# Praying in KJV English (Revisited)



## Rescued (Apr 21, 2021)

I saw another discussion on this from 2011 and after perusing it, I wasn't sure if I saw some points that I would have made on the subject. I may have missed them though. So forgive me in advance if my points were already made.

So I have been in a church for some time where everyone except me prays in KJV English. They do not seem to like me for this fact and I am seeking out another reformed church because of it. But the one I attended this past Lord's Day does the same thing. Their prayer meeting consisted entirely of this, from every person that prayed. I remained silent and felt grieved in my spirit.

So here's my beef with this. Prayer is something that is commanded by God, that is a given. But the apostle tells us that as believers, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, by whom we cry out to God, Abba Father. When God truly saved us, we called out to Him in our despair to rescue and save us from our sins and from His just condemnation. We looked to Jesus Christ alone for justification and life. And He did indeed hear us as promised and sent the Spirit of Christ into our hearts, by whom we now cry out, Abba Father.

Now my point is not necessarily to go into what Abba means, but to argue that this miracle of new birth that takes place in our souls puts into us a spirit of groaning and supplication to our Holy Father jn heaven. We depend on Him for everything and every breath we take. And the majority of our private prayer is indeed groaning that cannot even be expressed. And yet God our Father knows. We groan in our pains and we enter His presence by Christ and only by His merits.

Now amidst my cries to God I have never felt it brought me any closer to Him to speak to Him in Elizabethan English. After all, do believers say in Russia have to cry out to their Father in heaven in some altered form of Russian to feel as though they are paying God due reverence?

To me it seems like religious hypocrisy to pray this way, especially publicly, considering the things I have stated about the nature of true prayer. And even though publicly, we must pray intelligibly, the language we use ought to still be that of a child to their Father.

The church at it's heart, must be evangelical as well and ever seeking to expand the work of the gospel. We are not here on the earth to form little religious societies filled with oddities which may be a hindrance to sinners seeking God, or even to those not yet seeking Him. What will a man think who walks into our assembly seeking help and guidance think when he hears us praying, O God we thank thee for thy richest blessings which thou hast bestowed upon us...etc..? Will he get the impression from this that we truly have a personal relationship with God, or that we are simply performing a religious duty? Maybe he will think that he wants nothing to do with Christianity now because he could never bring himself to pray in such a way.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Apr 21, 2021)

My old church had elders who admonished a seminary student for not praying in King James English during service. For some reason preaching in modern English was okay but prayer had to be King James. I found the admonishment absurd, though I admit to having laughed at the level of absurdity reached.

I am all in favor of the King James Bible and prefer it to all other English translations. That said, one of the important changes the reformation brought the church was a translation of scripture in the local vernacular as well as church services conducted in the local vernacular. It seems to me this principle applies just as much today as it did 500 years ago. Expecting people to pray in a version of a language they don't speak strikes me as a first step towards Romanizing prayer and worship generally.

Reactions: Like 12


----------



## Miller (Apr 21, 2021)

If you have William Young's "Reformed Thought" he argues in favor of KJV English in prayer to address God. 

Or check it out here https://reformedbooksonline.com/authors/contemporary-authors/young-william/address-to-god-in-prayer/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## B.L. (Apr 21, 2021)

Rescued said:


> So I have been in a church for some time where everyone except me prays in KJV English. They do not seem to like me for this fact and I am seeking out another reformed church because of it. But the one I attended this past Lord's Day does the same thing. Their prayer meeting consisted entirely of this, from every person that prayed. I remained silent and felt grieved in my spirit.



For folks like myself who pray exclusively in the language of the Latin Vulgate I would never be able to attend a church where everyone prays in KJV English. It would not only inflict harm on my conscience, but more importantly prayers in KJV English would fall on deaf ears with the one true and living God and fail to edify the saints. Prayer must be in Latin.

All joking aside, one can pray showing proper reverence to God without sounding like Max McLean reading from the KJV. If you are truly being alienated for praying like someone living in the 21st Century you might want to move on.

Reactions: Like 6 | Funny 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Apr 21, 2021)

ChristianLibertarian said:


> Expecting people to pray in a version of a language they don't speak strikes me as a first step towards Romanizing prayer and worship generally.


I was thinking the same thing.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2021)

Use the following in your next prayer

“chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “
champaign” (Deut. 11:30), 
“charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), 
“churl” (Isa. 32:7), 
clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “
cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), 
“collops” (Job 15:27), 
“confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), 
“cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), 
“covert” (2 Kings 16:18), 
“wimples” (Isa. 3:22), 
“stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), 
, “wist” (Acts 12:9), 
, “wont” (Dan. 3:19), 
“the scall" (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), 
“roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), 
“muffler” (Isa. 3:19),
“froward” (1 Peter 2:18),
(Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Exod 9:9), 
“crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20),

Reactions: Like 6 | Wow 1


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 21, 2021)

Miller said:


> If you have William Young's "Reformed Thought" he argues in favor of KJV English in prayer to address God.
> 
> Or check it out here https://reformedbooksonline.com/authors/contemporary-authors/young-william/address-to-god-in-prayer/


I have it and indeed he does. I have the book and found that timely because of what I had personally been going through. I pray in KJV English out of habit. It is automatic since I've been reading that version for 35 years (along with more recent English translations)

I was on a D.A. Carson 'kick' a few years ago, watching one youtube video after another. In one of them he spoke about praying in modern English, as opposed to KJV. He pointed out that he grew up in French speaking Quebec and that English was not his first language. That really struck a cord with me.
Meanwhile my pastor prays publicly, and privately I suspect, in KJV English.

Listening to him in the worship service I began to feel that it sounded weird. This didn't change my praying, but I became conscious of it. I spoke with him about it and, like me, he just does it without thinking of the alternative out of force of habit.


He had a visiting pastor preach on one Lord's Day and the man prayed in modern English referring to God as 'you.' A member of the congregation came up to my pastor after the service and was irate because the pulpit supply didn't use thees and thous.
Listening to mainstream radio preachers, John MacArthur, Erwin Lutzer, among others, I have noticed that though they are preaching out of the modern English translation, the NASB, ESV, and the like, they will quote Scripture from memory from the KJV. All the verses I've memorized are also KJV.
Of course this is because they 'cut their teeth' on the KJV.

