# Praying in King James english.



## Ne Oublie (Feb 13, 2011)

I have heard some arguments for praying in King James english that seem plausible and from those that I greatly respect. I am not sure what to think about it myself, as it is a bit confusing to me. I understand the principle of praying through the language of scripture and I have no issues with praying in KJ english. With that being said, I do not feel compelled to pray that way myself, neither personally nor in my family. 

For those that pray in KJ english, what are your thoughts? Is this just for public prayer? It seems impersonal to me, as I do not speak this way in any manner, and I do not believe that KJ english is the most reverent language to use. 

I am not looking for a translation debate, but just asking for others thoughts on this.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 13, 2011)

Personally I pray in ESV English. 

If by "praying through the language of the scripture" you mean the actual language it's written in, then I'd suggest learning Greek. If you mean the terminology, the ideas, the concepts expressed in Scripture, then sure, go right ahead--in your own words.

Some people learn about and worship God with the King James Version and as a result feel more "connected" with God when using that dialect. That's fine. It happens to anyone who learns more than one language--some friends I know love praying in German, or Spanish. It's a personal choice between you and God. Don't do it to "show off" or impress people with how spiritual you are. I would go so far as to say don't just do it because that's what everybody else does. Do it the way that helps you focus on God and not yourself or everyone else.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 13, 2011)

I do find myself out of habit using KJV English in my prayers (and even in my sermons, especially if I am quoting from memory). I use the KJV in my devotional time so it kind of just bleeds over.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Feb 13, 2011)

Interesting, as I also use the KJV and read mostly puritan writers and my pastor also prays this way, but yet I have not been so compelled. It makes me think I am missing something, in a peculiar way. Should I be praying this way, if everyone around me is?


----------



## Skyler (Feb 13, 2011)

Ne Oublie said:


> Should I be praying this way, if everyone around me is?



Depends. Are you praying to them or God?


----------



## KMK (Feb 13, 2011)

Personally, I dislike when people pray woodenly and haltingly because they want to show off their knowledge of the NASB. 

Seriously, if you spend most of your time reading the KJV and reading the works of those who quote the KJV, you will naturally start to pray the KJV.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 13, 2011)

In addition to the reasons already given, it can also be helpful for cultivating a heart attitude of reverence, similar to why we often kneel, close our eyes, and/or fold our hands in prayer. It has a long history. Even when "you" became the common form of address (early 17th century I think) people continued to pray this way.

I believe the answer to this question is similar to the question of whether you should kneel -- it's the heart attitude that matters, but these sort of things can help bring that into focus if used with the right intentions.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 13, 2011)

This issue used to be a pet peeve of mine. We'd have prayer meetings and folks would break out the _Thees_ and _Thous.... _I was very much against it because that was NOT how these people talked in real life, so why are they praying like this? 

But, then I realized that the KJV was the "heart language" of many people and that, through much reading of that particular version, they naturally regurgitated it back out in Elisabethan English when they prayed. So, clearly it was not an act or done under the pretension of sounding holier but simply because these saints read the bible in that particular version.

So, while I do think there is a danger in praying in some manner (any manner) that is different from the normal way people speak, I can better sympathize with what I still think is an annoying habit now. 

One last point: Here, the local dialect of the national language is different and much simpler than the national language in its "proper form" as spoken 700 miles to the west of this province. When local Christians speak normally, therefore, they use a very simple form of the national language. However, when they go to bible school or "learn how to pray properly," they are often taught formulaic phrases that are common and "proper" in the language of wider communication. Thus, the national language in its "proper form" replaces the normal speech of the people when they return from bible school and these evangelists no longer use the simple language that they grew up with. I think this creates a barrier to prayer and negatively impacts the priesthood of all believers, since now only a few can "pray properly."


