|
Post by robertcolumbia on Jun 6, 2011 18:22:04 GMT -5
Now, this is a very highly speculative question. I thought of making a poll, but want to see what people really think about this. This question assumes that the end is not coming for a while. If it does come soon, this question is basically moot.
Back in the days, the scriptures were propagated in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and were pristine in those languages.
Eventually, Latin, and later German, and later English, rose to a prominent spot in the Church.
Is it presumptuous to say that Modern English as we know it today will remain the definitive language of the church until doomsday, or is God watching over the development of societies, ready to provide a new copy of his Word when Elizabethan English is consigned to the Ancient Languages department of universities?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Jun 7, 2011 8:52:08 GMT -5
Continuing in a speculative manner, I, of course, tend to think we are not going to be around for much longer. I see patterns in biblical interpretation that imply the short end of things. Consider:
Hsa 6:1 ¶ Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. Hsa 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
It has been roughly 2,000 years+ since Hosea spoke these words. I believe the deal directly with the rejection of disobedient Israel at the first coming of Christ. However, propehetically, he said they would be restored in two days, I believe they are age/days, i.e., 1,000 years a day.
This being said, I believe the Lord knew the influence the United States of America would have and still does, even in this dark hour, on missions, and the spread of the gospel and the scriptures. This spread has been made prolific with the English language. There is no language like it. The scholars who study linguistics still marvel at the way in which the King James Version, archaic though it may be, captures and relates the message of God. Even the secular scholars claim it's mystery is almost supernatural, (and of course it is.)
Nine, the number of fruit bearing. In Genesis chapter nine we meet a tribe, in verse 27, (2+7=9.)
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Japheth is the predecessor to the Europeans from whence we come. And yes, we dwell in the tents that once belonged to the American Indians, Shemites, and their financial wizards of Wall Street own most of the building in Manhatten, yes I'm talking about the Jews.
Our rise to the top of global success is not just by chance. I believe it was in the sovereignty of God to use English and America for the furtherence of the gospel, especially in these last days. Oh, and speaking of nine being the number of fruit bearing, count it with me:
K,1 I,2 N,3 G,4 J,5 A,6 M,7 E,8 S,9
The King James Version. No other version of the Bible has been used to such great extent in the preaching of the gospel and the stirring of revival fires.
So, there, there you have it. Why I think English is superior, and will remain superior till the end of the world as we know it.
Bro. Ben
|
|
mjr
Full Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by mjr on Jun 9, 2011 11:55:54 GMT -5
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones speaking at a rally at the Royal Albert Hall in 1961:
"I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the Bible. ... The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its language-- particularly the archaic terms-- what does your modern man ... know about justification, sanctification, and all these Biblical terms? and so we are told the one thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick and Harry will understand, and I began to feel about six months ago that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorised Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologise for saying a word in favour of the Authorised Version in this gathering? ...
It is a basic proposition laid down by the Protestant Reformers, that we must have a Bible 'understanded of the people.' That is common sense ... we must never be obscurantists. We must never approach the Bible in a mere antiquarian spirit ... but it does seem to me that there is a very grave danger incipient in so much of the argument that is being presented today for these new translations. There is a danger, I say, of our surrendering something that is vital and essential ...
Take this argument that the modern man does not understand such terms as justification, sanctification and so on. I want to ask a question. When did the ordinary man ever understand those terms? ... Did the colliers to whom John Wesley and George Whitefield preached in the 18th century understand? They had not even been to a day school ... they could not read, they could not write. Yet these were the terms that were used. This was the version that was used--Authorised Version. The common people have never understood these terms. ...We are concerned here with something that is spiritual something which does not belong to this world at all; which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, the princes of this world do not know. Human wisdom is of no value here--it is a spiritual truth. This is truth about God primarily, and because of that it is a mystery. ...
Yet we are told---it must be put in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it. My friends, this is sheer nonsense. WHAT WE MUST DO IS TO EDUCATE THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE UP TO THE BIBLE, NOT BRING THE BIBLE DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL. One of the greatest groubles today is that everything is being brought down to the same level, everything is cheapened. The common man is made the standard of authority; he decides everything, and everything has to be brought down to him....
Are we to do that with the Word of God? I say No! What has happened in the past has been this -- ignorant, illiterate people, in this country and in foreign countries, coming into salvation have been educated up to the Book and have begun to understand it, to glory in it, and to praise God for it, and I say that we need to the same at this present time. What we need is therefore, not to replace the Authorised Version ...we need rather to reach and train people up to the standard and the language, the dignity and the glory of the old Authorised Version."
|
|
|
Post by joshuadaryl on Apr 21, 2014 23:12:42 GMT -5
Amen
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Aug 16, 2014 19:39:25 GMT -5
I hate to go against the grain here, but I think that assuming our own language to be superior is little short of hubris. English isn't God's language (I don't know that He has one, but if He did, it would probably be Biblical Hebrew). English isn't even a decent language. It's ridiculous, actually, full of inconsistencies, a spelling system even native speakers have trouble with, grammar that you can do anything with (except when you can't)... yes, English is far from perfect.
I think we must also remember that there are more than 6500 languages in the world, and although English is one of the most-spoken, it is not the most-spoken. Although it is the current trade language, it has not always been so, and it would be folly to assume it always will be. Even when the King James was translated, English was not the common trade language - it was French, and sometimes Latin. It's quite possible there's a language out there with a complete translation of scriptures that will rise to become the international auxiliary (trade) language in a century or two. Or even sooner. With an eye on the economy, the Australian government is pushing for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean as the languages of choice in schools, rather than the old stand-bies of English, French, and German. In fifty years or one hundred, who's to say we won't all be learning Mandarin for use in international trade?
