[faithandlife] Re: [FaithandLife] Three Year Lectionary--question

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : May 2006 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "Frank Warren" <warren-sa@...>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 14:23:33 -0400
Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote,
The droughte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour,
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the younge sonne
Hath in the Ram his half cours y-ronne,
And smalle floweles maken melodye 
That slepen all the nyght with open eye,
So priketh him Nature in hir corages,
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrymages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes kouthe in sondry londes.

The other extreme is Rick Warren and various kinds of Pentecostalism.

Seriously, I agree "Anything that gets in the way of the clear 
presentation and explication of the Gospel must be chucked out.."

Anglicanism itself holds a tenuous place, its time-frame is limited.  If changed too much will it go the way of Geoffrey's poetry?

Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Clavier+<mailto:anglican@...> 
  To: faithandlife@...<mailto:faithandlife@...> 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:33 AM
  Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] Three Year Lectionary--question


  Frank,

  But why stick with the KJV?  Especially as it contains some mistranslations. 
  Certainly, many people can learn to understand the KJV, but why make them 
  cross the extra hurdle in order to hear the Word written?  Heck, most people 
  can't understand the sense of Scripture in contemporary English, they 
  butcher it's meaning in the KJV!

  Also, when you set aside slang and colloquialisms, our language isn't nearly 
  as much in a flux as is sometime suggested.  People can read and understand 
  a 1920s novel as easily as they can one written in 2006 (though they may not 
  have the patience for the former's pace).  Similarly, the RSV is as 
  understandable today as it was when first translated.

  Now, I think the Church ought to reserve an imprimatur for Bibles used in 
  the liturgy.  There are dreadful translations out there from both ends of 
  the spectrum.

  Finally, we have to be ruthless in our adhering to the principal of 
  preaching the Gospel.  Anything that get's in the way of the clear 
  presentation and explication of the Gospel must be chucked out or else it 
  becomes an idol.  As much as I love the KJV, appreciate it's cadence, and 
  esteem it's place in the history of our language, in 2006 it has become a 
  relic.  Like other relics, we may bring it from it's reliquary from time to 
  time for adoration (I still use it for Christmas Eve service), but, in my 
  view, it's role in promoting the Gospel is done with.  But, hey, 400 years 
  wasn't a bad run.  Even the Vulgate didn't make it that long without 
  revisions!

  Mark+ 

  --
  To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...<mailto:faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>


--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...