----------



## jambo (Feb 13, 2011)

Whilst most people pray in KJ English out of reverence for God, I do not think it necessary. When the apostles prayed did they pray in 4th century BC language? No they used the common Greek of the day.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 13, 2011)

Use to do it back in the day. I never hear anyone praying that way today. In the church I grew up in we had a man who pray beautifully in KJV English, it was like you were at the throne of God. Then, after I got out of high school, I worked with him. Not to defame sailors but none of them had anything on him! Never listened to his public prayers again.


----------



## KMK (Feb 13, 2011)

jambo said:


> *Whilst* most people pray in KJ English out of reverence for God, I do not think it necessary.



Funny! 

Just as in everything else, a better vocabulary is not a hindrance to prayer, but a help. I use a certain vocabulary around the kindergarteners at work, but that doesn't mean I use that vocabulary when I pray.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 13, 2011)

KMK said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > *Whilst* most people pray in KJ English out of reverence for God, I do not think it necessary.
> ...


 
'Whilst' is olde english, but still very much in everyday use in the UK, unlike many other words such as 'thees' and 'thous'


----------



## KMK (Feb 13, 2011)

JonathanHunt said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > jambo said:
> ...


 
No kidding! Is the 'while' also in common usage? I applaud the British for their attempts to uphold pure English.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 13, 2011)

I would not recomend it for public prayer. Prayers that are offered out loud are intended to be understood by those that are able to hear them. Speaking in an affected dialect does not help them understand you.

Of course God understands. He even knows that you mean to be reverent, but you are using the familiar pronouns. And he judges your heart. He knows that you mean to honour him by saying "thee" & "thou" when all you are doing is using an out of date version of "hey, buddy". 

Before you try to adopt the practice, ask yourself "would I pray out loud in Latin?" After all it is more reverent, it is the traditional language of prayer in the west, etc. If you would object to praying in Latin, then don't adopt a 300 year old dialect because it is "more reverent".


----------



## Leslie (Feb 13, 2011)

Do any of you pastor sorts ever have strangers attend your church, those with no Christian background, no KJ understanding? Can you envision what a KJ language prayer does in terms of putting off these people who might be seeking a relationship to God?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 13, 2011)

Westminster Directory of Public Worship: "All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are commonly called _Apocrypha_) shall be publickly *read in the vulgar tongue*, out of the best allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand."

I know this is not about reading of Scripture but the reading of Scripture (at least in this thread) goes hand in hand with how one prays. We should pray in the vulgar tongue.

Vulgar: "common, popular, current"


I guess the question then is: "Is reading the KJV in public worship a reading of the vulgar ('current, popular, current') tongue?" If so, then praying in such a way is fine/right/good. If not, then I would question whether praying in public worship in such a way is fine/right/good.


----------



## jayce475 (Feb 13, 2011)

Here we go again... KJV and WCF i:8


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 13, 2011)

Kevin,

But most "KJV-prayer-ers' would deny that they do this because it is more reverent. Many merely do it because it is the language that they are familiar with. 

IF (and on this IF hangs the whole argument) they do, in fact, use KJV English to sound more reverant, then we should be much less tolerant of this practice. If, however, they were raised on a diet of KJV and the Scripture that they memorize is KJV, then we should be very tolerant and accepting.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 13, 2011)

Pergy, I'll grant your thesis. But when I ask those same brothers why they are "familiar with" this dialect, they say "because it is more reverent".

QED


----------



## KMK (Feb 14, 2011)

Leslie said:


> Do any of you pastor sorts ever have strangers attend your church, those with no Christian background, no KJ understanding? Can you envision what a KJ language prayer does in terms of putting off these people who might be seeking a relationship to God?


 
Is this an accusation that pastors who pray in the language of the KJV hinder the gospel?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2011)

Kevin, if that is the case I guess you need to start praying in Latin around these guys then.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Feb 14, 2011)

jayce475 said:


> Here we go again... KJV and WCF i:8



True. The final post in that thread is excellent (bold added):



NaphtaliPress said:


> Frankly, I haven't seen anyone deal with the Assembly's work sufficiently to support this idea WCF 1.8 obviates the KJV now. I think such an argument may not be able to escape the fact such an interpretation of 1.8 would have obviated the KJV, _*at the time of the Assembly*_.


