Praying in KJV English (Revisited)

[Rescued]

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.

 

[ChristianLibertarian]

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.

 

[Miller]

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/

 

[B.L.]

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.

 

[retroGRAD3]

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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),

 

[JimmyH]

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.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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.

 

[Solparvus]

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.

 

[Leslie]

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.

 

[Afterthought]

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.

 

[alexanderjames]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[alexanderjames]

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.

 

[Rom]

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!

 

[Jack K]

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.

 

[iainduguid]

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.

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.

 

[Solparvus]

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.

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.

 

[SolaScriptura]

*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.

 

[ZackF]

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.

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.

 

[Rescued]

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]

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.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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.

 

[Solparvus]

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.

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.

 

[ZackF]

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]

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.

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

 

[ZackF]

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]

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]

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.