English now and then (Re. Pulpit language

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 96-09-08 21:15:53 EDT, mbasset@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
writes:

<< >I've been wondering, if a word is filthy on the streets, and it's not in
 >the text of the King James Bible doesn't that mean our English language
 >has changed to the degree that we need to address that issue now? 
 > I love the Word, but there seems times when the English then and the
 >English now have changed.  Not just with the words we've been
 >discussing.  Just curious what you all think.  
 
 Well, if so, we better drop the word Pentecost, because it sure doesnt
 mean the same thing in much modern religious life as it did
 originally.
 
 Also, the phrase "born again" better be dumped.
 
 Actually, it might be a good idea to go on down the list and consider
 these things. Im an advocate of using biblical language and teaching
 appropriatly.. >>

First, I think you've misconstrued the writer's meaning.  She was asking if
it's ok to use obscene words today merely because the KJV translators used
them in a time when they were not obscene.  Second, if the suggestion here is
that we should always use KJV words  in the sense that they were used in
1611, without regard for what they mean today, that will cause us some
problems.  For instance, in the KJV, to "let" something actually in today's
English means just the opposite--to restrain.  So do you think that I should
say "I let my son go to the store" if in reality I mean that I "restrained"
him from going?  It may seem like a stupid point I'm making, but the point is
this:  It doesn't matter so much what a word USED to mean in 1611.  It
matters what it means NOW.  And if a word, which was perfectly acceptable in
King James' time is considered off-color language today, we should not use
it.

--Rich Brown