King James Only

[lulalu]

Nm

 

Please forgive, I fear I did not articulate what I meant clearly. As well as where one resides paints different experiences. Again please forgive.

[mommaduck]

These are all great things to wrestle over! Understanding church history, and how we got the Bible are so fundamental to apologetics. Yet it is alarming how few believers know anything! The growing movement of KJVO shows the gulibility due to not knowing history!

 

As well as the need for solid understanding in this area is needed to withstand the arguments of Islam. Most believers do not understand how much truth in history and cannon are needed. I will say coming back to the states this last time and seeing just how little people know has shocked me when so much is available to study.

Potshots at other faiths is unnecessary. We have some lovely Muslim mamas here. Our belief in Scripture is primarily for our own salvation and edification.

[Guest]

These are all great things to wrestle over! Understanding church history, and how we got the Bible are so fundamental to apologetics. Yet it is alarming how few believers know anything! The growing movement of KJVO shows the gulibility due to not knowing history!

 

As well as the need for solid understanding in this area is needed to withstand the arguments of Islam. Most believers do not understand how much truth in history and cannon are needed. I will say coming back to the states this last time and seeing just how little people know has shocked me when so much is available to study.

This is not an exclusively Christian board. And I don't understand "withstand the arguments of Islam"?? I've had lots of people come to my door selling religion--none have ever been Muslim.

[bolt.]

These are all great things to wrestle over! Understanding church history, and how we got the Bible are so fundamental to apologetics. Yet it is alarming how few believers know anything! The growing movement of KJVO shows the gulibility due to not knowing history!

 

As well as the need for solid understanding in this area is needed to withstand the arguments of Islam. Most believers do not understand how much truth in history and cannon are needed. I will say coming back to the states this last time and seeing just how little people know has shocked me when so much is available to study.

I'm not sure I understand your perspective -- so, maybe you aren't clearly saying quite what you mean -- but what you've said above I find unnecessarily adversarial and exclusive: to the point that it is slightly offensive. I hope there will be opportunities for you to continue to express yourself -- in more open and respectful ways.

[Amy in NH]

Nm. Doesn't matter

[Teannika]

Also, what do you mean by a "Nazi relationship?" Was that a typo??

 

No, it wasn't a typo. I should have expounded on that at the time but was rushed.

 

For the Old testament, the modern bibles dump the Ben Hayim text, and follow the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). The BHS text came into existence through the work of Rudolf Kittel, and then his son Gerhard. Gerhard was a NAZI, who was a propaganda leader for Hitler. Gerhard Kittel was imprisoned for war crimes against the Jews following WWII. They both did the same thing that Westcott and Hort did, only they concentrated on the Old Testament, while Westcort and Hort focused on the New Testament. They disassociated the Hebrew words of the Hebrew Old testament from their Scriptural meaning, and sought to define them with secular ideas. Thus, Hell is removed from the Old Testament ("sheol") and is replaced with "grave." The LOST people around Israel did not use "sheol" to mean "Hell," but God did.

The BHS is the 4th or 5th edition of Kittel's original work - and it is just as bad as the Westcort Hort text as far as being deliberately corrupted.

[Teannika]

I found this conversation very interesting as it is completely outside my scope of reference.

 

However, I found the above comments confusing.

 

First, does it all really boil down to anti-Catholic sentiment? If so, then I think that needs to be specifically addressed. I don't think the fact that people are trusting "Catholic documents" would be a problem for most mainstream Protestants who understand that we all are Christians and seek to understand the same words.

 

 

For those who are a part of the ecumenical movement there would be no concern over using a Vatican-based bible, I do agree with that. And usually the bible will not be the final authority on what God says for this group of people either, so the issue isn't as big to them.

 

For those like myself who do not believe in the teachings and doctrine of the Catholic Church there is a much bigger issue here. Bibles have their different slants, so as expected catholic bibles are going to support catholic teachings. Just consider the marketing on different bibles and you will be able to recognise the types of ways that the text will be manipulated. I am someone who really wants accuracy and reliable truth because I really want to know what God did say.