----------



## TexanRose (Feb 14, 2011)

The people I know who pray in the language of the KJV do so for two reasons, first one being that they are saturated with Scripture and the Bible that they use is the KJV, and secondly because thee and thou are singular and therefore are a more precise way to address God than our "you" which could be either singular or plural. The argument is that the Greek and Hebrew have different pronouns for singular and plural, therefore we should retain the KJV English on this point because it more accurately reflects the pronoun usage of the Bible in the original manuscripts.


----------



## reformedminister (Feb 14, 2011)

I used to pray in KJV English, however, in Seminary my preaching professor and Dean of the school taught against it. So, I quit doing it. I primarily read and preach from the KJV but no longer pray that way. However, I do not have anything against it if that is how one is naturally comfortable praying and it is an expression of their heart. I don't think one should think it is the more "correct" way of praying, or in ESV language for that matter.


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 14, 2011)

LBC1689 22.3 Prayer with thanksgiving, being one part of natural worship, is required by God of all people.1 But to be acceptable, it must be made in the name of the Son,2 by the help of his Spirit,3 and according to his will.4 It must also be made with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance,5 *and when with others in a known language.*6

(1) Psa 95:1-7; 100:1-5
(2) Joh 14:13-14
(3) Rom 8:26
(4) 1Jo 5:14
(5) Psa 47:7; Ecc 5:1-2; Heb 12:28; Gen 18:27; Jas 5:16; 1:6-7; Mar 11:24; Mat 6:12,14-15; Col 4:2; Eph 6:18
(6) 1Co 14:13-19,27-28

If you are among people who are used to 17th century English, it is fine. If you would cause others to be left with no understanding, I would reconsider my vocabulary.


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2011)

Rich Koster said:


> and when with others in a known language



Maybe I misread you but I don't think we can say that the English in the King James is an unknown language. There may be some words that some would not understand but I don't think that would make it an unknown "language." There are some words in the modern versions that will not be understood by all hearers. If an unbeliever came in and heard the words atonement or sanctification in our prayers they wouldn't know what that meant. Does that mean we shouldn't use those words in our prayers?


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 14, 2011)

Joshua said:


> It's how my pastor prays and I've naturally picked it up, like Pastor Glaser, due to my reading of the KJV and many Puritan writers. While I think it's permissible, and it's my personal practice, I don't think it's required or "more spiritual."


 
Quite honestly I think if it became something that felt "more spiritual" I'd be concerned about slipping into something of an idolatrous practice.


----------



## EverReforming (Feb 14, 2011)

As has been stated by others here, we're not praying to show off for others, so if praying in KJ English helps you focus your thoughts, then fine, but its by no means a necessary requirement.



jambo said:


> Whilst most people pray in KJ English out of reverence for God, I do not think it necessary. When the apostles prayed did they pray in 4th century BC language? No they used the common Greek of the day.


 
No, obviously, the apostles spoke in KJ English. They were very forward looking.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

EverReforming said:


> No, obviously, the apostles spoke in KJ English. They were very forward looking.



Speaking in tongues.


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 15, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > and when with others in a known language
> ...


 
Firstly, we are talking about the assembled Church here. So in my opinion, outsiders would not come into play here. Secondly, What I believe is being addressed is offering prayer in the vernacular. Here is an example. In the back of my 1599 Geneva is a list of archaic words. If someone prayed using these words, the majority of us, including myself, would have no understanding. Leaning toward being charitable I would not use them to avoid leaving many of my brethren without understanding. I would also add that it would be lacking humility and charity if one wished to exercise their vast vocabulary before others without consideration for them. God will understand them, but how can others add the amen to what they don't understand? I would especially be careful with English as a second language situations.


