by the Westminster Divines in the middle of the 17th century.
> 
> Vulgar, adj. *1391*, common, ordinary, in Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe, borrowed from the Latin vulgaris of or pertaining to the common people … The meaning of course, low, ill-bred, is first recorded in English in *1643*. The sense of common or customarily used, vernacular … is first recorded in English in *1483* … The meaning of make vulgar, coarsen, is first recorded in English in *1756*
> CHAMBERS DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGY
> 
> As we may see, the WCF very likely still used the word to refer to the language commonly understood by the congregation who was hearing it read to them.
> 
> Obviously, as the word has been changing, it increasingly connoted to the hearer the idea of low, undignified, coarse and improper.
> 
> Thus added pressure is upon the Church to retranslate the original to achieve the goal of perspicuity, and yet not fall into the trap of being trendy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the definition as 'ordinary language' the KJV does NOT constitute the vulgar tongue. This very text from the WCF was what made me switch from using the KJV as well. I think that the issue is SO important as to not be a hindrance to the Gospel. We need to be able to set our own traditions aside, despite all the arguments for them, and understand that the Gospel is what is at stake. And if people cannot understand the Scriptures- they will not be saved.
> 
> And for the argument that 'anyone can learn the KJV English'... true... but would you be so insensitive as to say that anyone can learn the Greek and Hebrew to learn the Scriptures?
> 
> Glenn, consider this matter seriously.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the Gospel in modern translations does not need to be explained?

I am glad that you take the matter seriously, but to imply that those who prefer KJV are simply following 'tradition' and are 'insensitive' is to belie the fact that you have not or do not understand the arguments in this thread.


----------



## MW

nleshelman said:


> I think that the issue is SO important as to not be a hindrance to the Gospel.



Making sure the gospel is not hindered is of utmost importance, therefore ministers of the gospel should be careful to preach the true gospel and not leave the untrained reader to understand the Scriptures without a guide, Acts 8:31.


----------



## SolaGratia

One can read the Westminster Confession of Faith with KJV Scripture Proofs but not be able to read the KJV.


----------



## Claudiu

bookslover said:


> rpavich said:
> 
> 
> 
> The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Huh? That argument doesn't really hold when you think about it. We have dictionaries for the modern English as well. Having a dictionary does not mean that a language is obsolete.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 12:44:35 EST-----



SolaGratia said:


> One can read the Westminster Confession of Faith with KJV Scripture Proofs but not be able to read the KJV.






Thats what I was thinking earlier


----------



## N. Eshelman

SolaGratia said:


> How is the KJV a hindrace to the message of the Gospel?
> 
> How is the Gospel at stake with the KJV?
> 
> When it comes to understanding the Scriptures:
> 
> WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 1 (OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES):
> 
> 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, *we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word*: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
> 
> *7*. *All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them*
> 
> The fact is more people have come to know the Gospel with the KJV than with any other translation out there.



Gil, 

I acknowledge that the KJV is a wonderful and faithful translation. I also am a TR man, which makes me love it even more... but I do believe that if people are not able to understand the words of the Scriptures then we must have a translation which is understood. 

The masses do not speak this way and many people actually get caught up in the style of the language instead of hearing the message. 

I was saved by God's grace via the KJV. But the fact is that most people read at a 4th grade reading level.... we are a culture that is far from KJV-speak. You know I prefer the ESV (which is also on a 12th grade reading level, along with the KJV), but my main reason is so that I can preach the Scriptures without having to first take the translation and make it in current usage. 

I was talking with our friend, Edgar I., about this earlier in the week (before I saw the post), and for someone who ministers in two languages, such as you and Edgar do, you should realize the importance of having a clear translation. 

The Gospel is at stake when people stumble over our use and love for something that is not essential to the Gospel. God condescended to give us the Gospel of life and we should not have to teach people archaic language in order to explain the wonder and beauty of that condescension. 

Well get sushi soon and talk more about this!  I am on my way to Seattle tomorrow and will be back in a week and a half. Let's get together.


----------



## Claudiu

nleshelman said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I do believe that if people are not able to understand the words of the Scriptures then we must have a translation which is understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is arguing against not using another translation. Rather, I think we are arguing for the point that we should be able to use whatever translation: Be it ESV, NKJV or even the KJV (which many people are on the side of saying that it is not vulgar).
> 
> I think the best translation should be used... one that people will understand. If someone needs the ESV, let them use it. If people are able to understand the KJV why take it away?
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

nleshelman said:


> The Gospel is at stake when people stumble over our use and love for something that is not essential to the Gospel. God condescended to give us the Gospel of life and we should not have to teach people archaic language in order to explain the wonder and beauty of that condescension.



