Frank:

I grant that a good portion of KJV is understandable,
but that is not the only reason I have gravitated
toward modern versions. 

Accuracy is another.  

Charles+


--- Frank Warren <warren-sa@...> wrote:

> Charles+ and Mark+
> 
> Our culture and language is changing, "morphing" if
> you will, so fast these days that if we follow the
> lead we will be producing new Bibles, prayer books
> and lectionaries every 6 months!
> 
> I believe people will understand the KJV if it is
> read slowly and with care.  Quick translations of
> words whose meanings have changed, such as "prevent"
> , will also help.
> 
> In truth, any version represents a captured moment
> in time ...  Something came before it, and something
> else will come afterward.  
> 
> 
> 
> Frank
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: charles scott<mailto:crscottblu@...> 
>   To:
>
faithandlife@...<mailto:faithandlife@...>
> 
>   Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:36 PM
>   Subject: [FaithandLife] Three Year
> Lectionary--question
> 
> 
>   Brian+
> 
>   Good to hear from you.
> 
>   I agree with many of your sentiments.  One of my
>   causes of joy recently is that young families are
>   responding joyfully to our liturgy.
> 
>   However, I don't see a problem with the 3 year
>   lectionary.  I used the old lectionary from 1969
> until
>   3 years ago.  
> 
>   I don't see that there is anything at all lost,
> and
>   there has been for me gain, not the least of which
> is
>   that it gave me heightened interest in study. I'm
>   spending more time in Biblical research and that
> is a
>   good thing.
> 
>   In my opinion those who worked out the three year
>   lectionary have done an excellent job of not only
>   helping us be exposed to more of the Scriptures
> but
>   also tying the readings together and fitting them
> into
>   the Christian year.
> 
>   I don't see that one can equate the three year
>   lectionary, nor a more accurate modern Enlgish
> Bible
>   with with problematical new liturgies.  These are
> two
>   different things. 
> 
>   I like the rythyms of the old King James Version,
> and
>   still quote it when the passage is clear and
> quickly
>   comprehensible to the hearer.  However, for
> economy of
>   speech and time, and to keep the sermon
>   comprehensible, I will use whatever version that
> gives
>   an accurate and the clearest and most concise
>   expression of the text. 
> 
>   Charles+
>   Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis
>    
>   >   Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:15 PM
>   >   Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Three Year
>   > Lectionary--question
>   > 
>   > 
>   >   Gentlemen,
>   > 
>   >   I have just been reviewing the posts on the
> Three
>   > Year Lectionary from November of last year.
>   > 
>   >   This is an intriguing discussion, I think, but
> I'm
>   > wondering if there is more to be discussed
> regarding
>   the three year lectionary.  To begin, I don't use
> it,
>   but I have always used the "starred" Old 
> Testament
>   lesson and Psalm in our service.  This
>   provides for four  texts to preach on every
> Sunday.  I
>   don't find  that limiting at all. 
>   >   I concur with those last November that noted
> that
>   > most parishioners   don't remember as much as we
>   wish they would--the  repetition is   helpful to
> them,
>   I believe.  I also concur with  those who noted
> that 
>   we get pushed to dig deeper to make more
>   > connections, etc.
>   > 
>   >   Of course, our people getting exposed to more
>   > scripture is always a  good thing.  What,
> however,
>   are we giving up in order to fit that  more
> Scripture
>   into the Sunday lectionary?  I'm  not sure I have 
>   specific answers, but I have misgivings.  I
>   > suppose my misgivings are mostly related to the
>   misgivings I have about new liturgies.  This 
>   >   modern--and now post-modern--age does not seem
> to
>   > be one in which we ought to be toying with our
>   inheritance.  We don't understand language in this
> age
>   and we don't understand history.
>   > 
>   >   Those two problems seem to mitigate against
>   > quality "modern language" 
>   >   liturgies and translations; what about new
>   > lectionaries?  I'm not 
>   >   opposed to the idea of change, mind you, but I
> am
>   > concerned that 
>   >   change happen from within the tradition and
> that
>   > we don't open the 
>   >   door to the little gremlin of modernity.  That
>   > gremlin can get it via 
>   >   new translations, liturgies and architecture,
>   > vestments, music and 
>   >   altar hangings.  Can he also get in via new
>   > lectionaries?
>   > 
>   >   In a sense, I ask myself the question:  "What
> am I
>   > giving up when I 
>   >   give up centuries and centuries of a tradition
> of
>   > Readings from Holy 
>   >   Scripture?"  I'm not sure I know, but that
> sure
>   > doesn't mean that I'm 
>   >   not giving up something important.  I'm
> usually
>   > mostly ignorant....
>   > 
>   >   I seek to provide thorough discussion of the
>   > Scriptures via weeknight 
>   >   studies and don't find Sunday morning to be
> the
>   > best time for such an 
>   >   in-depth study.  The Three Year lectionary got
>   > it's start from a 
>   >   completely modern set of assumptions and an
> agenda
>   > wholly entrenched 
>   >   in modernity.  What are we letting in?  Am I
> being
>   > overly concerned? 
>   >   Is it worth exploring?
>   > 
>   >   Any thoughts?
>   > 
>   >   Brian+
> 
>   --
>   To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
>
faithandlife-unsubscribe@...<mailto:faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
> 
> 
>