----------



## JML (Feb 15, 2011)

Rich Koster said:


> Firstly, we are talking about the assembled Church here. So in my opinion, outsiders would not come into play here. Secondly, What I believe is being addressed is offering prayer in the vernacular. Here is an example. In the back of my 1599 Geneva is a list of archaic words. If someone prayed using these words, the majority of us, including myself, would have no understanding. Leaning toward being charitable I would not use them to avoid leaving many of my brethren without understanding. I would also add that it would be lacking humility and charity if one wished to exercise their vast vocabulary before others without consideration for them. God will understand them, but how can others add the amen to what they don't understand? I would especially be careful with English as a second language situations.



First of all, I don't pray in "King James English." It is unnatural for me to do so because I don't talk that way and I think it would be fake for me personally to do so. However, my point in my previous post is that "King James English" is still English. It is not an unknown language. So I don't think that your quote from the confession applies. There are words that may not be understood but that doesn't make it an unknown language. I can use words in my prayers from a modern version that are not understood but I am still speaking English.


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 15, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, we are talking about the assembled Church here. So in my opinion, outsiders would not come into play here. Secondly, What I believe is being addressed is offering prayer in the vernacular. Here is an example. In the back of my 1599 Geneva is a list of archaic words. If someone prayed using these words, the majority of us, including myself, would have no understanding. Leaning toward being charitable I would not use them to avoid leaving many of my brethren without understanding. I would also add that it would be lacking humility and charity if one wished to exercise their vast vocabulary before others without consideration for them. God will understand them, but how can others add the amen to what they don't understand? I would especially be careful with English as a second language situations.
> ...


 
There have been many go arounds about this before. Old English is functionally a foreign language to me and others would struggle with it as well. I'll drop the argument because I don't have the framers of the confession here to explain exactly what this would include. My point is for people to be built up instead of being left in the dust over a few archaic words and phrases, not to debate the word language.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2011)

It would appear to be a question of usage and conventions. For many years (as in hundreds) after "thee" and "thou" dropped out of conversational usage, they (and their attendant verb forms) were still used in addressing God. That would seem to indicate that they were used as forms of respect and reverence; the usage changed from the familiar, to that reserved for archaism, emphasis, or prayer. It's not, of course, that the forms are somehow intrinsically more reverent; but that convention reserved them largely for expressing reverence.
I believe the genuine point at issue is whether an existing linguistic convention should be preserved in the face of its erosion or not. English does have a particular way of addressing God: should we retain that, or should we let linguistic change overtake it?

On the topic of unintelligibility, I've never been very impressed with that argument. David Eddings wrote a number of bestselling books, not that long ago: in these books one can find a whole clan of people who use the 2nd personal singular pronouns and their attendant verb forms, and even do so correctly. His publisher, Del Rey, apparently did not object too strenuously; and it doesn't appear to have hampered sales too much. Please note that this is not an endorsement or recommendation of the books, merely an observation.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 15, 2011)

I find the claims that the KJ english is not hard to understand very provincal. Frankly this arguement reveals more about your church then you realise.

If people in your church don't have a hard time understanding it then you need to do more outreach! Some weeks my congreagation is more then 50% speakers of English as a second language. And trust me they struggle with the ESV, let alone the KJ.

We have a lot of unchurched native english speakers as well, and they have no clue what is being said if someone prayes in KJ. I know because they ask me to explain what was said.

In my humble opinion this is a silly debate that can only occure inside of a ghetto. If our churches were full of new converts & immigrants & unchurched people then the question would never even get asked. Because you would already be engaged in making yourself understood. And any practice that obscured the gospel would have already been jettisoned.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Frankly this arguement reveals more about your church then you realise.



I think this remark is the provincial one. In 10 years of going to a local rescue mission with immigrants, people fresh out of jail, transients, drug addicts, etc., etc., complaints about the AV have never come up. What has come up is compliments for the preachers from our church, and occasional conflicts over Ebionite doctrine.


----------



## KMK (Feb 15, 2011)

Kevin said:


> In my humble opinion this is a silly debate that can only occure inside of a ghetto.