In this time of lockdown I've been doing conference call church with two congregations. My own OPC in Lake Worth, FL, and another OP in Miami. So I am virtually in church at 11am, 1pm, and 6pm. The pastor in Miami is in his early 70s, my pastor in his late 50s. I was surprised that the older pastor, preaching probably 40-50 years, prays in modern English. Say all this to say, it doesn't matter to God what pronouns we're using if we are praying in Spirit and in truth.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 21, 2021)

Don't make a personal hang up a matter of division. Rejecting an otherwise sound Reformed church over this is extreme, as is alienating someone who didn't learn to pray using thees and thous. Sounds like both going on here.

Reactions: Like 16


----------



## deleteduser99 (Apr 21, 2021)

There is a decent natural reason for using "thou", that is unfamiliar to English speakers.

Some languages have an honor system built into them. Examples are Korean and Japanese. You would use different styles of words when addressing a king than you would a coworker, and it can sound like the differences between a "thee/thou" style vs. a "you" style. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful if you used the same style for the king as you would the coworker. It is assumed in these countries that you will honor this system.

It exists in Spanish. Tu is the informal you (friends, buddies, peers), usted the formal (to bosses, authorities, parents, unfamiliar persons).

Even in Hebrew (although plural pronouns are not used to address God), Elohim is a "majestic plural."

English did have it. "You" used to be the respectful formal, "thou" was informal. That obviously is lost. English culture somewhat has it. Brits still refer to "Her Majesty the Queen"whenever she is spoken of. Though an honor system is not built into our language grammar anymore, we are still mindful of the form of our approach or reference to persons of authority.

KJV english is some people's way of building honor into our words. For many, we English speakers are probably the odd ones for not having this feature.

In any case, whether expressed in grammar or no, our approach to God is not like our approach to others. We come with confidence as children, but knowing He is a consuming fire we come with reverence and godly fear. Whether "you" or "thou", honor and fear ought to come out in the way He is addressed.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Leslie (Apr 21, 2021)

Get back at them by using KJV English for non-religious purposes: "How thinkest thee in thine heart whether it will behoove us to diminish our filthy lucre by procuring ice cream cones tonight?" It will make a point without being confrontational. It would be jolly fun to put the teens up to creatively doing this. Have a KJ party where everyone talks this way; punishment for ordinary English is a frown sticker. It's my feeling that many believers don't even realize they are doing this. Hearing KJ's language for secular conversation would make the point.

Reactions: Like 6 | Funny 1


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 21, 2021)

If you read the Bible and sing the psalms (or old hymns) in versions that distinguish the second person singular using "thou," the language is a natural outpouring of having the word of Christ dwell richly in a person. It is the language of their devotional life and comes from the heart. By long religious custom and association with the Bible and other places, it has become the language of majesty, suitable for expressing deep thoughts or thoughts of rich love and reverant intimacy (consider the language of poetry, e.g., How do I love thee?). Therefore, not all who use that language (improperly called KJV english) are doing so out of religious hypocrisy, but simply expressing their deep groanings in an honest but reverant manner.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## alexanderjames (Apr 21, 2021)

This is interesting because at my church no one I know of uses “Thee, Thy and Thou” but I find this to be my natural prayer language, having begun with a KJV Bible as a new believer. So I find myself using this language in my own private prayers. If I pray in public however I will say “You” and Your” so as not to alienate my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 21, 2021)

The whole thing is absurd. Those pronouns died out of English by the early 18th century at the latest. We live now, we don't live then. They prayed in the English that was common for their times, and we pray in the English that is common now.

I wonder if these people think that Moses and David should be rebuked for not using Elizabethan pronouns!

Yet another symptom of obsession with the KJV.

Reactions: Like 6 | Sad 1


----------



## alexanderjames (Apr 21, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> Some languages have an honor system built into them.
> ....
> In any case, whether expressed in grammar or no, our approach to God is not like our approach to others. We come with confidence as children, but knowing He is a consuming fire we come with reverence and godly fear. Whether "you" or "thou", honor and fear ought to come out in the way He is addressed.



My thoughts exactly! And the Lord looks upon the heart.


----------



## kodos (Apr 21, 2021)

If they mandate it - it is *wrong*. If they do it naturally or that is how they learned to pray, that is another matter. It may be cultural in some churches. Especially if they use the KJV as their translation and have memorized large chunks of it.

Sure, some have improper motives in praying this way. But I would just give a note of caution - there are lots of those who do it not because they feel like they _have to_ but that it is _natural. _For instance, if you pray the words of Scripture (and use the KJV), then when you pray, _"There is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared" _(Psalm 130:4) it can be an odd transition out to more modern English. I pray in a more modern English, but I have felt the tug to stay in the KJV's _Early Modern English_ at times.

Our congregation is mixed. Some do and some do not. It has never been a matter where one group looks down on another, thankfully. 

Blessings!

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Jack K (Apr 21, 2021)

I think your arguments are solid, but you also need to make sure you are being understanding of others (and yes, they need to be understanding with you). Some people may use _thee_ and _thou_ in their prayers because it feels to them like a respectful way to address their Creator, which is not an altogether bad impulse. Others may do it out of habit, and that really is not one of the worst habits found in churches these days. It isn't necessarily hypocrisy.

*Have you talked about this* with the believers at your new church? Before you get overly annoyed, and before you assume they are being judgmental toward you, you really should talk this over and get to understand each other. Humbly explain why you pray the way you do and ask if it bothers anyone. Explain your experience in your former church so that they understand your fears. Get to know them and why they pray the way they do (which likely will allay your fears and temper your criticism of them, at least somewhat). You have a duty to pursue togetherness rather than just being fearful and critical. And this is a happy duty, as it typically brings closer fellowship.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 21, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> There is a decent natural reason for using "thou", that is unfamiliar to English speakers.
> 
> Some languages have an honor system built into them. Examples are Korean and Japanese. You would use different styles of words when addressing a king than you would a coworker, and it can sound like the differences between a "thee/thou" style vs. a "you" style. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful if you used the same style for the king as you would the coworker. It is assumed in these countries that you will honor this system.
> 
> ...


This was a live discussion in the 17th century, when it was the Anglicans arguing for formal address to God as our king (hence the formality of the Book of Common Prayer) and the Puritans arguing for familiar address to God as our Father. The same discussion extended to buildings, where the Anglicans argued for ornate building resembling palaces, where Puritans opted for more domestic "meeting houses".

