Praying in King James english.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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 "Kings 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.

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.
 
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 ----------

BTW the current phrase is the Queen's English.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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'
 
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.
 
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."
 
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."
Not me, but I'll sure sing Psalms with 'em. ;)

Psalms are hymns. That point is crucial to your position's interpretation of the New Testament's references to song. :)
The point is crucial in your sentence in that you used the term "hymn" within the context of speaking to many who are not Psalm-only singers; ergo, I took it to mean the specific modern definition by which most non-EPers would define it. ;)

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 :offtopic:! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top