Apparently, you don't have a very high view of your brothers and sisters here at PB. Why do you continue to be a memeber?


----------



## Kevin (Feb 15, 2011)

Ruben, I'm glad to here of your experience. Do you think the transitory nature of those being served by this type ministry may affect the feedback that you get? I have noticed that people only really open up about things that are troubling them after a relationship has been extablished. One (Iranian) woman after many months asked my wife (on the qt) to explain some of the "church talk" of one of our team members. After I preach I ask non-native speakers of English if they understood the concepts. Upon close and careful questioning I often find that they miss much of the content due to language issues.

This may be unique to me. I may be especially obtuse in my presentation. However the ESL matierial I have been reading suggests that this is not the case.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 15, 2011)

I read and preach from the King James. I desire my prayers to be saturated with Scripture. Matthew Henry's A Method for Prayer is a regular part of my devotional life and an indispensable resource for planing my prayers for the Lord's Day. With all that said, I pray in the Kings English. But I take no issue with those who don't, so long as there prayers are sufficiently reverent.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Ruben, I'm glad to here of your experience. Do you think the transitory nature of those being served by this type ministry may affect the feedback that you get? I have noticed that people only really open up about things that are troubling them after a relationship has been extablished. One (Iranian) woman after many months asked my wife (on the qt) to explain some of the "church talk" of one of our team members. After I preach I ask non-native speakers of English if they understood the concepts. Upon close and careful questioning I often find that they miss much of the content due to language issues.
> 
> This may be unique to me. I may be especially obtuse in my presentation. However the ESL matierial I have been reading suggests that this is not the case.


 
Kevin, it's certainly possible that if it were possible to give more time to the people at the mission additional questions, concerns or complaints would arise. However, since the feedback we have received has generally been complimentary on the issue of clarity, at this point I don't have evidence to suggest that using the AV is putting a stumbling block before these people. So I would ask you to reconsider your negative reflection on churches that use the AV: it is at least not true of all of them that they engage in no outreach.

As your experience shows, special accommodation must be made for those who do not have English for their primary language; but personal catechizing appears to be the best way to make that extra effort to make sure the teaching is apprehended, because each one will have different difficulties.

There was once a young man at the mission who only started to listen when the word "witchcraft" was employed in the sermon: his background made him particularly interested in that. That same term quite possibly alienated or bored others. This is part of the nature of communication. But all of this is a little off topic.


----------



## Zimon (Feb 16, 2011)

I pray in Luther German but because the differences are not as big as between KJV English and today English (nor thous and thees ), it isn't something I have to force myself into. I pray like it comes up to my mind and because I read the old Luther Bible I find myself instinctively adopting his old-fashioned vocabulary.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 16, 2011)

jambo said:


> I do not think it necessary. When the apostles prayed did they pray in 4th century BC language? No they used the common Greek of the day.


 
Exactly. Why would you not pray in your native language? Praying in KJV English would be like the Puritans thinking they had to pray in medieval English. Ridiculous.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm sympathetic with the desire for clear communication, to be sure, but y'all do realize we're just talking about thee, thou, thy, and the verb stem -est, right? That's all the extra vocabulary you need. And native English speakers already know what those mean. The "totally different language" argument is a bit silly, in my opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with praying one way or the other if due reverence is maintained, but let's try to keep the arguments reasonable.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 16, 2011)

bookslover said:


> Exactly. Why would you not pray in your native language? Praying in KJV English would be like the Puritans thinking they had to pray in medieval English. Ridiculous.



This simply misunderstands the nature of the English language. The "King's English" is, technically speaking, _modern_ English. It isn't Old or Middle English which are in fact different languages. So, the only thing that might be considered "ridiculous" is your comparison. 

The constant insistence by some that the language of the King James Bible is "another language" is driving me up a wall. No English major, teacher, or professor would uphold such a ludicrous claim.