In terms of your specific arguments, I don't think they work.
1) Modern English does not have an honorific plural (with the possible exception of the Queen's royal "we"). 
2) If this argument held any merit, we should always refer to God as "You" (honorific) and not "Thou" (personal); see the dedication of the KJV, which uses the presumably honorific "your majesty" rather than "thy majesty". But even the Book of Common Prayer is all "Thee" and "Thou" not "You" and "Your", showing that no one in Jacobite or Elizabethan times thought we should use an honorific plural for God.
3) Neither Greek nor Hebrew has honorific pronouns, so to impose them in a third language means departing from Biblical speech. For example, one would no longer be able to pray the psalms as written in the KJV! Ironically, those who were shaping their language after the Bible translation most familiar to them, the KJV, would need to be rebuked. To arbitrarily assign honor to the singular in English has no precedent and makes no sense.
4) Elohim is almost certainly not a plural of majesty, even though such do exist in Hebrew. It is part of a class of words that are plural in form but can be singular or plural in meaning - e.g. _mayim_ "water or waters".

Yes we should pray with reverence and awe, but pronouns are of little weight in these categories: the nouns and verbs we use are much weightier, especially the titles we ascribe to God.

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2 | Sad 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Apr 21, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> This was a live discussion in the 17th century, when it was the Anglicans arguing for formal address to God as our king (hence the formality of the Book of Common Prayer) and the Puritans arguing for familiar address to God as our Father. The same discussion extended to buildings, where the Anglicans argued for ornate building resembling palaces, where Puritans opted for more domestic "meeting houses".
> 
> In terms of your specific arguments, I don't think they work.
> 1) Modern English does not have an honorific plural (with the possible exception of the Queen's royal "we").
> ...



I should probably have been clear that I personally use "you" in my prayers. So, no argument from me that what I wrote binds us to "thee" and "thou." It doesn't. But that's on me for not being clear.

My main point was to argue against an idea that the "thou" brothers are somehow being legalistic or hypocritical; and accordingly to show that even though our modern English does not have an honorific system, other cultures do, and they signify by it that those who are to be honored are addressed and approached in a distinct fashion from others. In that light, a formal/informal system of grammar is not so weird. Which is why I believe our "thou" brethren pray in the language they do. So my concern is that their motives are rightly understood. Again, I do not use "thou" myself.

I do think I did say that there is no honorific grammar built into our modern English grammar, although in some contexts there is a way of speaking of someone with a special sense of honor. Though, I probably made that sense of honor appear more extensive than it really is in the English-speaking world. We as Americans are pretty awful in this regard.

Agreed, no honorific system in Greek exists anywhere; nor in Hebrew either. Thanks for correction on Elohim, though I have heard that asserted somewhere. Also, thanks for the historical details on the Puritans and Anglicans.

(If we really want an interesting discussion (though it'd be off-topic), concerning your third point: Even though Greek and Hebrew do not have honorific systems, in other language it's indispensable; reference to one's supremacy, inferiority, or related status is built into the very form of the words you use. Don't know if elimination of such is grammatically possible--or if so, wise--for those languages. I wonder how then such is handled by translators. But I'm glad not to deal with that (for now).)

So, my only point: Without binding anyone to honorific grammar, it isn't actually all that weird.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 21, 2021)

*If* it is true that they are alienating you because of this, then move on. You aren't doing anything wrong. But if you are expressing irritation or disdain for their practice and it is your behavior that leads to them alienating you, then repent and chill out.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## ZackF (Apr 21, 2021)

JimmyH said:


> I have it and indeed he does. I have the book and found that timely because of what I had personally been going through. I pray in KJV English out of habit. It is automatic since I've been reading that version for 35 years (along with more recent English translations)
> 
> I was on a D.A. Carson 'kick' a few years ago, watching one youtube video after another. In one of them he spoke about praying in modern English, as opposed to KJV. He pointed out that he grew up in French speaking Quebec and that English was not his first language. That really struck a cord with me.
> Meanwhile my pastor prays publicly, and privately I suspect, in KJV English.
> ...


Excellent points. Many people over say, 70, will often pray and invoke older English because their formative years were filled with such. Our recently retired pastor quoted from memory in KJV but he preached from NASB. That is just a reflection of having used KJV earlier in life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 21, 2021)

Very good responses and food for thought. I didn't say anything to them and simply visited the other church this past Lord's Day. When they contacted me and asked why I wasn't there I told them where I went and the elder blew up my phone on the Lord's Day with a string of harsh texts saying there must be some sin in my life making me do that. The church was just a little work consisting of himself and his family, that's it. They were all about the KJV and psalms only and believed you couldn't even be saved unless you heard from the KJV. They don't even have a pastor and they played video recordings of a pastor from Maryland for their service. I lovingly explained to him I needed pastoral guidance in my life. He then told me I was a fool.

But the accusation I made of praying in KJV english being hypocrisy may have been a blanket statement I should have not made. Because as someone pointed out there are those who truly do this out of a love for the Lord. And yet I didn't really see any responses to the point I made about reaching the lost. Are men to believe that they have to become "ultra religious" like this to be saved or to maintain a right relationship with God? I know when I was converted I was so weak and desperately seeking the grace of God, that all "religion" as such came across to me as nothing before God. And that to be saved we had to renounce our own righteousness. 

Aren't our prayers heard by God on account of Christ alone and not on account of the eloquence of our speech? It's not a mixture of our own goodness and that of Christ's that makes up our connection to God. We pray in the name of Jesus for this very reason. Because apart from Him alone our own righteousness is as filthy rags. So shouldn't our public prayer in the church be careful to communicate these truths to those in need of Christ? Setting aside our own preferences on how we like to address God, to me, it seems like we ought to have the way we come across to others as at least one of our concerns in these matters. We want them to know and perceive that we are indeed communicating with a real and Divine Person who has saved us by His grace and adopted us as His dear children. 

So to me, even still today when I hear prayer in antique language that isn't used anymore, my first thought is, who are they trying to impress, God??? I'm sorry but the only thing that impresses God is coming to Him through Christ alone with a broken and a contrite heart in the spirit of deep reverence He has given us, and yet as a child to their Father seeking His guidance, help and blessing.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 21, 2021)

Hello Jeremy, 

You said, "They do not seem to like me for this fact" (that I don't pray in the old language). Do you know this for sure? Have you asked? 

I just at this point saw your most recent post, and understand a little better. It might be a good idea if you found a church with compassionate elders.

In the other church you attended, why not ask the elders there about how they feel on the matter. Would they look down on someone who prayed in modern English?