If what you say is true, you will need to teach people 'modern' language as well. 

Look, the parts of the Gospel that are difficult to understand in the KJV, are difficult to understand, period. (There isn't a modern English word with which to accurately translate ἱλαστήριον, for example.) As preachers, we better be explaining the Gospel no matter which version we use.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Is it not important to use the definition of "vulgar" as it was meant in the Confession? Was it "the contemporary dialect" of a nation's or people's language, or was it simply "the mother tongue" of that nation or people? To impose a definition of vulgar (and there are a number) not meant will lead us down the wrong trail, and into all sorts of "bizarre" conclusions!

Most English Bibles fall into the category of "our vulgar tongue" — with some folks preferring the latest English and some the old standard, but they're all in the ballpark. What a tempest in a teapot!


----------



## N. Eshelman

KMK said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gospel is at stake when people stumble over our use and love for something that is not essential to the Gospel. God condescended to give us the Gospel of life and we should not have to teach people archaic language in order to explain the wonder and beauty of that condescension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what you say is true, you will need to teach people 'modern' language as well.
> 
> Look, the parts of the Gospel that are difficult to understand in the KJV, are difficult to understand, period. (There isn't a modern English word with which to accurately translate ἱλαστήριον, for example.) As preachers, we better be explaining the Gospel no matter which version we use.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## DMcFadden

I think that the discussion is muddied by the sentimental attachment Reformed Christians often have towards Reformation Bibles. Hey, I don't use the KJV hardly at all but asked my wife for an Allan KJV for my birthday.

I would love to hear an historian weigh in here. However, absent that, my guess is that vulgar was contrasted with Latin. If you really push the limits of the term, you could end up with a Good News for Modern Man or CEV only position as compatible with the confession.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

DMcFadden said:


> If you really push the limits of the term, you could end up with a Good News for Modern Man or CEV only position as compatible with the confession.


Exactly. The recent New Living Translation Study Bible immediately came to my mind when reading this thread.

AMR


----------



## DonP

cecat90 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they weren't understood by the children. That was the point I was making. The community was actually depriving their children of the word, because it was in a language quite foreign to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't that the language was unfamiliar, but merely the use of a few words which thy had not associated with that specific context. Words + context = meaning. The answer is to tell people what the words mean in that context, not to restrict their vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to restrict their vocabulary...I like that
Click to expand...


Yes it would be horrible to restrict a child's vocabulary so he no longer uses words like these with his friends and teachers:
wot ye not
help meet
Smiteth
licketh
pisseth
bewrayeth
Sheweth
reconeth
quickeneth 
waxeth

This is not about expanding vocabulary it is speaking the current language with proper grammar.
Though one mighteth say technically that it is the same vulgar language it is incorrect to say it is not a real hindrance to an adult or child to read this archaic and no longer used style of language, just as going back a bit further when the f , v and s are flipped among others it is still called English, yet unnecessary to not translate into current written language. 

One only need look at the sales of the modern versions to see what they prefer for their understanding. They do not buy these based on the Gk text issue or anything other than readability. 

Even if one would maintain a need to retain the plural and sing 2nd person, retaining the old language no longer used is not the way to do it. 

I teach Sr high Sunday school also and it is more difficult to understand and often children who read king james as well as adults who do, do not understand what they read. And when it is read in another version the get clarity.


----------



## Thomas2007

Glenn Ferrell said:


> A fellow pastor and respected friend visiting this past Lord’s Day challenged my use of the KJV for reading in public worship as possibly a violation of WCF I:8




Dear Pastor Ferrel,

For your consideration, I would like to take the opportunity and attempt to answer your question: _"Does the KJV qualify as the “vulgar language” (as intended by the WCF) of our time and nation?"_

Part of WCF 1.8 in question

_therefore they are to be translated into the *vulgar language of every nation* unto which they come_

The previous four pages of argument, and your friends challenge, presupposing a segregated priority and definition of "vulgar language" as a "_peculiar idiom_" is representative of the democratic mentality of our age, its necessary consequence is a radical truncation of Biblical Authority and should be rejected.

In this case, by direct implication, it subjugates Authority of Scripture by establishing a philological precept that holds language hostage as the true custodian and interpreter of the Word. (e.g., In this approach the philological issues and hermeneutics cannot be separated and exist independent of Scripture). Of course, the essence of the argument is rationalistic and elevates reason as having priority over the Word.