 

 

Here is an example of a doctrinal difference that makes a difference regarding the position of salvation. (So not a small doctrine.):

 

1 Corinthians 1:18

 

KJV 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which ARE SAVED it is the power of God.'

 

NKJV 'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us WHO ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.'

 

ESV 'For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us WHO ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.'

 

NIV 'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us WHO ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.'

 

 

Caps for emphasis as I can't use bold on the iPad sorry.

 

So an obvious doctrinal difference there. Some are subtle, so if you don't know that there is a difference, you wouldn't know or think to look it up.

 

Now, please also note, that while the Catholic Church portrays itself as ecumenical, it is not subservient (? Is that the word I want?) to anyone else. So when it comes to bibles thesedays they will recommend every English bible except the King James Bible. So they too know that there is a big difference between all bibles and the King James Bible.

[Bluegoat]

Um, plenty of English speaking Catholics use the KJV.

 

And this business of "are saved" as opposed to "are being saved" is questionable on the face of it, without even getting into the verb tense that is being translated..  The KJV is nothing if not an Anglican translation, and it is also commonly used by the Orthodox, and both would tend to agree with the Catholics about the theology of that particular issue.

[bolt.]

There are dozens of NT passages that explore the past, present and future tenses of the salvation of Christians.

 

I fail to see how any believer, using any translation (much less any translation team or entire denomination in the formation of doctrine!) could (or would want to!) avoid exploring all the ways we "have been saved" / "are saved" / "are being saved" / "shall be saved"... All the tenses are present in Scripture.

 

Therefore, unless an entire supposed denomination has absolutely *no* concept of ways that we "are being saved" -- there can be no 'obvious doctrinal difference' overall. The most there can be is a different assertion of *which* aspect of doctrine is being directly expressed in the vicinity of 1 Cor 1.

[AmericanMom]

Looking at the Greek Bible, you will see that the word used here for "are saved" or "are being saved" is σωζομενοις, which is a present passive participle. That means it is an ongoing present passive action. Therefore "are being saved" is a perfectly acceptable - arguably preferable - way of translating it. To say that "are saved" avoids an "unintended" theological distinction is to add personal interpretation. How do we know Paul didn't intend it to mean that? Either translation is accurate, but the interpretation that it is fixed is not. It is ongoing in Greek.

[Teannika]

I used 1 Corinthians 1:18 as an example for a doctrinal difference simply as it was the first that came to mind. There are plenty of others references that I could get into.

 

Catholic doctrine has you earning your salvation all the way up until the end of your life. So the non-KJB's support that concept in their translations. The modern English bibles support this in this scripture 'are being saved'. However this passage is talking about two groups only, those who are perishing (non-saved), and those who 'are saved' (born again). It is about the saved having spiritual understanding of a spiritual truth because they are no longer non-saved. There's no inbetween group of 'being saved' that are also spiritually enlightened.

 

We could continue to argue the meaning of the passage, but it's not going to get far. And that's the point, that there IS a difference in intended meaning perceived by both groups.

[Guest]

Teannika, you are misinformed about Catholic doctrine.  Catholics do not believe they "earn their salvation."

 

[Teannika]

Teannika, you are misinformed about Catholic doctrine. Catholics do not believe they "earn their salvation."

 

Catholics have a different understanding of what it means to be born again. They do not believe that salvation is secured for the rest of your life, so thus the phrase 'are being saved' fits their doctrine.

[bolt.]

I used 1 Corinthians 1:18 as an example for a doctrinal difference simply as it was the first that came to mind. There are plenty of others references that I could get into.

 

Catholic doctrine has you earning your salvation all the way up until the end of your life. So the non-KJB's support that concept in their translations. The modern English bibles support this in this scripture 'are being saved'. However this passage is talking about two groups only, those who are perishing (non-saved), and those who 'are saved' (born again). It is about the saved having spiritual understanding of a spiritual truth because they are no longer non-saved. There's no inbetween group of 'being saved' that are also spiritually enlightened.

 

We could continue to argue the meaning of the passage, but it's not going to get far. And that's the point, that there IS a difference in intended meaning perceived by both groups.

You have an inaccurate (and insulting) view of catholic doctrine.