I also think it's unfair to say that English is the definitive language of the Church. For starters, I've been to churches where not a word of English was spoken. In one, in Spain, even though half a dozen of us were native speakers of English, we didn't use it because most of the congregation couldn't speak English. Is it fair to tell people they have to worship in English, simply because it's the language we use and we think it's the definitive language of Christianity at present? To do so would lead us into the realms of Islam, where everyone has to pray in Arabic, no matter what their mother tongue is. The reason Bible translation is such a major part of Christian ministry as it is is that we as Christians consider it important that everyone should be able to access scripture and worship in their own language. In Revelation, it says, "A great multitude [...] of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues..." All tongues? So it's not just one language the world uses to worship, it's all of them. (There are still 1919 languages left without any scripture at all, so we've still got some work to do!)
I suppose what the question really boils down to is, "How much longer do we have on this earth?" If it's a matter of years or decades, then no, English will probably remain the world's auxiliary trade language, and thus the main language used by the Church. However, if it's a matter of centuries, I would not be surprised in the least - even expect - that English will fall out of use and be replaced by a different language. England is no longer a superpower, and America is in its twilight years as the world's leading superpower. There are other English-speaking nations, but none of them are right up there as world leaders at present.
It all depends on when Christ returns. But, as it says in Matthew, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Humans can't know the future apart from what we've been told in the Bible. Perhaps there's a verse in there somewhere regarding what language the majority of Christians will speak at the end of days, and I don't know it. I do like to look to the verse in Revelation - "All tribes and tongues and peoples". I accept that the King James is one of the best - if not the best - translation of the Bible into English, but I will not accept that it is the only translation and the only language which acceptable, nor that it is the only language used in the Church.
(And now I'm going to head off to French-language Sunday School up the road. Because, you know, the Bible's in French, too, and we can use that to study the scriptures and praise God, too - and, in fact, with the rapid growth of Christianity in Africa, and with the prevalence of "le Petit Français" as an auxiliary language in so much of Africa, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a contender for a possible future language for use by the church.)
|
|
|
Post by Guadalupe on Aug 17, 2014 11:42:15 GMT -5
Logical, well-thought and well-spoken Rachel. Thank you. I hate to go against the grain here, but I think that assuming our own language to be superior is little short of hubris. English isn't God's language (I don't know that He has one, but if He did, it would probably be Biblical Hebrew). English isn't even a decent language. It's ridiculous, actually, full of inconsistencies, a spelling system even native speakers have trouble with, grammar that you can do anything with (except when you can't)... yes, English is far from perfect. I think we must also remember that there are more than 6500 languages in the world, and although English is one of the most-spoken, it is not the most-spoken. Although it is the current trade language, it has not always been so, and it would be folly to assume it always will be. Even when the King James was translated, English was not the common trade language - it was French, and sometimes Latin. It's quite possible there's a language out there with a complete translation of scriptures that will rise to become the international auxiliary (trade) language in a century or two. Or even sooner. With an eye on the economy, the Australian government is pushing for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean as the languages of choice in schools, rather than the old stand-bies of English, French, and German. In fifty years or one hundred, who's to say we won't all be learning Mandarin for use in international trade? I also think it's unfair to say that English is the definitive language of the Church. For starters, I've been to churches where not a word of English was spoken. In one, in Spain, even though half a dozen of us were native speakers of English, we didn't use it because most of the congregation couldn't speak English. Is it fair to tell people they have to worship in English, simply because it's the language we use and we think it's the definitive language of Christianity at present? To do so would lead us into the realms of Islam, where everyone has to pray in Arabic, no matter what their mother tongue is. The reason Bible translation is such a major part of Christian ministry as it is is that we as Christians consider it important that everyone should be able to access scripture and worship in their own language. In Revelation, it says, "A great multitude [...] of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues..." All tongues? So it's not just one language the world uses to worship, it's all of them. (There are still 1919 languages left without any scripture at all, so we've still got some work to do!) I suppose what the question really boils down to is, "How much longer do we have on this earth?" If it's a matter of years or decades, then no, English will probably remain the world's auxiliary trade language, and thus the main language used by the Church. However, if it's a matter of centuries, I would not be surprised in the least - even expect - that English will fall out of use and be replaced by a different language. England is no longer a superpower, and America is in its twilight years as the world's leading superpower. There are other English-speaking nations, but none of them are right up there as world leaders at present. It all depends on when Christ returns. But, as it says in Matthew, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Humans can't know the future apart from what we've been told in the Bible. Perhaps there's a verse in there somewhere regarding what language the majority of Christians will speak at the end of days, and I don't know it. I do like to look to the verse in Revelation - "All tribes and tongues and peoples". I accept that the King James is one of the best - if not the best - translation of the Bible into English, but I will not accept that it is the only translation and the only language which acceptable, nor that it is the only language used in the Church. (And now I'm going to head off to French-language Sunday School up the road. Because, you know, the Bible's in French, too, and we can use that to study the scriptures and praise God, too - and, in fact, with the rapid growth of Christianity in Africa, and with the prevalence of "le Petit Français" as an auxiliary language in so much of Africa, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a contender for a possible future language for use by the church.)
|
|