Modernized WCF

[Branson]

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

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

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

 

[ZackF]

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

 

[JimmyH]

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

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

 

[TylerRay]

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

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

 

[bookslover]

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

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

 

[JimmyH]

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

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

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

Just my guess

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

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

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

Just my guess

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

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

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

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

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

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

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

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

 

[iainduguid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

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

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

 

[Polanus1561]

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

 

[Taylor]

…as you’re suggesting…

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

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

 

[Polanus1561]

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

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

And Bible translations are a whole another debate.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

And Bible translations are a whole another debate.

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

 

[Taylor]

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

 

[Taylor]

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

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

 

[Polanus1561]

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

Doesn't seem to have Latin origins
OED says:



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

 

[ZackF]

Doesn't seem to have Latin origins
OED says:

View attachment 9925

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

You really looked it up!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

 

[Polanus1561]

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

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

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

As I said I will wait and see.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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

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

 

[Polanus1561]

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

Which footnoted version are you talking about on the AC?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Which footnoted version are you talking about on the AC?

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

 

[Polanus1561]

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

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