 

You also have an odd approach to the passage in question. You haven't made clear which two doctrines are implied by the two translations, and why you believe they differ. Your example isn't supporting your conclusion.

 

Even if you do think that Catholics 'earn salvation' there is no way that the phrase that "being saved" means anything like 'earning it by works' -- it's passive. It can't be the self that is doing it.

 

The passage is about two groups in the present tense, using the same grammar "be-ing saved" and "perish-ing" -- it's true that there is no 'in between group'. Neither translation implies that there is.

 

If there are two groups: "people being shot out of canons" and "people not being shot out of canons" -- that's fine. You can clearly see that the language does not at all imply that people "being shot" might be self propelled, right? Similarly "being saved" does not imply the earning if salvation. As far as I can tell, it's not even remotely related.

[Teannika]

The three groups are: not saved, are saved, are being saved.

 

If you 'are being saved' you are not saved "yet". Salvation has not been secured.

[mommaduck]

If you 'are being saved' you are not saved "yet". Salvation has not been secured.

Incorrect. We have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. All three are correct at the same time for believers. It's not a matter of security; it's a matter of completedness. Until the Great Judgement, nothing is complete. This does not mean that we can't be secure in our faith and salvation. That said, no, we don't hold to OSAS.

 

The best way to describe it is that you divide sanctification as something that happens AFTER an absolute, concrete, one time " event ". We see it as part of a whole and the whole is ongoing until judgement.

[Teannika]

Incorrect. We have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. All three are correct at the same time for believers. It's not a matter of security; it's a matter of completedness. Until the Great Judgement, nothing is complete. This does not mean that we can't be secure in our faith and salvation. That said, no, we don't hold to OSAS.

 

The best way to describe it is that you divide sanctification as something that happens AFTER an absolute, concrete, one time " event ". We see it as part of a whole and the whole is ongoing until judgement.

 

I'm not arguing what we must be believe. I am pointing out the difference between the two beliefs. Some people believe OSAS. Some people don't. This is reflected by the meaning in the different translations of scripture on this particular reference 1 Cor 1:18. It is an example that shows a doctrinal difference.

 

It is obvious to me that we will find doctrinal differences between different bibles. I don't see what the problem is with me pointing out one such example (not directed at you mummaduck, I'm saying this as a general statement to those commenting on it.)

[Teannika]

My personal belief is that I am saved now. It is complete. I'm not still in some process of being saved. (I have been born again, undergone a spiritual circumcision, am a new person in Christ, sealed by the Holy Ghost and so on.)

 

So even if a person wants to claim that they also believe the King James translation on this matter (and take on the different tenses), from my perspective I do not believe in the other translations meaning.

[TechWife]

My personal belief is that I am saved now. It is complete. I'm not still in some process of being saved. (I have been born again, undergone a spiritual circumcision, am a new person in Christ, sealed by the Holy Ghost and so on.)

 

So even if a person wants to claim that they also believe the King James translation on this matter (and take on the different tenses), from my perspective I do not believe in the other translations meaning.

 

Does this mean you don't believe there is an ongoing process of sanctification? If so, how do you square that with scripture? 

[bolt.]

Even people who are OSAS have to deal with all the other passages that say outright that we "shall be saved" (KJV) so I don't see why they would have any difficulty coping with the ones that say we "are being saved".

 

"Are saved" and "are being saved" (and "shall be saved") are the same group. Nobody is saved "yet". Nobody's salvation is "complete"! This is because nobody has "yet" experienced the Day of The Lord, the judgement, vindication, bodily resurrection to eternal life, or the redemption of reality. (Do you really not expect to be "saved" from these things when they happen? Or do you somehow think there have already happened?)

 

While it is certainly 'secured' it has not "yet" occurred, which is why an ongoing tense (being saved) is a perfectly adequate way to express 'securely saved people expecting more'.

 

Neither Catholics nor anyone else in my wide experience of western Christianity believes anything like your 'three groups theory'. No translations support a 'three groups theory'.

 

I really don't think you know nearly as much as you think you know about the Bible, or about theology beyond your own. However, you do seem very entrenched in your ideas, and it doesn't seem like you are enjoying the debate.