----------



## jayce475 (Feb 16, 2011)

Let me offer the example of the Singapore context. We Singaporean kids are generally expected to be able to read them when we are in grade school, even though English is hardly the first language for many. This is also the same reason why I think that it is ridiculous for many to attack the KJV on the basis of the understandibility of the language within. You mean you expect your child to read Shakespeare for literature classes in school but somehow when he comes to church he must have Enid Blyton English? 

I'm surrounded by many many Asian ESL speakers, but no the issue of them not being able to understand our prayers has never come up. If anything, it is much more of the different prosody and vowels of Westerners (Aussie, British or American accents) that pose greater problems. If you really want to minister to us Southeast Asians, either learn to speak English like us or speak our native tongues and I guarantee you that you will be that much more effective a communicator. I have had Thai friends attending church who have pretty halting English, but no they did not have any issues with this too. "Thee", "thou", "thy" take minutes to learn, not months. In fact, one would have learnt them by the time I'm able to explain the term propitiation.

On that note, there are also populations for which King James English is totally unsuitable for. Those who don't speak English.


----------



## KMK (Feb 17, 2011)

Martin Lloyd-Jones warns us of allowing the pew to dictate to the pulpit.



> Another form which it (the pew asserting itself and more or less trying to dictate to the pulpit) takes is to say that these people cannot understand the biblical terminology, that to talk about Justification and Sanctification and Glorification is meaningless to them. We must realise that we are living in a 'post-Christian' era and that this is the greatest obstacle to preaching today, that people do not understand our terms. They sound archaic to them, they are not modern, they are not up to date. The result is this great modern craze for new translations of the Scriptures in familiar, ordinary everyday language, and the fashion of no longer addressing God as 'Thee' and 'Thou', but 'You'. This, we are told, is all-important, that when the modern man hears Thee and Thou it is almost impossible for him to listen to the gospel, leave alone to believe it. So we have to change our language, and we do this in our new translations of the Scriptures, and in our prayers, and in general in our style of preaching and all our religious activities. That is how this modern attitude, which regards the pew as controlling the pulpit, expresses itself with respect to the ordinary person. Preaching and Preachers; pg. 123





> Let me say at once that I agree entirely that we should always seek the best translations possible. We must not be obscurantist in these matters. Let us have the best that the translators can give us. But that is not the real point behind the idea that you must now address God as 'You' rather than 'Thee' or 'Thou' if you are to 'communicate' the Gospel to the modern man. The basic assumption behind that thinking is that the reason these people do not believe in God, and do not pray to Him and accept the Gospel, is the archaic language of the A.V., and if only that is put right the whole situation will be changed, and the modern man will be able to believe these things. The simple answer to all that is that people have always found this language to be strange. The answer to the argument that people in this post-Christian age do not understand terms like Justification, Sanctification and Glorification is simply to ask another question. When did people understand them? When did the unbeliever understand this language? The answer is: Never! These terms are peculiar and special to the Gospel. It is our business as preachers to show that our gospel is essentially different and that we are not talking about ordinary matters. We must emphasise the fact that we are talking about something unique and special. We must lead people to expect this; and so w are to assert it. Our business is to teach people the meaning of these terms. They do not decide and determine what is to be preached and how: it is we that have the Revelation, the Message, and we have to make this understood. Preaching and Preachers; page 130,131



The argument that this person or that cannot understand the English of one version and it, therefore, must be abandoned in favor of more colloquial versions is a slippery slope. There are going to always be a minority who complain they cannot understand the Bible, no matter what version you use, because the Bible has some very hard language to understand.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jambo (Feb 17, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Why would you not pray in your native language? Praying in KJV English would be like the Puritans thinking they had to pray in medieval English. Ridiculous.
> ...



Language is dynamic. Words in vogue today are either gone tomorrow or have changed their meaning according to common usage. I do not have a problem with those who pray in King James language, but I just wonder why? Tyndale wanted the scriptures in the common language so that the plough boy and the parlour maid could read it and understand it. 