Personally, I mix the old and the modern pronouns. I've used the KJV as my primary and preferred Bible for decades (though I use others as well), have pastored in three churches (one an Arabic-speaking church through translators). When preaching or teaching I often modernize the language so all can clearly understand the text. When praying, as I said, I mix the pronouns. I often address the Persons of the Godhead as "You", and perhaps as equally as "Thou" or "Thee" — without rhyme or reason as far as I can tell, it's just the way I talk, even to my heavenly Father and to my Lord.

There are many hymns which use the old pronouns that are imprinted in my mind and heart, such as "How great Thou art...", "Thou art coming to a King, great petitions with thee bring..." just to name two. Most traditional churches sing these sorts of hymns, even if they use modern Bibles.

So please don't be prejudiced (not saying that you are) in thinking that such as I seek to push antiquated usage on folks (I realize that some people _are_ prejudiced against the older language). To some if us it just comes naturally through our Bibles and hymns, as though written on our hearts — yet we are savvy enough to know that in speaking to the modern man or woman it is wise to use the language they use.

_And_, there is a beauty and majesty to the King James or Geneva Bibles in their old, classic English rendering of the Greek and Hebrew cadences that might strike even modern folks as stunningly wondrous.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 21, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Our recently retired pastor quoted from memory in KJV but he preached from NASB. That is just a reflection of having used KJV earlier in life.


Perhaps, but remember the 1977 NASB used Thee/Thou/Thy in reference to God as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Apr 21, 2021)

Rescued said:


> Very good responses and food for thought. I didn't say anything to them and simply visited the other church this past Lord's Day. When they contacted me and asked why I wasn't there I told them where I went and the elder blew up my phone on the Lord's Day with a string of harsh texts saying there must be some sin in my life making me do that. The church was just a little work consisting of himself and his family, that's it. They were all about the KJV and psalms only and believed you couldn't even be saved unless you heard from the KJV. They don't even have a pastor and they played video recordings of a pastor from Maryland for their service. I lovingly explained to him I needed pastoral guidance in my life. He then told me I was a fool.
> 
> But the accusation I made of praying in KJV english being hypocrisy may have been a blanket statement I should have not made. Because as someone pointed out there are those who truly do this out of a love for the Lord. And yet I didn't really see any responses to the point I made about reaching the lost. Are men to believe that they have to become "ultra religious" like this to be saved or to maintain a right relationship with God? I know when I was converted I was so weak and desperately seeking the grace of God, that all "religion" as such came across to me as nothing before God. And that to be saved we had to renounce our own righteousness.
> 
> ...



I think you have your question answered about the church. From the heart, the mouth speaks.

And your concerns for the unconverted are certainly noble too, and I certainly get why people would not want to. Just a few friendly bits of food for thought :

I can tell you that one of the most highly respected Christians in my life uses "thee" and "thou" in his prayers, and I've not known anyone to push me so near to Christ before. Knowing the right person could utterly shatter the stereotypes.

As said in this thread too, "thee" and "thou" sometimes become part of one's devotional language, and our highest and best thoughts of God sometimes come to be associated with it. It could actually become the most sincere vocabulary one has in their language.

And, if one is going to be a well-rounded Christian, they have to get used to thee's and thou's anyway, because many of our greatest works in church history are still printed in early modern English.

Personal opinion, I think part of the problem is that most of us Americans are monolinguists, so we don't adapt to different/unfamiliar ways of speaking all that well. It'd be different if you lived in a place where bilingualism were more common I think. But it is a barrier that can be overcome, and to get used to such language well more than pays.

Appreciate your willingness to listen, and to receive corrections as you've done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 21, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Perhaps, but remember the 1977 NASB used Thee/Thou/Thy in reference to God as well.


That's right. Especially the old testament if I remember correctly.


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 21, 2021)

Rescued said:


> Very good responses and food for thought. I didn't say anything to them and simply visited the other church this past Lord's Day. When they contacted me and asked why I wasn't there I told them where I went and the elder blew up my phone on the Lord's Day with a string of harsh texts saying there must be some sin in my life making me do that. The church was just a little work consisting of himself and his family, that's it. They were all about the KJV and psalms only and believed you couldn't even be saved unless you heard from the KJV. They don't even have a pastor and they played video recordings of a pastor from Maryland for their service. I lovingly explained to him I needed pastoral guidance in my life. He then told me I was a fool.
> 
> But the accusation I made of praying in KJV english being hypocrisy may have been a blanket statement I should have not made. Because as someone pointed out there are those who truly do this out of a love for the Lord. And yet I didn't really see any responses to the point I made about reaching the lost. Are men to believe that they have to become "ultra religious" like this to be saved or to maintain a right relationship with God? I know when I was converted I was so weak and desperately seeking the grace of God, that all "religion" as such came across to me as nothing before God. And that to be saved we had to renounce our own righteousness.
> 
> ...


Speaking for myself it isn't a matter of trying to impress. It is a learned experience. The Disciples said, 'Lord teach us to pray.' I have read many books trying to get it right. I finally realized that I just have to speak to my Father in heaven in Spirit and in truth, and the language I do so in is not relevant to the practice of it. My learned experience happened to be with the 'archaic language' that you find objectionable.

I don't know if it applies, or if I'm misusing Scripture to draw the analogy, but from your first post I thought of Romans 14:13-23. Substitute praying for eating and drinking and think about 'if it causes the weaker brother to stumble.' Not a perfect analogy in any case, but conveys my idea. As for a solution, I wouldn't expect someone to begin to pray in an archaic language to please others when it was unnatural to them, nor would it be right to expect them to remain silent if the Spirit moved them to prayer.

Ideally both sides would accept the other out of Christian love. Unfortunately the flesh is weak.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2021)

Rescued said:


> They were all about the KJV and psalms only and believed you couldn't even be saved unless you heard from the KJV.



If that is literally true, then they are adding to the gospel. Leave.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## ZackF (Apr 21, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If that is literally true, then they are adding to the gospel. Leave.


That’s what I was thinking. I was like whoa...bruh?


----------



## Rescued (Apr 21, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If that is literally true, then they are adding to the gospel. Leave.


Yes this is indeed what they believe. Their argument is that since Christ is called the Word in John 1 and the KJV is the true word of God (according to them), that therefore there is an inseparable connection between Jesus Christ and the King James Bible. And so they say that since God only saves by Christ, that the KJV is the only means of salvation. I questioned them last summer as to whether or not they worship the Bible and they denied it. But doesn't all this really amount to being fooled into worshipping the Bible? Seems like a subtle but deadly error. I would have left last summer had they not denied they worship the Bible, but by now I could feel in my heart this is actually the case. Seems like to them the Trinity is "Father, KJV Bible and Holy Spirit."