 

I think I'm going to let this one go. I feel like I'm only posting against your assertions to make sure that other readers don't take your thoughts as 'uncontested'. I have that problem often, but it's no reason to keep bugging you.

[Teannika]

You could give her this tidbit, for starters:

 

Most Widely Spoken Languages in the World

 

Language ¹ Approx. number of speakers

1. Chinese ² 1,197,000,000

2. Spanish 414,000,000

3. English 335,000,000

4. Hindi 260,000,000

 

6 more rows

Most Widely Spoken Languages in the World - Infoplease

 

 

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0775272.html

 

 

Shouldn't the Bible be in Chinese?

 

And how many of these Chinese people have English as a second language? I'd guess quite a few. English isn't the "main" language spoken, however it is the universal language of our time.

[Teannika]

Does this mean you don't believe there is an ongoing process of sanctification? If so, how do you square that with scripture?

Yes I do believe in sanctification as an ongoing process until I die. But being sanctified does not affect my salvation, it affects my relationship with God, it affects what will happen when I end up at the judgment seat of Christ. This would be a discussion on standing and state. Sanctification and Justification are two different things.

[mommaduck]

I believe that until recently, it was French. Throughout the world, if someone were to have a second language, it would be French before it would be English.

[bolt.]

And how many of these Chinese people have English as a second language? I'd guess quite a few. English isn't the "main" language spoken, however it is the universal language of our time.

Disagree. Firmly.

[mommaduck]

I do understand where you are coming from. I think we can let go that we have our differences. The only two issues I believe are at stake here is the misleading or misunderstood view of Catholic theology and that this phrase is intentionally separating theologies in English. Again, you have to go back to the language they were translated from and understand it from that context. From that context, it is not supporting your argument. Edited due to walking and swyping

[Teannika]

Even people who are OSAS have to deal with all the other passages that say outright that we "shall be saved" (KJV) so I don't see why they would have any difficulty coping with the ones that say we "are being saved".

 

"Are saved" and "are being saved" (and "shall be saved") are the same group. Nobody is saved "yet". Nobody's salvation is "complete"! This is because nobody has "yet" experienced the Day of The Lord, the judgement, vindication, bodily resurrection to eternal life, or the redemption of reality. (Do you really not expect to be "saved" from these things when they happen? Or do you somehow think there have already happened?)

 

While it is certainly 'secured' it has not "yet" occurred, which is why an ongoing tense (being saved) is a perfectly adequate way to express 'securely saved people expecting more'.

 

Neither Catholics nor anyone else in my wide experience of western Christianity believes anything like your 'three groups theory'. No translations support a 'three groups theory'.

 

I really don't think you know nearly as much as you think you know about the Bible, or about theology beyond your own. However, you do seem very entrenched in your ideas, and it doesn't seem like you are enjoying the debate.

 

I think I'm going to let this one go. I feel like I'm only posting against your assertions to make sure that other readers don't take your thoughts as 'uncontested'. I have that problem often, but it's no reason to keep bugging you.

 

Your comments haven't bothered me. I'm sorry if I've perhaps missed some of your points or not agreed. I was arguing within the context of the verse. I don't want to go on about it either. If I haven't made a clear point on this one scripture then I'm willing to let it go.

[Teannika]

Disagree. Firmly.

Can you please explain?

My understanding is that many people today speak English as a second language.

[TechWife]

Yes I do believe in sanctification as an ongoing process until I die. But being sanctified does not affect my salvation, it affects my relationship with God, it affects what will happen when I end up at the judgment seat of Christ. This would be a discussion on standing and state. Sanctification and Justification are two different things.

 

From what I gather, you put more stock in the English translation than you do in understanding the original text as it was written. Is that accurate? 

[TechWife]

And how many of these Chinese people have English as a second language? I'd guess quite a few. English isn't the "main" language spoken, however it is the universal language of our time.

 

What does this have to do with the validity of the KJO position? The truth of the matter is, if one takes a KJO position, then one must also take the position that the Bible isn't for everyone. 