In contrast, our forebears didn't think in these democratic presuppositions, rather, their intention was to bring the Gospel unto all nations consistent with the fully orbed trajectory of Reformed theology whereby Christianity would be established as the common faith, that requires the establishment of the Scriptures in the native tongue, not a peculiar idiom. Understandability was always second to fidelity and can only be derived from fidelity - not simplicity. For the Colonial Puritans, for example, the Authorized Version quickly became the foundation upon which the entire commonwealth was structured, quoting verbatim in their charters and laws. All of life was to be anchored upon its very words. (see, Harry Stout, "Word and Order in Colonial New England," p 19-38.) Hence, "vulgar tongue" was never contemplated as lowest common denominator of intellectual society as is advocated in this thread. The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.

The Church does not need the Scriptures in a so-called "modern" idiom, it needs an accurate translation that conveys the *meaning of the original languages* in our native tongue. As you are well aware the same section of the WCF recognizes that the "native language" of Hebrew and Greek are authentical - hence the goal of translation is to carry that meaning as accurately as possible into the "vulgar" or *native tongue of a nation*. The goal is to establish the Word of God as foundational to cognitive philology in a native tongue of a nation consistent with the Great Commission, not to appeal to the individual. The purpose is to establish God's Word in an authoritative translation for the entire society to be structured as both law and gospel so that men may live godly lives and "_that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope._" (WCF 1.8)

Your friends challenge collapsing this fully orbed meaning of WCF 1.8 under the rubric of a democratic impulse that shifts the locus of cognitive philology from establishment to populism would have horrified the Westminster Divines. This principle can readily be seen in the many activities they engaged to insure that the Authorized Version was not published outside of the authorized printings because they viewed simple spelling errors as "_corrupt and dangerous to religion_." (See Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p 25) How much more so would they have viewed subjecting it to peculiar idioms in edition after edition after edition!

Certainly language does change and words fall out of use or change meaning but the language and spelling of the Authorized Version has been conservatively updated several times with the latest being 1769, hence the Authorized Version you are using is not the language of the 1611 translation. And of course, fidelity to the original texts made the 1611 version "out of date" in 1611 as well. 

Our current editions are in "modern" English as it regards our native tongue representing the meaning of the original languages. Certainly there are a handful or two of particular terms we no longer use, but if we can publish upteen different "Life Application" Bibles with copius footnotes on every page then we can publish an edition with footnotes defining a few dozen words. (e.g., 1 Cor 10:25, (1) shambles means butcher shop or meat market).

When you preach from the Authorized Version then you preach the Word that is organically and covenantally connected to the lives of your sheep historically established in our nation consistent with the fully orbed meaning and intent of our Confession. It is a landmark of the Christian faith in our land and a hallmark of the Great Commission - you can't pull up or remove landmarks of the Church in America without serious consequences.

In Christ,

Thomas


----------



## larryjf

bookslover said:


> The fact that there even IS a King James dictionary demonstrates that the language used is obsolete.



Does that mean that the dictionaries of current English demonstrates that current English is also obsolete?


----------



## rpavich

Larry,
C'mon...





> Does that mean that the dictionaries of current English demonstrates that current English is also obsolete?



You completely glossed over the fact that the context of his statement was in reaction to this statement by the software manufacture of the KJV dictionary:



> "Is the King James Bible full of hard to understand, archaic, obsolete words? Do you know the meanings of "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"?
> The King James Bible can be difficult to understand for many people who are not accustomed to its vocabulary. Using the King James Dictionary you can now learn the meaning of all those obsolete, *extinct Bible words*, like "concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist"...
> 
> The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.
> 
> Have you ever been puzzled by a word in the King James Bible and tried to look it up using a regular dictionary like Websters or the American Heritage Dictionary? Don't despair... Go directly to our handy dictionary containing over *860 words deemed archaic* and find its definition quickly..."




You are mixing up apples and oranges; I think you know what point he was making right?


----------



## Grafted In

"Fetch those victuals in that tow sack, and mete out a mess for that sottish and churlish chapman."[/QUOTE]

What did you say?