Yes I have left there for good.

p.s. to anyone reading this thread. I actually use the KJV and have all my life. And yet it's for it's accuracy, not in any sense with the idea that the translation is inspired. I do hold to the traditional Greek and Hebrew texts being what God has preserved and yet this is a matter of faith. James White seems to think otherwise.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 21, 2021)

JimmyH said:


> Speaking for myself it isn't a matter of trying to impress. It is a learned experience. The Disciples said, 'Lord teach us to pray.' I have read many books trying to get it right. I finally realized that I just have to speak to my Father in heaven in Spirit and in truth, and the language I do so in is not relevant to the practice of it. My learned experience happened to be with the 'archaic language' that you find objectionable.
> 
> I don't know if it applies, or if I'm misusing Scripture to draw the analogy, but from your first post I thought of Romans 14:13-23. Substitute praying for eating and drinking and think about 'if it causes the weaker brother to stumble.' Not a perfect analogy in any case, but conveys my idea. As for a solution, I wouldn't expect someone to begin to pray in an archaic language to please others when it was unnatural to them, nor would it be right to expect them to remain silent if the Spirit moved them to prayer.
> 
> Ideally both sides would accept the other out of Christian love. Unfortunately the flesh is weak.



I know that a lot of brethren use this language in prayer and that's fine. And I can be charitable about it. It's when every single person in a church does it and the one who doesn't can automatically be made to feel like he doesn't reverence God enough, even if they don't say anything about it. So I'm just asking that we consider the facts from scripture about the use of language, such as where Paul talks in 2 Cor 3 about using great plainness of speech under the ministry of the gospel, not as Moses who put a veil over his face, etc. And also the fact that when speaking or praying publicly, the language we use must be intelligible to any who would walk in and hear us. 

But I suppose that if I were to follow my own logic on this issue then I should abandon the KJV because that's the only Bible I use. And yet it's only for accuracy. Not because I think that God needs to talk to me in Elizabethan English. We tend to forget that God can speak every language in the world, and really, these oddities only exist in the English speaking world. Chinese believers aren't over there in their underground churches squabbling over whether or not to read or pray in the Chinese KJV. There is no such thing. They are more worried about being thrown into prison for naming the name of Jesus (or however you say it in Chinese). I think it's important to see the bigger picture, that we English speaking folk are not the only Christians in the world, and that Christ has redeemed by His blood people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And our work as Christians is not only to build up the body of Christ, but to go out into the highways and byways and invite sinners to come to the feast. We are part of a bigger, worldwide work and Christian family that will one day coexist in heaven. And in heaven who knows what language we will speak! But I can guarantee you it won't be KJV English.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 21, 2021)

_In 1 Sam 20:30 we read in the KJV "Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman". _Thou is used in reference to a human. 

Therefore I do not see anything distinctive about using Thee and Thou when addressing God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Apr 21, 2021)

I sometimes throw in a thee or a thy. In our Dutch reformed circles, the older generations would pray in older style english out of reverence. The idea being that you're not just talking to anyone. For the same reason they wore suits to church. Of course, some just did it because everyone else did. You're going to have both.

Anyways, from what I read, you should move on to a reformed church. A church that consists of a single family and that believes that you can only be saved by KJV english is what I could call a cult.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 21, 2021)

Rescued said:


> *Yes this is indeed what they believe. Their argument is that since Christ is called the Word in John 1 and the KJV is the true word of God (according to them), that therefore there is an inseparable connection between Jesus Christ and the King James Bible.* And so they say that since God only saves by Christ, that the KJV is the only means of salvation. I questioned them last summer as to whether or not they worship the Bible and they denied it. But doesn't all this really amount to being fooled into worshipping the Bible? Seems like a subtle but deadly error. I would have left last summer had they not denied they worship the Bible, but by now I could feel in my heart this is actually the case. Seems like to them the Trinity is "Father, KJV Bible and Holy Spirit."
> 
> Yes I have left there for good.
> 
> p.s. to anyone reading this thread. I actually use the KJV and have all my life. And yet it's for it's accuracy, not in any sense with the idea that the translation is inspired. I do hold to the traditional Greek and Hebrew texts being what God has preserved and yet this is a matter of faith. James White seems to think otherwise.


According to the International Bible Societies website ;

"According to Ethnologue, there are currently 7,099 living languages in the world. At least one portion of Scripture has been translated for 3,312 of these languages. The New Testament is available in 1,521 languages, with portions in 1,121. The complete Bible has been translated into 670 languages." *

*Statistics courtesy of our ministry partner, Wycliffe Global Alliance, Oct. 2017.

Perhaps mention to those folks at that church that prayers should be made for all of these poor souls throughout the world doomed to eternal destruction because they haven't been saved by and with the KJV Bible.


https://www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/how-many-different-languages-has-the-bible-been-translated-into/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Apr 22, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> There is a decent natural reason for using "thou", that is unfamiliar to English speakers.
> 
> Some languages have an honor system built into them. Examples are Korean and Japanese. You would use different styles of words when addressing a king than you would a coworker, and it can sound like the differences between a "thee/thou" style vs. a "you" style. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful if you used the same style for the king as you would the coworker. It is assumed in these countries that you will honor this system.
> 
> ...


Not sure if you've come across this yet in your study, but many Chinese Christians use the pronoun* 祢* (_ni_3) when addressing God instead of* 你* (same pronunciation), presumably out of respect, though I've never specifically asked about it. Generally speaking, the more respectful form for "you" in Chinese is *您* (_nin_2) of course, but I don't think I've heard it used of God.

If you look closely, this essentially replaces the "meaning" radical on the left (*人* = human) with the divine radical (full form = *神*).

Naturally, this distinction only comes out in writing since the pronunciation of both words is identical.