 

It is quite possible that the English language will change in such a way that centuries from now, reading the KJV will be like reading Beowulf in its original English for today's native English speakers. I, for one, certainly hope that accurate translations continue to be provided in a wide variety of languages that are in use today and in the future. 

[bolt.]

Can you please explain?

My understanding is that many people today speak English as a second language.

The phenomenon you are experiencing is called ethnocentrism -- the bias that unconsciously believes that 'my culture is normal to me, and most of the world is pretty normal because people are people, so most of the world probably has life experiences similar to mine.' It's normal for people to think that way (you can't be raised without a culture) but it yields wildly inaccurate assumptions about other cultures.

 

More about ethnocentrism

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

 

Here is substantiation that less than 1% of the population of China is likely to have English language proficiency.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-population-of-English-speakers-in-China

 

The fact is that Chinese people live like Chinese people, and they speak Chinese. If God really behaves with translations the way you claim to believe he does, he would have made sure they had a flawless one 4 or 5 hundred years ago.

[6packofun]

Yes I do believe in sanctification as an ongoing process until I die. But being sanctified does not affect my salvation, it affects my relationship with God, it affects what will happen when I end up at the judgment seat of Christ. This would be a discussion on standing and state. Sanctification and Justification are two different things.

 

Yes, perhaps the distinction is that sanctification is a result and indication of salvation, not a step IN some process of salvation?

[Teannika]

From what I gather, you put more stock in the English translation than you do in understanding the original text as it was written. Is that accurate?

 

For English speaking people I do. And that's because we have a completed bible in our language. It's origins can be traced back through the Gothic language from which English came, so some of the words can be checked from old Gothic manuscripts. Whereas we do not have the originals to check anyway. We don't have a completed Hebrew OT or Greek NT. We don't know for sure even what languages the books of the bible were even originally written in. If Paul wrote to the Romans, Galations, Hebrews, and so on, can we know for sure all of the epistles were written in Greek? Some believe Matthew was written to the Jews in Hebrew.

 

I simply believe that God can speak in any language, just as was shown in the bible in various ways, like when they spoke in the different tongues on the day of Pentecost.

 

John Foxe said in his book in the 1500's that he recorded a statement from an ancient book that said '..the four evangelists wrote the gospels in divers languages... Since Christ commanded his gospel to preach his gospel unto all the world, and excepted no people or language..' And this is also how I undertsand the historical process of the word being brought down to us through time (in vernacular languages as needed by the people.)

 

I know some King James Bible believing friends who go to bible college to be taught Greek so that they can know and teach that there is nothing hidden in the Greek that only Greek scholars can understand.

 

So I don't have a problem with knowing or understanding Hebrew and Greek text and its meaning. The problem is just not as simple as going to THE Hebrew or THE Greek. God let our language change and develop and he can speak any language he chooses while keeping his words together and intact.

 

 

If someone can give me the original text as it was written then you could persuade me to change my views.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

That's not consistent with my understanding of the early church. I see strong evidence (both within the NT and from the study of history) that it would be more accurate to characterize the earliest stages as 'loosely organized' through personal interconnections and loyalties. There were respected leaders, but seem to have functioned without a sense of 'being an organization' or 'working things out organizationally'. Rather, we see leaders working things out inter-personally, and encouraging their protégées and local leaders to do the same.

 

The sense of unity was much more focused on the transmission gospel message and the presence of the Spirit -- rather than anything we would interpret as organization.

There was ecumenical unity throughout Christendom at least through the 3rd ecumenical council. After the Council of Chalcedon we saw a definite break with the Oriental Orthodox though the East and West remained unified for another several centuries. Were there splinter groups that were not unified with the church and yet considered themselves Christian? Yes. There were major Christological differences and the Church maintained that certain doctrines were heretical. I would say that it is inaccurate to say that all who called themselves Christian shared the same gospel message.

[FaithManor]

Can you please explain?

My understanding is that many people today speak English as a second language.