Using thou and thee, dost and shalt etc are not words in common use today and I sometimes wonder whether using such language confirms the belief in many of those outside that the church is outdated. 

The English of the King James is not another language, it is one stage in the development of modern English. It is however a language that is used only by some Christians or Shakespearean actors

BTW the current phrase is the Queen's English.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 17, 2011)

jambo said:


> Language is dynamic. Words in vogue today are either gone tomorrow or have changed their meaning according to common usage. I do not have a problem with those who pray in King James language, but I just wonder why? Tyndale wanted the scriptures in the common language so that the plough boy and the parlour maid could read it and understand it.
> 
> Using thou and thee, dost and shalt etc are not words in common use today and I sometimes wonder whether using such language confirms the belief in many of those outside that the church is outdated.



"Thou" and "thee," "dost" and "shalt" were not "common use" in 1611. More common? perhaps. But the fact remains that the idiom of the AV was intentionally antiquated _at that time_ so as to compliment ancient and historical nature of the Sacred Text. The translators state this plainly in their introduction to the AV.

So what good reason do we have for using a more precise and formal language in prayer, the same reason given by the the translators of the AV. And the same reason (I might add) that modern legal documents read like the King James. Have you ever received a legal notice? The're chock full of Thee, thou, ye, wherefore, shalt, &c. Why? 1) for precision and 2) for the gravity of the law.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------




jambo said:


> BTW the current phrase is the Queen's English.



Yes, but the monarch who's language is in question is King James I.


----------



## KMK (Feb 17, 2011)

The argument that the Reformers preached and prayed with Thees and Thous because it was the common language of the day is simply not true. They must have done so for other reasons. Those who condemn the use of Thees and Thous in preaching and prayer because they are not 'common' need to be consistent and condemn the Reformers as well.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Feb 18, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Personally I pray in ESV English.
> 
> If by "praying through the language of the scripture" you mean the actual language it's written in, then I'd suggest learning Greek. If you mean the terminology, the ideas, the concepts expressed in Scripture, then sure, go right ahead--in your own words.
> 
> Some people learn about and worship God with the King James Version and as a result feel more "connected" with God when using that dialect. That's fine. It happens to anyone who learns more than one language--some friends I know love praying in German, or Spanish. It's a personal choice between you and God. Don't do it to "show off" or impress people with how spiritual you are. I would go so far as to say don't just do it because that's what everybody else does. Do it the way that helps you focus on God and not yourself or everyone else.


 
Good point. 

God sees our hearts and attitude.

I like ESV also, and NASB.


----------



## Herald (Feb 18, 2011)

If the King's English was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me. 

Sent from my most excellent Android device.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Feb 18, 2011)

It surely is better than saying: " Yo God, I thank you for this food. Bless it, Amen"

This is an actual prayer I heard someone pray before.


----------



## jambo (Feb 19, 2011)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> It surely is better than saying: " Yo God, I thank you for this food. Bless it, Amen"
> 
> This is an actual prayer I heard someone pray before.


 
Agreed. I find that type of praying abhorrent. I was in a church recently when the speaker introduced the prayer by saying "Lets have a word with the boss." Although I do not agree with praying in the King James language, but I would prefer to hear it than the type of example you gave. I know people say it is the heart that counts but it betrays a lack of awe and reverence for the one before whom we come.


----------



## KMK (Feb 19, 2011)

jambo said:


> it betrays a lack of awe and reverence for the one before whom we come.



I am sure that those who pray in KJV would agree.


----------



## jambo (Feb 19, 2011)

KMK said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > it betrays a lack of awe and reverence for the one before whom we come.
> ...


 
I was meaning using flippant language in prayer betrays a lack of reverence. Whether one prays in the King James or modern style they can both be equally reverent. Being flippant shows a lack of respect in that you do not take the one you are praying to seriously.


----------



## KMK (Feb 20, 2011)

We all agree that there is a right way and a wrong way to pray to our Lord. Is it our individual consciences that make the determination? Do our church elders? Does the unbelieving visitor?