I don't think this particular pronoun originated with Christians, but I think they're the only ones in modern China still using it.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Apr 22, 2021)

Rescued said:


> I know that a lot of brethren use this language in prayer and that's fine. And I can be charitable about it. It's when every single person in a church does it and the one who doesn't can automatically be made to feel like he doesn't reverence God enough, even if they don't say anything about it. So I'm just asking that we consider the facts from scripture about the use of language, such as where Paul talks in 2 Cor 3 about using great plainness of speech under the ministry of the gospel, not as Moses who put a veil over his face, etc. And also the fact that when speaking or praying publicly, the language we use must be intelligible to any who would walk in and hear us.
> 
> But I suppose that if I were to follow my own logic on this issue then I should abandon the KJV because that's the only Bible I use. And yet it's only for accuracy. Not because I think that God needs to talk to me in Elizabethan English. We tend to forget that God can speak every language in the world, and really, these oddities only exist in the English speaking world. Chinese believers aren't over there in their underground churches squabbling over whether or not to read or pray in the Chinese KJV. There is no such thing. They are more worried about being thrown into prison for naming the name of Jesus (or however you say it in Chinese). I think it's important to see the bigger picture, that we English speaking folk are not the only Christians in the world, and that Christ has redeemed by His blood people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And our work as Christians is not only to build up the body of Christ, but to go out into the highways and byways and invite sinners to come to the feast. We are part of a bigger, worldwide work and Christian family that will one day coexist in heaven. And in heaven who knows what language we will speak! But I can guarantee you it won't be KJV English.


Well, there is the Chinese Union Version, which is the standard, but is quite difficult for Chinese believers to understand in parts, I think. Some of our friends, highly educated teachers, really struggled with the book of Romans and preferred reading it in English (because their English was fluent). They said the Chinese was "too philosophical."

I think there are a number of modern translations, but I don't know which is best currently. Haven't kept up with it.

There's definitely a Chinese "Christian vocabulary," though. You notice it after a while. Sometimes our friends who were older Christians would tell us that the new converts "needed to learn the proper vocabulary to pray," because they would use incorrect words at times. Kind of an interesting phenomenon.

I recall once when a translator -- a new Christian -- was translating English to Chinese, an older Chinese believer jumped in and corrected her. She explained later to us that the translator had used the Buddhist term for "temple" rather than the Jewish/Christian one.

Granted, this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## danekristjan (Apr 22, 2021)

I pray from the pulpit, during visitation, in the family and in private using "the kings". Having used Valley of Vision since shortly after I was saved, Henry's A Method For Prayer, and listening to lots of Martyn Lloyd Jones and Dr Beeke have all influenced that choice. It helps me slow down and actually pray more reverently and intentionally. Only a couple of people in my congregation pray in the kings English. I don't advocate that they should. They may if they wish. I would be deeply grieved if members were getting on each other for either using or not using the kings in prayer. I use this dialect for all my praying, but do not think anyone else must do this.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Drhabost (Apr 22, 2021)

Rescued said:


> I saw another discussion on this from 2011 and after perusing it, I wasn't sure if I saw some points that I would have made on the subject. I may have missed them though. So forgive me in advance if my points were already made.
> 
> So I have been in a church for some time where everyone except me prays in KJV English. They do not seem to like me for this fact and I am seeking out another reformed church because of it. But the one I attended this past Lord's Day does the same thing. Their prayer meeting consisted entirely of this, from every person that prayed. I remained silent and felt grieved in my spirit.
> 
> ...


Some interesting thoughts here. To be honest, judging by some of your other messages the use of thee and thou sounds like it's the least of your problems!

I'm 27 and have seen, in my local church context, the move from thees and thous to modern language. I've thought about it a lot for that reason so, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts. 

Firstly, it's unsurprisingly the case that the initiators of the change in language had their own theological baggage. They were the hip, loose wing of the church who wanted to drag the church into "coolness" and who made complaints about the church being old fashioned and unattractive to the world. This manifested in a desire for bands, hymns, casual wear to church, doctrinal carelessness and, yes, casual prayers. It should come as no surprise that, despite the best of intentions, that people following in their linguistic footsteps should be considered suspect. 

And that leads me to the second point. You quite rightly draw a distinction between private and public prayer. In public prayer, men are leading their congregation into the audience chamber of the Lord. It's not the same as the quiet word we have in the morning. We should do so with "reverence and Godly fear". We should not pray the same type of prayers because it is a public act. Many these days would argue that this is hypocritical, however, to do so is to adopt the word's philosophy on authenticity. We do not always act as we feel, nor should we always pray as we feel. To be clear, I am not arguing for insincere prayers, but you can be sincere without sounding like a boyband. 

For example, if an earthly prince addressed his father in public in the same way he did in private, it would be outrageously disrespectful. Does that make him a hypocrite? To paraphrase scripture "if an earthly prince knows how to show respect, how much more should we as heavenly princes". I suppose you see it in the prayers of Christ, which addressed the Lord very respectfully. Frankly, we don't know how people pray in private, and if they use older language it's because our Bible and the best of our books are written in older English. It would be natural to retain that in our prayers. 

For these reasons I don't think it's right at all to tar most people who use this language with the brush of hypocrisy or formalism. Personally, I rarely use thee and thou and the associated language in private prayer, occasionally do in family worship and almost always do in public prayer, unless it's grammatically clunky. 

I don't know what you think of Abba, but I have heard modern Christians (and I don't mean modern as in "alive today" say it's the equivalent of "daddy". How nauseating. Can you imagine, reverently speaking, Christ praying in public to "daddy". I feel horrible writing that, it's so disrespectful, but that's the argument being made. 

Lastly, in terms of the unsaved, prayer is not an evangelistic tool or a message to the hearers. And even if it was, it's just as possible that someone would come into a church and hear these blue-collar workers praying in exalted language and think "wow, there's something to this". 

As usual, I've totally failed to be succinct, but in summary, I'd encourage you not to worry about people's use of thee and thou. It's been used without harm for 4 or 5 centuries and it's not reflective of the sincerity of the prayer.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 22, 2021)

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## yeutter (Apr 22, 2021)

Much of what is called KJV English actually predates 1611 and is really Coverdale English, the language of the Book of Common Prayer [BCP]. Baxter's liturgy still reflects the older Coverdale language of the BCP.

I tried to think of how people would react to the use of a contemporary English Lord's Prayer. "Our heavenly Father, Holy be your name. You kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins and obligations, as we forgive those who sin against us. Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the Kingdom and power, and glory, forever and ever. So be it." Maybe I am just too steeped in Coverdale English, but a contemporary conversational English Lord's prayer just doesn't sound respectful

It makes sense to me that people would pray using the same language as the translation of the Bible that is used in that Church for Bible Reading and preaching.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Apr 22, 2021)

My own two cents...

If you’re convicted to pray in Elizabethan English, do so. If in modern, do so. If you want to discuss and disagree that’s fine. Don’t look down on those who do the other. This sums to be the problem here - I don’t think the OP has an issue with so many in his church praying in KJV English as much as they are not happy with him praying in modern. That’s the problem.