You are entirely incorrect. The current world population is 7 billion. Linguists estimate that 375 million people speak English as a second language. To speak a second language with basic literacy, is far, far more than being able to say some basic phrases, and to be actually literate is HUGE and takes many years of instruction and study to achieve. Given the KJV as of the mid-1980's when literacy in America was still fairly high, was rated as 8th-10th grade, it is folly to believe that of the 5% who do speak it as a second language all of them have been instructed to the level of late middle school to mid-high school level.

 

Literacy partners inc. who tracks American and world literacy rates estimates that less than 1 billion people are functionally literate in their own first languages. This is 1/7th of the world population. 23% of American adults are estimated to be functionally illiterate, thus incapable of reading the KJV.

 

You should educate yourself about the difference between speaking a language and reading a language, understanding nuance, syntax, and idioms. There is far more to it than being able to say, "My name is ______" in English or as was typical of language programs in the 60's and 70's, "I would like to buy some cheese and some butter."

 

It is erroneously western European centric to believe that English is the language of our time.

[Teannika]

What does this have to do with the validity of the KJO position? The truth of the matter is, if one takes a KJO position, then one must also take the position that the Bible isn't for everyone.

 

It is quite possible that the English language will change in such a way that centuries from now, reading the KJV will be like reading Beowulf in its original English for today's native English speakers. I, for one, certainly hope that accurate translations continue to be provided in a wide variety of languages that are in use today and in the future.

 

The king James bible I believe is a completed book, all verses included (not missing verse numbers as seen in modern English bibles.)

 

Many missionaries have translated straight from the King James text. I don't have a problem with this. I've also been told by Christians in other countries that the King James English has been easier for them to understand and interpret than modern English. There are lots of facets to consider...

[Teannika]

The phenomenon you are experiencing is called ethnocentrism -- the bias that unconsciously believes that 'my culture is normal to me, and most of the world is pretty normal because people are people, so most of the world probably has life experiences similar to mine.' It's normal for people to think that way (you can't be raised without a culture) but it yields wildly inaccurate assumptions about other cultures.

 

More about ethnocentrism

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

 

Here is substantiation that less than 1% of the population of China is likely to have English language proficiency.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-population-of-English-speakers-in-China

 

The fact is that Chinese people live like Chinese people, and they speak Chinese. If God really behaves with translations the way you claim to believe he does, he would have made sure they had a flawless one 4 or 5 hundred years ago.

 

So what would be considered the universal language of our time?

We are moving toward becoming a one world, united world system, having one language makes sense for ease of communication between the nations.

If I am incorrect in thinking that most nationalities choose to learn English as their second language then what do they choose instead?

[bolt.]

There was ecumenical unity throughout Christendom at least through the 3rd ecumenical council. After the Council of Chalcedon we saw a definite break with the Oriental Orthodox though the East and West remained unified for another several centuries. Were there splinter groups that were not unified with the church and yet considered themselves Christian? Yes. There were major Christological differences and the Church maintained that certain doctrines were heretical. I would say that it is inaccurate to say that all who called themselves Christian shared the same gospel message.

I didn't mean to imply that "all who called themselves Christian shared the same gospel message" -- especially not into the stages of Church history you are discribing.

 

On the contrary, more than a few of the NT books of the Bible are even focused on gospel modification as a problem (false teachers) among people who "call themselves" Christians.

 

I only meant that in those days (living apostles, letters being written) the documents imply that the influential leaders were identifying insiders and outsiders *almost exclusively* by the content of the gospel message as-preached, as-believed, and (somewhat) as-lived.

 

My assertion was only that at those very early stages, organization was loose, leaders were influential, and adherence to the 'right gospel' was being stressed as one of the very few criteria of inclusion.

[TechWife]

So what would be considered the universal language of our time?

We are moving toward becoming a one world, united world system, having one language makes sense for ease of communication between the nations.

If I am incorrect in thinking that most nationalities choose to learn English as their second language then what do they choose instead?

There isn't a universal language. In terms of population, I don''t think most people learn a second language, especially not to the point of being literate.

[TechWife]

The king James bible I believe is a completed book, all verses included (not missing verse numbers as seen in modern English bibles.)

 

Many missionaries have translated straight from the King James text. I don't have a problem with this. I've also been told by Christians in other countries that the King James English has been easier for them to understand and interpret than modern English. There are lots of facets to consider...

