Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
Yay I say thou hast missed the mark somewhat in thy posting. While I agree that the KJV has a historical importance to the church it is entirely appropriate for the church today to useth a translation that utilizes modern English.
Many words in the KJV are obscure today or have meanings that have changed over hundreds of years.
I do agreeist with thee that people giveth tongues and interpretation in olde English because they perceive that to be the way God speaks. I do not see that as a good thing but as a little bit of ignorance.
|
The KJV is a part of the foundation of the modern English language, and while I won't argue in favour of its exclusive use, I do think that it should be retained, not only as a part of our history, but as an important element in our Western Christian identity.
As far as the obscurity of its words, I would argue that any serious reader of Scripture will, of necessity, have to enlarge their vocabulary to understand the theological language of the Bible. Should we dumb down the Scriptures until they only appeal to the least literate among us?
There are views promoted on this forum that require the addition of Greek words to the vocabulary in order to understand the Scriptures. Why is it a big deal to enlarge the vocabulary to include additional English words when reading Scripture?
One thing that I would argue in favour of is the consistent use of
a translation by a congregation. There are significant differences between translations that makes congregational reading and study needlessly confusing when everybody is using the "translation du jour."
Threaded Mode
