"By the way: anyone in a service who reads the Nativity story in Luke from
anything OTHER than KJV should be boiled in oil!  :)"

Thank you, Michael+

Hear!  Hear!

Frank


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Ward<mailto:mward@...> 
  To: faithandlife@...<mailto:faithandlife@...> 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:05 PM
  Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Three Year Lectionary--question


  Mark+

  You've put your finger on one of the things I appreciate about the RSV.
  Some translations lend themselves to liturgy better than others simply by
  virtue of the poetic cadences with which the English is phrased.  Of all the
  modern translations, about the only one that does this is the RSV.  Perhaps
  the reason is that when it was translated, many on the NCC's translation
  committee knew that it would be used in liturgy.  It's the version I use for
  our three-year cycle.  It still retains the "thee's and thou's" in certain
  places (address to deity), which makes it a seamless fit with the 1928
  liturgy and, as I said, retains the almost chanted cadences.  We've used it
  ever since the Bishop authorized the three-year use several years ago.

  By the way: anyone in a service who reads the Nativity story in Luke from
  anything OTHER than KJV should be boiled in oil!  :)

  MLW+

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Mark Clavier+ [mailto:anglican@...] 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:34 AM
  To: faithandlife@...<mailto:faithandlife@...>
  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@...<mailto:faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>


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