This is very ethnocentric. It's a big world out there!

[FaithManor]

So what would be considered the universal language of our time?

We are moving toward becoming a one world, united world system, having one language makes sense for ease of communication between the nations.

If I am incorrect in thinking that most nationalities choose to learn English as their second language then what do they choose instead?

There is no move to formally adopt a universal language at this time.

 

There are 1.1 billion people who speak Chinese. The next largest language group is Spanish. From a linguistic perspective, it would be easier, if one wanted to convert the whole world to one language, to teach everyone Spanish.  Again, in terms of literacy, ie. the ability to read and understand the Bible, it takes several years of intense study, and that is for people who have already acquired a complex, written language. For those individuals who do not read any language, far, far longer.

[bolt.]

So what would be considered the universal language of our time?

We are moving toward becoming a one world, united world system, having one language makes sense for ease of communication between the nations.

If I am incorrect in thinking that most nationalities choose to learn English as their second language then what do they choose instead?

- There is no universal language of our time.

 

- I disagree with your presumption about the future.

 

- The vast majority of humans will live and die speaking local languages and many will never travel further than they can walk.

 

The fancy few who will "choose" a costly and privilidged second language education may well choose English, or a common language of their own country or region, or a language of a country that they want to emigrate to, or a language with religious significance. I don't care to guess.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

And how many of these Chinese people have English as a second language? I'd guess quite a few. English isn't the "main" language spoken, however it is the universal language of our time.

Sorry but no. A small percentage of Chinese speakers have acquired English as a second language.

[FaithManor]

There isn't a universal language. In terms of population, I don''t think most people learn a second language, especially not to the point of being literate.

This.

 

And I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding amongst Americans about what it means to be literate, not only because our own population is far less literate in it's own language than say other countries like China, Japan, Singapore, Finland, Iceland, Germany etc. but because the assumption is that whatever snippets of language they learned peddling their feet in one or two years of mandatory French class in high school, they think they "speak another language". Being able to stare at a road sign in Marseille long enough to finally figure out it is telling you that you can't park here, does not mean you have any degree of fluency, you simply have a tiny, limited vocabulary of practical words and that does not mean you read French.

 

I say this as someone who has a sister living Caen getting her PH.D in French literature. She has lived in France for three years, and prior to that, had been studying the language since she was 12. It took her 14 years of study to be rated at a high school level literacy rate and begin taking her first college classes entirely in French.

[Greta]

If I am incorrect in thinking that most nationalities choose to learn English as their second language then what do they choose instead?

I thought this was a really interesting question: what is the most common second language that people globally are trying to learn? Not sure how definitive this source is, but it's neat, because maps. :D http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/second-languages-of-the-world-infographic

[Laura Corin]

Sorry but no. A small percentage of Chinese speakers have acquired English as a second language.

 

Yes.  Very small.  Chinese people would often want to practice English with me when I lived in China, but it would mostly not go beyond 'Hello, how are you?'  And in daily interactions, there was enormous relief when people realised that I spoke Mandarin.  There are, of course, Chinese people with extraordinarily good English, and they skew the perceptions in the West, because those are the people whom one will meet at a university or in a business meeting outside of China.  In China though?  Really not.  

 

FWIW, my housekeeper spoke one non-Chinese language (she came from a non-ethnically-Han minority), one dialect and Mandarin.  She understood some English (from working for foreign families) but didn't speak or read it.

[Greta]

I say this as someone who has a sister living Caen getting her PH.D in French literature. She has lived in France for three years, and prior to that, had been studying the language since she was 12. It took her 14 years of study to be rated at a high school level literacy rate and begin taking her first college classes entirely in French.

Thank you for saying this. I really think that learning a second language to the level of fluency requires a great deal of effort, dedication, time, and probably immersion. I'm saying this as someone who has never done it! So this is just what I suspect, not what I know. I took three whole semesters (big deal!) of French in college, and I was shocked by how many people expressed shock that I wasn't fluent. Are you kidding me??? Three courses barely scratched the surface of the French language! I'm sure that even at my best point, I was far less able to communicate in French than your average French 2-year old.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I didn't mean to imply that "all who called themselves Christian shared the same gospel message" -- especially not into the stages of Church history you are discribing.