I and my church party in modern English but if one of the elders used the older language no one would bat an eye.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Apr 22, 2021)

Rescued said:


> It's when every single person in a church does it and the one who doesn't can automatically be made to feel like he doesn't reverence God enough, even if they don't say anything about it.


And there's the issue. That's why you were disappointed with the new church you attended, right? It wasn't anything they actually said to you, but what you assumed they likely were thinking. It's also an understandable reaction, given the hurt you experienced in your old house church.

From all you've reported about that house church, you probably do need to leave it. But be careful not to let the baggage from your house-church experience cause you to reject the new church just because they are similar in some ways. Don't assume the worst about your new church. Instead, discuss your concerns with them and explain your history.

You need to heal. You will need reassurances that the new church won't treat you the same way the house church did. And they can't give you those reassurances if they don't know about your past hurt. So you need to tell them about it. That's probably scary to do, But given what you experienced in the house church, it's probably something you will need to do with any new church before you can feel truly comfortable. In fact, opening up and being vulnerable about your past hurt, and seeing how the new church responds, is a good way to find out whether or not the new church can be a place where you will heal. So I urge you, even though it will be hard, to talk to someone at this new church about your painful house-church experience.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 22, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> _In 1 Sam 20:30 we read in the KJV "Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman". _Thou is used in reference to a human.
> 
> Therefore I do not see anything distinctive about using Thee and Thou when addressing God.


Some sincere Christians pray like this and I don't have a problem with that. But my point of all this was to prove just what you're saying, that really, it's not something God desires or requires. Does He require respect? of course! But to imagine that using "The King's English" from 16th Century England, here in the United States in 2021 is somehow more respectful than simply addressing God respectfully in modern English...well it's just silly. The respect for Him comes from the heart and it's the spirit in which we pray that He looks at. Somehow I fear that imagining that Thee and Thou are inherently "holy language" in the eyes of God is dangerous because we can get caught up in legalism quickly when we go down this path. We then begin to look at other brothers for whom Christ died with disdain in our hearts because they pray to God in modern English. That can be very sinful. We should remember too all that our Lord had to say about the Pharisees, and how they worshipped God in vain, teaching as doctrine the commands of men. He warned them about their hypocrisy and how they laid burdens on others that were grievous and that they kept others out of the kingdom and they too were barred from it. And that their condemnation would be greater. The lowest place in hell is reserved for religious hypocrites.

Now this isn't to say that anyone who prays in KJV is Pharisaical or is going to hell. Many I know are sincere brothers. But it's a warning to us though do our best to stay away from pretentious religious practices that God never required, that can have an adverse effect on those who are weak or seeking Christ. Whether or not the practice in discussion falls under that category I guess would be for God to judge, not us.

Does a man pray in KJV, then if in his own mind it's more respectful to God, then so be it. But nobody should imagine that God ever required it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Rescued (Apr 22, 2021)

Leslie said:


> Get back at them by using KJV English for non-religious purposes: "How thinkest thee in thine heart whether it will behoove us to diminish our filthy lucre by procuring ice cream cones tonight?" It will make a point without being confrontational. It would be jolly fun to put the teens up to creatively doing this. Have a KJ party where everyone talks this way; punishment for ordinary English is a frown sticker. It's my feeling that many believers don't even realize they are doing this. Hearing KJ's language for secular conversation would make the point.


Ah yes indeed! I might beseech them forthwith that upon a fortnite hence we do this. But peradventure we may be an hungered for some thing of greater substance, it may indeed behoove us to go into yonder village and procure unto ourselves victuals before advancing to frothier pleasures such as this "ice cream" of which thou speakest.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 22, 2021)

Leslie said:


> Get back at them by using KJV English for non-religious purposes: "How thinkest thee in thine heart whether it will behoove us to diminish our filthy lucre by procuring ice cream cones tonight?" It will make a point without being confrontational. It would be jolly fun to put the teens up to creatively doing this. Have a KJ party where everyone talks this way; punishment for ordinary English is a frown sticker. It's my feeling that many believers don't even realize they are doing this. Hearing KJ's language for secular conversation would make the point.


Are you being serious with this suggestion? I can't tell. But if you are, I find it difficult to see how this would be interpreted as anything other than sarcastic irreverence. It would be like me quoting only the Psalms all day in everyday speech to "make a point" to an exclusive psalmodist. I think taking the have-a-sincere-conversation route is far better. The suggestion made here seems to be more on the side of provocation than anything else.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Zach (Apr 23, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Are you being serious with this suggestion? I can't tell. But if you are, I find it difficult to see how this would be interpreted as anything other than sarcastic irreverence. It would be like me quoting only the Psalms *all day* in everyday speech to "make a point" to an exclusive psalmodist. I think taking the have-a-sincere-conversation route is far better. The suggestion made here seems to be more on the side of provocation than anything else.


You don't have to speak with only the Psalms all day, brother, just in between the Call to Worship and Benediction!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 23, 2021)

As some of the responses have made clear, the difficulty is not really "praying in KJV English" but addressing the Lord with the older, and accurate, second person singular pronouns Thee, Thy, etc. No one prays in KJV English that I'm aware of--it is the pronouns only that are usually retained. The objections of "being out of touch with the world around us" are really more along the lines of "unnecessarily being out of touch" and this perception is subjective--for we all confess that our Lord said, "Marvel not, if the world hate you." I appreciate the encouragements to charity, and second them.

As one who uses the older pronouns addressing the Lord in public and private worship, it is in keeping with my understanding of the accuracy of those pronouns, which a deeper reading of John 3 makes clear, where our Lord tells Nicodemus that "ye" that is, all you Pharisees, must be born again. The singular "Thee" and "Thou" are in keeping with the prayers of Scripture, and the only way in English to retain this singular address to our God. Other languages have this facility. Sadly, modern English does not.