----------



## larryjf

rpavich said:


> Larry,
> C'mon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that the dictionaries of current English demonstrates that current English is also obsolete?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You completely glossed over the fact that the context of his statement was in reaction to this statement by the software manufacture of the KJV dictionary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Is the King James Bible full of hard to understand, archaic, obsolete words? Do you know the meanings of "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"?
> The King James Bible can be difficult to understand for many people who are not accustomed to its vocabulary. Using the King James Dictionary you can now learn the meaning of all those obsolete, *extinct Bible words*, like "concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist"...
> 
> The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.
> 
> Have you ever been puzzled by a word in the King James Bible and tried to look it up using a regular dictionary like Websters or the American Heritage Dictionary? Don't despair... Go directly to our handy dictionary containing over *860 words deemed archaic* and find its definition quickly..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up apples and oranges; I think you know what point he was making right?
Click to expand...


I was only taking the quote from your post...the context that was provided in that post didn't include all the stuff that you've posted here.

I would suggest that if you want your post to be understood within the context of another post, then you should consider quoting all of the material you think is needed for a proper understanding of the context.

There are many times that i don't read all of the posts in a thread, but only reply to specific posts that i think need addressed.

Further, i wonder what words in the KJV would not be found in modern dictionaries. And if they are found in modern dictionaries, then there is no need for a KJV dictionary, which means the point is moot anyways.

I have actually found that learning words as they come up in the KJV has helped me in my vocabulary...and some of the words do come up still. I remember hearing on a news broadcast someone who referenced "purloining" and thinking to myself...hey, i know what that means because it's in my Bible!


----------



## rpavich

Larry,
actually you were responding to another poster, I'm the one who posted the KJV dictionary, not what you responded to, I was just pointing out that your comment made little sense when his was taken in context *which is that since we don't speak KJV language and people still read the KJV but need to know what it's saying there is a market for software to help out*....no offense meant.

I'm not saying that the KJV cannot be understood, I don't think anyone would argue that, but certainly nobody here uses words and phrases as their everyday speech that the KJV does; I think that really was the point.

The fact that there is a dictionary for words in the English language? You don't really think that that has a bearing on the issue of whether the language of the KJV is "common language of the day" or not right?


----------



## TimV

Purloin is not archaic. It is an everyday word.


----------



## larryjf

rpavich said:


> Larry,
> actually you were responding to another poster, I'm the one who posted the KJV dictionary, not what you responded to, I was just pointing out that your comment made little sense when his was taken in context *which is that since we don't speak KJV language and people still read the KJV but need to know what it's saying there is a market for software to help out*....no offense meant.
> 
> I'm not saying that the KJV cannot be understood, I don't think anyone would argue that, but certainly nobody here uses words and phrases as their everyday speech that the KJV does; I think that really was the point.
> 
> The fact that there is a dictionary for words in the English language? You don't really think that that has a bearing on the issue of whether the language of the KJV is "common language of the day" or not right?



Correct, i don't think a dictionary proves that a language is archaic or that it's not...whether it's a KJV dictionary or a current dictionary.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:24:01 EST-----



TimV said:


> Purloin is not archaic. It is an everyday word.



Depends on who you talk to. I don't recall seeing the word in modern versions.

How do we define archaic? Exactly how "common" does it have to be to not be archaic?
We certainly can't count the KJV as archaic if our objective measurement for such is the use of Modern English...since the KJV uses Modern English.

By the way, I say all of this while reading the ESV


----------



## rpavich

Larry,
I guess this thread is done for me...all that can be said has been I guess.

PS: I meant no disrespect by my comments.

I'm also an ESV user


----------



## TimV

> Depends on who you talk to. I don't recall seeing the word in modern versions.
> 
> How do we define archaic? Exactly how "common" does it have to be to not be archaic?



Some newspapers which used the word purloin just today are Counterpunch, Calgary News, Telegraph, Lloyd's List and the Examiner, and that doesn't even exhaust the first page on Google News. Any well read English speaker knows what the word purloin means.

As to the definition of archaic, it means pertaining to a language of the past. In other words, the very opposite of vulgar.

Of course, you can defend the KJV as being vulgar English in the same way you can defend the KJV use of unicorn and dragon. You can just claim fire breathing dinosaurs existed during a time when the human race was literate and left hundreds of thousands of detailed records. And when someone points out that there's no proof, you can just say it's a matter of faith.


----------



## chbrooking

Thomas2007 said:


> The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.



But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel? The authority is in the words, and it is recognized by the Spirit. The style does not lend any authority to it whatsoever, and if it attempts to or seems to, then that is a problem. While he was not averse to high style, Paul made it clear that his message's power was not dependent on its style. 

It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version. 

Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

> Of course, you can defend the KJV as being vulgar English in the same way you can defend the KJV use of unicorn and dragon.