----------



## jambo (Feb 20, 2011)

Unfortunately the bible does not tell us what is reverent language and what is not. The closest thing is when Jesus was asked by the disciples to teach them how to pray. What follows is what has become know as the Lord's Prayer and after the address it begins with "hallowed by thy/your name" Thus the whole tone of the prayer is one of reverence. Whether it is asking for our daily bread forgiveness or the coming of the kingdom the cord of hallowing God's name is wrapped round each phrase. I do not believe the prayer was intended to be repeated parrot fashion as it is in some churches, but it gives an example of what prayer is and should be. Not just in words in but in the manner they are spoken in.

Today what one person considers acceptable prayer may be considered irreverent by someone else. I would tend to think that the language of prayer (and sometimes a sigh or a groan can be a heartfelt prayer) ought to be reverent, appropriate, theologically correct, addressed to God the father in the name of Jesus and with the power of the Holy Spirit (I know there are examples of people praying to Jesus and the Holy Spirit but they are rare as most praying is aimed at the father) I think that the heart which prays should have that sense of awe and wonder that a person such as the one praying is able to to commune with a such a holy and almighty God. I believe prayer should be biblical in that the language of scripture should be used by that KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV or whatever translation one uses

I am not trying to be like a Pharisee and say that this is real prayer and that that is not real prayer but I think the elements in the previous paragraph (and no doubt I have left some out) all come together in what I would consider 'good praying'


----------



## TimV (Feb 20, 2011)

> Interesting, as I also use the KJV and read mostly puritan writers and my pastor also prays this way, but yet I have not been so compelled. It makes me think I am missing something, in a peculiar way. Should I be praying this way, if everyone around me is


? 

It depends on whether you want to be like Christ in that area or not. Ask yourself which language(s) Christ prayed in.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 20, 2011)

What is ironic about this conversation is that I'll bet almost everybody in this thread is fine with singing hymns in church that contain "thou" and "thy."


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 20, 2011)

Joshua said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > What is ironic about this conversation is that I'll bet almost everybody in this thread is fine with singing hymns in church that contain "thou" and "thy."
> ...


 
Psalms are hymns. That point is crucial to your position's interpretation of the New Testament's references to song.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 20, 2011)

Joshua said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...


 
I see what you mean. For my part, I almost changed it to "psalms and hymns" before you commented, but I decided to leave it the way it is since psalms are hymns. I wasn't leaving you out, brother.

Sorry for being !


----------



## bookslover (Feb 21, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Why would you not pray in your native language? Praying in KJV English would be like the Puritans thinking they had to pray in medieval English. Ridiculous.
> ...



Well, to the extent that English has changed signifcantly since the 17th century, it IS another language...

---------- Post added at 02:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------




KMK said:


> The argument that the Reformers preached and prayed with Thees and Thous because it was the common language of the day is simply not true. They must have done so for other reasons. Those who condemn the use of Thees and Thous in preaching and prayer because they are not 'common' need to be consistent and condemn the Reformers as well.



Good point - since most of the Reformers spoke German or French, not English!


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 21, 2011)

Joshua said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > What is ironic about this conversation is that I'll bet almost everybody in this thread is fine with singing hymns in church that contain "thou" and "thy."
> ...


 
Don't forget hymns with y'all.


----------



## KMK (Feb 21, 2011)

bookslover said:


> Well, to the extent that English has changed signifcantly since the 17th century, it IS another language...



Then why are Shakespeare and Milton taught in English class?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 21, 2011)

bookslover said:


> Well, to the extent that English has changed signifcantly since the 17th century, it IS another language...



No. It isn't. The fact that you _can and do_ read, understand and apply the Westminster Standards proves as much. For anyone to make such a claim is to show a complete ignorance of language, its nature, and purpose.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Feb 21, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Well, to the extent that English has changed signifcantly since the 17th century, it IS another language...
> ...


 
Brother: Well said!


----------