 

On the contrary, more than a few of the NT books of the Bible are even focused on gospel modification as a problem (false teachers) among people who "call themselves" Christians.

 

I only meant that in those days (living apostles, letters being written) the documents imply that the influential leaders were identifying insiders and outsiders *almost exclusively* by the content of the gospel message as-preached, as-believed, and (somewhat) as-lived.

 

My assertion was only that at those very early stages, organization was loose, leaders were influential, and adherence to the 'right gospel' was being stressed as one of the very few criteria of inclusion.

I think ecclesiastical unity in the first 1000 years was only as loose as the speed with which communications could be transmitted. Differences were beginning to appear particularly in the West and we did see a definitive break once we started physically going to war with one another in the 13th century.

[FaithManor]

Yes, she started when she was twelve just on her own, but very diligent about it, had two years of French in high school which was all that was offered and the person teaching it had no level of fluency at all, took four semesters during her undergrad, then four years of French lessons when she could get them, otherwise trying to study on her own, then some refresher classes, finally tested into 500 level classes, and then from there upward. Living in France made a big difference. Huge. Fluency literally means that one begins thinking in French, not thinking in English and the translating in one's head, dreaming in French, occasionally stopping yourself from answering an English speaker - ie. dear me, ohhhhhhh my sister just loves to stretch me after two years of high school French, four semesters of college French, and then practically never using it again - in French. And practically speaking, it was easier to learn to speak it than to read it, and easier to read it than write.

 

So yup! English as a second language common around the world? Nope, nada, not. Americans fluent in another language with English as their first language? Even less.

 

And I don't know who Teannika is speaking with that thinks KJV English is easier to learn or to teach than modern English, but these individuals clearly are not literacy or linguistic experts. This is not the position AT ALL of Wycliffe Bible Translators.

[Teannika]

This is very ethnocentric. It's a big world out there!

I understand that. But we are coming from a "Christian" context which is recognising where God's word went and how it has travelled throughout the world in history. Think about how many missionaries went out into the world when the King James bible came on the scene and was given to the common people. There is a trail to follow. Follow other completed bibles in their language too. But take note of which manuscripts they are coming from.

[Teannika]

This.

 

And I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding amongst Americans about what it means to be literate, not only because our own population is far less literate in it's own language than say other countries like China, Japan, Singapore, Finland, Iceland, Germany etc. but because the assumption is that whatever snippets of language they learned peddling their feet in one or two years of mandatory French class in high school, they think they "speak another language". Being able to stare at a road sign in Marseille long enough to finally figure out it is telling you that you can't park here, does not mean you have any degree of fluency, you simply have a tiny, limited vocabulary of practical words and that does not mean you read French.

 

I say this as someone who has a sister living Caen getting her PH.D in French literature. She has lived in France for three years, and prior to that, had been studying the language since she was 12. It took her 14 years of study to be rated at a high school level literacy rate and begin taking her first college classes entirely in French.

 

This is why I am prepared to trust the king James translators who were fluent in a great number of languages to accurately translate the bible into the language that I understand, (from manuscripts that were trusted and that were in agreement.) So called "scholars" who only learn Greek (because Hebrew is much harder for them) who are trying to pass themselves off as having some secret knowledge they only found in the Greek no longer appeals to me. I don't think God made it that complicated. I Simply believe that he gave me what I need today. That he kept all of his words and gave them to me in my language so that I could know what he said.

 

I'm not being ethnocentric in saying that he only speaks in English today because I don't believe that. I'm looking at my context in Christian history and seeing that he did bring his complete word down through the ages and that we can follow where it came down, which languages it was translated into and so on. I can read about the men who died trying to get the holy scripture into the common persons language at that time. And it just happens that it came into being a completed printed book in English.

 

There was a time when manuscripts were separate. There was a time when manuscripts were put together. There was a time when the bible became a whole. There was a time when the books were ordered. There was time chapters and verses were added. Everything is about progression and how God's word has come down to us. Follow the trails.