Finally, I understand that there are those who retain this address to the Lord out of tradition, habit, practice, and that it can be a point of haughtiness or stumbling for some. Of course, I do not support that. It is interesting to note that in several of the posts above it has been generally said, "I have no problem with those who use the older language." It seems to me that this begs the question in favor of the modern usage, and *may* reveal a bias in favor of it. For my part, I assume that those who use the modern pronoun "you" in addressing the Lord retain a proper attitude of reverence. I have been witness to other forms of address to the Lord that I would not consider reverent at all. But if I'm being led in prayer by a man in the Church using the modern pronoun "you" when addressing the Lord, I do not let that withhold my hearty "Amen!" at the end. I pray for the same charity for myself, when I lead in prayer.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 23, 2021)

I use the Book of Common Prayer in private worship, which uses thee and thou. I don't say "cockatrice" or words like that, though. I also don't say "the bowels of Christ."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 24, 2021)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> As some of the responses have made clear, the difficulty is not really "praying in KJV English" but addressing the Lord with the older, and accurate, second person singular pronouns Thee, Thy, etc. No one prays in KJV English that I'm aware of--it is the pronouns only that are usually retained. The objections of "being out of touch with the world around us" are really more along the lines of "unnecessarily being out of touch" and this perception is subjective--for we all confess that our Lord said, "Marvel not, if the world hate you." I appreciate the encouragements to charity, and second them.
> 
> As one who uses the older pronouns addressing the Lord in public and private worship, it is in keeping with my understanding of the accuracy of those pronouns, which a deeper reading of John 3 makes clear, where our Lord tells Nicodemus that "ye" that is, all you Pharisees, must be born again. The singular "Thee" and "Thou" are in keeping with the prayers of Scripture, and the only way in English to retain this singular address to our God. Other languages have this facility. Sadly, modern English does not.
> 
> Finally, I understand that there are those who retain this address to the Lord out of tradition, habit, practice, and that it can be a point of haughtiness or stumbling for some. Of course, I do not support that. It is interesting to note that in several of the posts above it has been generally said, "I have no problem with those who use the older language." It seems to me that this begs the question in favor of the modern usage, and *may* reveal a bias in favor of it. For my part, I assume that those who use the modern pronoun "you" in addressing the Lord retain a proper attitude of reverence. I have been witness to other forms of address to the Lord that I would not consider reverent at all. But if I'm being led in prayer by a man in the Church using the modern pronoun "you" when addressing the Lord, I do not let that withhold my hearty "Amen!" at the end. I pray for the same charity for myself, when I lead in prayer.


So the underlying assumption is that addressing our heavenly Father in the formal Thee and Thou which were the singular form of You in old English, is more reverent when addressing God today in 2021. Because if we addressed Him as "You", He would think that we consider Him to be a plurality of deities? Or He would think us to be disrespecting Him if we spoke to Him in the language we use to speak to our earthly father? Children are to honor their earthly father with the same level of respect they would pay to God, so why shouldn't they use the singular Thee and Thou to pay their Dad more respect?

The very fact one thinks in their heart that addressing God in the singular Thee's and Thou's from the past is more respectful than just using the pronouns we speak in our day, will by default cause them to believe those who differ are in error and in sin. And this road will lead to legalism.

If I pray, Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, is that less respectful than, Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name...? The first, in modern English, is the singular and that is the language we speak. We no longer speak old English. The pronoun "you" is more versatile today, and it's the context signifies the singular or plural. When we begin our prayer with "Our Father in heaven..." we are setting the context that we are talking to a singular person. This has just been the development of our language. But we shouldn't imply some moral decline has taken place simply because our pronoun "you" is more versatile now.

We are the people of God for today, not yesterday. And to imagine that God somehow requires an English speaking man in the 21st century to use the singular Thee's and Thou's from the 16th century is pure fiction.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 24, 2021)

Rescued said:


> The very fact you think in your heart that addressing God in the singular Thee's and Thou's from a bygone age is more respectful than just using the pronouns we speak in our day, betrays the fact that you do not truly in your heart think that those who differ from you are properly reverencing God. So you can't feign charity towards them when you truly do not think they are right. You honestly probably think they are sinning by not properly reverencing God with the Thee's and Thou's.


This is not sound reasoning. It is a false dichotomy.

It is entirely possible for one to believe someone is wrong about something and still give them charity. If this were not so, then we would be left with one very difficult dilemma—charity or uniformity. But there are other options. For example, Baptists and Presbyterians believe the other is sinning with regard to baptism, yet they still can (and must) be charitable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is not sound reasoning. It is a false dichotomy.
> 
> It is entirely possible for one to believe someone is wrong about something and still give them charity. If this were not so, then we would be left with one very difficult dilemma—charity or uniformity. But there are other options. For example, Baptists and Presbyterians believe the other is sinning with regard to baptism, yet they still can (and must) be charitable.
> 
> Brother, I would softly admonish you not to respond to a brother who has gone out of his way to be kind and _in fact_ charitable by accusing him of being disingenuous, asserting about him opinions and dispositions which he himself has not and likely will not own, as well as using inflammatory words like “ludicrous” and “pure fiction.” Your appeals for charity and unity do not sit well when they are couched in speech that is both uncharitable and divisive.


While your were writing this to me I was in the process of editing my post. May I ask you to go back and re-read it? It's after midnight and I was writing and editing at the same time. I read what you quote here and saw that it was too harsh.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 24, 2021)

Rescued said:


> While your were writing this to me I was in the process of editing my post. May I ask you to go back and re-read it? It's after midnight and I was writing and editing at the same time. I read what you quote here and saw that it was too harsh.


Yes, I did notice you edited it. I’ll delete the relevant part of my post. Please don’t think I was trying to scold you or something. Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of heated rhetoric on here over the years. I get it. It’s easy to do when we are passionate about something. Passion is a good thing.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Yes, I did notice you edited it. I’ll delete the relevant part of my post. Please don’t think I was trying to scold you or something. Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of heated rhetoric on here over the years. I get it. It’s easy to do when we are passionate about something. Passion is a good thing.


Thanks brother. Look I probably shouldn't have even started this post after having been hurt by these people. I know that many sincere and godly brethren pray with the antiquated pronouns. But I'm not going to start doing it to fit in at a church. It's not how I talk to my Heavenly Father. And I feel like I would be trying to please men instead if I did that just to make them happy. God looks on the heart. That should have been the crux of this whole argument. Heart worship or lip service.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 24, 2021)

Rescued said:


> Thanks brother. Look I probably shouldn't have even started this post after having been hurt by these people. I know that many sincere and godly brethren pray with the antiquated pronouns. But I'm not going to start doing it to fit in at a church. It's not how I talk to my Heavenly Father. And I feel like I would be trying to please men instead if I did that just to make them happy. God looks on the heart. That should have been the crux of this whole argument. Heart worship or lip service.


Honestly, it sounds like you have answered your own OP right here. This sounds perfectly reasonable and biblical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