Tim, will you at least acknowledge "vulgar" can be used to mean "mother tongue" as well as "contemporary idiom" — two separate and distinct definitions?


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel?
Click to expand...


Are you saying the Reformers were in error when they chose Elizabethan English rather than the conversational English of their day? If so, then it is you who might take exception to 1:8, not the KJ user.



chbrooking said:


> It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.
> 
> Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.



How about a website where everyone could enter in their age, demographics, education etc. and be provided with a version that is a perfect match. Then everyone could have their own custom Bible, whether a gardener, a high school student, or even a pastor.


----------



## TimV

> 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
> 2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
> 3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
> 4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
> 5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
> 6. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
> 7. lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting.
> 
> –noun 8. Archaic. the common people.
> 9. Obsolete. the vernacular.





> Tim, will you at least acknowledge "vulgar" can be used to mean "mother tongue" as well as "contemporary idiom" — two separate and distinct definitions?



No, that would be bizarre.

Mother tongue is just another word we could all fight over. You and I both have a background in languages, and I can't read the Canterbury Tales in the original without great difficulty and occasional reference to translating help. And the time difference between the time the CT was written and the KJV is less than between the KJV's time and today. Granted the language may have changed less in the last 400 years, but where's the line between mother tongue drawn? Can you give me a date?

Is this "mother tongue"? It's only 200 years before the KJV:

1: Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
2: The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour
4: Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5: Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
6: Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
7: Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
8: Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
9: And smale foweles maken melodye,
10: That slepen al the nyght with open ye
11: (so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
12: Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
13: And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
14: To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15: And specially from every shires ende


And BTW when I read WCF 1.8 I don't see any blanket prohibition against using non vulgar language from the pulpit, but I'm no lawyer.


----------



## chbrooking

KMK said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the Reformers were in error when they chose Elizabethan English rather than the conversational English of their day? If so, then it is you who might take exception to 1:8, not the KJ user.
Click to expand...


First of all, even if I were to say that they were in error on their choice of Elizabethan English, that would not require me to take an exception to 1.8. That's a non sequitur. 

But secondly, I don't think the language of the KJV was foreign to the literate of the age. It is foreign to most in our day and age. I'm not arguing for a lack of style. In Paul's argument that I referenced, he uses literary conventions. But the reformers didn't opt for an archaic style. No one is suggesting that the Bible be translated on a 1st grade reading level. But it should at least be translated in current English. Style, even high style, so long as it it does not obscure the message, isn't really a problem. But when the message is obscured for the sake of a high style, that is a problem. The reformers did not obscure the message, because Elizabethan English was easily understood at the time. That's not the case today.



KMK said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.
> 
> Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a website where everyone could enter in their age, demographics, education etc. and be provided with a version that is a perfect match. Then everyone could have their own custom Bible, whether a gardener, a high school student, or even a pastor.
Click to expand...


Or how about a version where you have to have been raised with an esoteric language or have a masters in English literature to read it ... oh, we already have that -- the KJV. Two can do sarcasm. But it isn't really helpful. Ridiculous rhetoric doesn't move the conversation forward.

I've got to pack for international travel. I can see that this conversation isn't going anywhere. Two sides are entrenched and nobody's listening to the other side. So, I'll bow out of this conversation.


----------



## KMK

chbrooking said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the Reformers were in error when they chose Elizabethan English rather than the conversational English of their day? If so, then it is you who might take exception to 1:8, not the KJ user.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, even if I were to say that they were in error on their choice of Elizabethan English, that would not require me to take an exception to 1.8. That's a non sequitur.
> 
> But secondly, I don't think the language of the KJV was foreign to the literate of the age. It is foreign to most in our day and age. I'm not arguing for a lack of style. In Paul's argument that I referenced, he uses literary conventions. But the reformers didn't opt for an archaic style. No one is suggesting that the Bible be translated on a 1st grade reading level. But it should at least be translated in current English. Style, even high style, so long as it it does not obscure the message, isn't really a problem. But when the message is obscured for the sake of a high style, that is a problem. The reformers did not obscure the message, because Elizabethan English was easily understood at the time. That's not the case today.
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just seems to me that* it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all*. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.
> 
> Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a website where everyone could enter in their age, demographics, education etc. and be provided with a version that is a perfect match. Then everyone could have their own custom Bible, whether a gardener, a high school student, or even a pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or how about a version where you have to have been raised with an esoteric language or have a masters in English literature to read it ... oh, we already have that -- the KJV. Two can do sarcasm. But it isn't really helpful. Ridiculous rhetoric doesn't move the conversation forward.
> 
> I've got to pack for international travel. I can see that this conversation isn't going anywhere. Two sides are entrenched and nobody's listening to the other side. So, I'll bow out of this conversation.
Click to expand...


