English now and then (Re. Pulpit language

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

In a message dated 96-09-08 23:55:52 EDT, rj@eli.wariat.org (Robert J. Brown)
writes:

<< It doesn't matter one hoot what it means on the street toady, and it
 matters to the extent that our very salvation depends on it what it
 meant in 1611 if we are reading it in the KJV and want to obey God! >>

I am dumbfounded here.  This statement simply amazes me.  To think that our
Apostolic preachers, upon whom people's very salvation depends, think that we
should never try to figure out what archaic words mean today--that we should
simply accept the archaic words--is shocking, to say the least.  So to the
writer above,  a "church" is not the Body of believers--it's the literal
building, because that's what it meant in good old King James' time.  It
matters not how it SHOULD be translated today.  And to  the writer above, the
passage that talks about the Church "letting" the Antichrist should mean that
as long as we're here, we let him do what he wants.  Never mind that the
actual MEANING here is that the church "restrains" the Antichrist.  The fact
is, to Bro. Brown above, it's the good old KJV WORD that matters--who cares
about actual MEANING?  As I said, simply amazing.

--Rich Brown