What is sarcastic about my remark? If one believes that every person has a right to a Bible that is _accessible_, and the technology exists to provide every person with such access, then isn't it required to do what can be done? In fact, the existence of threads such as these demonstrate that we are indeed moving in that direction. The message is, "Tell me about yourself and I will recommend a contemporary English version that best suits you, whether NKJV, NASB, ESV, CEV, NIV, NLT, etc."

I think the argument boils down to which is a higher priority, accuracy or readability. I have listened to the arguments from the other side, whether it appears that way to you or not, and I simply disagree. I believe accuracy is more important. But if the church can come up with a version that is more readable and retains the accuracy of the KJV, then count me in.


----------



## rbcbob

KMK said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is sarcastic about my remark? If one believes that every person has a right to a Bible that is _accessible_, and the technology exists to provide every person with such access, then isn't it required to do what can be done? In fact, *the existence of threads such as these demonstrate that we are indeed moving in that direction. The message is, "Tell me about yourself and I will recommend a contemporary English version that best suits you, whether NKJV, NASB, ESV, CEV, NIV, NLT, etc*."
> 
> I think the argument boils down to which is a higher priority, accuracy or readability. I have listened to the arguments from the other side, whether it appears that way to you or not, and I simply disagree.* I believe accuracy is more important. But if the church can come up with a version that is more readable and retains the accuracy of the KJV, then count me in*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> I am of the same disposition. I have followed (at least tried to follow) this thread and I do think some progress has been made.
> 
> For me accuracy of translation (formal equivalence) is primary followed by readability, a close second.
> 
> I have settled views about manuscript transmission history but I don't make it a hill to die on. I am pleased with my NKJB but have been willing to replace it and waiting for over twenty years for something superior to come along.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## reformedminister

I can't believe that there has been so much discussion about a so rediculous assertion. This should not even be an argument any more than allowing homosexuals to enter the pastoral ministry. There are people that need witnessed to and prayed for.


----------



## DonP

Another weakness is when you have people who pray in KJV language and new people feel they have to speak in tongues in order to pray well or be accepted in the church. 

It is Unnatural. And to have to learn a special prayer language to feel a part of the body is not seeking to edify your brother and keep them from stumbling. 

At least, pray in the vulgar. -- Common language of the people. Vulgar, does not mean highest most formal language. Its vulgar, common, base borders on unseemly esp. to the higher ups who would prefer an elegant form of language. 

As for vulgar meaning "mother tongue", in this case it would have to mean: 
Great Great grandmother tongue.

We may say when I go to court a lawyer may speak a more formal language, or at a formal political event but these can still generally be understood as far as formality though one may be unfamiliar with it. Just as if you went into a hospital or a computer company. 
But these are technical jargon unique by trade. 
Now more of these terms may make there way int the general language of the people, and become part of the common vocabulary but it is not the same as choosing exclusively an antiquated style of language with old endings that are no longer acceptable grammar. 

It is not vocabulary, it is grammar. "eth" is not an accepted and taught suffix or verb ending today. 

If you were asked to take a test in an English class and were asked to supply proper suffixes for look and put looketh instead of looked, looking, looks, etc you would fail the test. 

eth is no longer correct English, High English or any English. It is incorrect. 

Just as you would flunk a spelling test to use the slightly older English as Tim sighted with flipped s,f,v etc. 

This is incorrect English today. The fact there are a few word in Spanish that we can recognize does not mean Spanish is the language of the people in English. 

Nor can we say that if Spanish or Italian originated from Latin that Latin is the smae language. 
This is not the same as Castellano and Common Spanish both of which can be understood by most. 

If our interest is in making the word of God known and the people of all levels of education given the ability to know God, then it needs to be in the most well understood and commonly taught language. 

If you believe due to the elevated place of God out of respect the highest form of language should be used then we just disagree.

And I still use the KJV but will not read out of it to my grandchildren and students. They get NKJV or ESV since I submit to my church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This thread needs a rest.
Frankly, I haven't seen anyone deal with the Assembly's work sufficiently to support this idea WCF 1.8 obviates the KJV now. I think such an argument may not be able to escape the fact such an interpretation of 1.8 would have obviated the KJV, _at the time of the Assembly._


----------

