KJV

[jonojim1337]

 

[martinlb]

The main concern I've got is this. What does how we speak resound to to a person whose background isn't Christian faith? We would be speaking in a manner that's foreign. What does that convey about being a Christian?

Lots of people from my past would respond to this question with what I'd call righteous indignation. Remember, though, the ONLY people Jesus got angry with were the religious authorities and teachers of the day. They were indulging themselves in self-serving practices that blocked the public from access to God.

And I'd ask those of you who object to my objection to take a step back and seriously think about this. We're having enough trouble as it is reaching the people God calls us to reach. What do you think the message is that we're sending when we speak in KJ English? And talk about pillowing our heads in slumber and so forth? What the heck is that, anyway, to those outside our circles?

I grew as a person of faith in an environment that was full of thees and thous, church biuldings being called the house of God (incorrect at best, hersey otherwise) and all the trappings of the late 19th century holiness movement.

What do you think those trappings do to people who are hit with them out of the blue today? I'd suggest they either drive people away, or deliver a message to them that the truth is somehow bound up in archaic expression and practices. You can't be a real Christian unless you behave this way, so you've got to become something artificial.

I know, I know that isn't the intended outcome of people who take pleasure in acting and speaking this way. But it matters. We've only got so much time to reach people. Let's actively reject anything that gets in the way. What would the argument be to keep doing this stuff? Seriously, in light of all this, what could it possibly be?

 

[jas3]

What does how we speak resound to to a person whose background isn't Christian faith?

Good question. Does the use of casual speech when talking about or to our Lord convey the seriousness and respect with which we're supposed to treat Him? I would say no.

They were indulging themselves in self-serving practices that blocked the public from access to God.

... I know that isn't the intended outcome of people who take pleasure in acting and speaking this way.

You have a very mistaken idea of why people use more formal language if you think it's a self-serving thing done for one's own pleasure.

Let's actively reject anything that gets in the way. What would the argument be to keep doing this stuff?

In large part, it's that most English speakers don't have the difficulty understanding the language you seem to think they do.

 

[jonojim1337]

The main concern I've got is this. What does how we speak resound to to a person whose background isn't Christian faith? We would be speaking in a manner that's foreign. What does that convey about being a Christian?

Lots of people from my past would respond to this question with what I'd call righteous indignation. Remember, though, the ONLY people Jesus got angry with were the religious authorities and teachers of the day. They were indulging themselves in self-serving practices that blocked the public from access to God.

And I'd ask those of you who object to my objection to take a step back and seriously think about this. We're having enough trouble as it is reaching the people God calls us to reach. What do you think the message is that we're sending when we speak in KJ English? And talk about pillowing our heads in slumber and so forth? What the heck is that, anyway, to those outside our circles?

I grew as a person of faith in an environment that was full of thees and thous, church biuldings being called the house of God (incorrect at best, hersey otherwise) and all the trappings of the late 19th century holiness movement.

What do you think those trappings do to people who are hit with them out of the blue today? I'd suggest they either drive people away, or deliver a message to them that the truth is somehow bound up in archaic expression and practices. You can't be a real Christian unless you behave this way, so you've got to become something artificial.

I know, I know that isn't the intended outcome of people who take pleasure in acting and speaking this way. But it matters. We've only got so much time to reach people. Let's actively reject anything that gets in the way. What would the argument be to keep doing this stuff? Seriously, in light of all this, what could it possibly be?

Strait is the gate, and few there be that find it.

Jesus sent out his Apostles. He built a Church with his own hands, that still stands.

 

[martinlb]

*sigh*

 

[seeking.IAM]

What do you think those trappings do to people who are hit with them out of the blue today? I'd suggest they either drive people away, or deliver a message to them that the truth is somehow bound up in archaic expression and practices.

I don't want to negate your experience, but I think that are much bigger things driving people away from Christianity than language.

As for me, in an age when we seem to be sinking into the abyss of informality and casualness in most things, I take some pleasure when people try to do better.

 

[jonojim1337]

*sigh*

Come back when you can walk on water.

 

[martinlb]

"Come back when you can walk on water"

Is this your idea of Christian behavior?

 

[jonojim1337]

"Come back when you can walk on water"

Is this your idea of Christian behavior?

To me, it appears you want to create your own authority/priestly class, using old English or not using old English. This is wholly unscriptural.

 

[martinlb]

I

I don't want to negate your experience, but I think that are much bigger things driving people away from Christianity than language.

As for me, in an age when we seem to be sinking into the abyss of informality and casualness in most things, I take some pleasure when people try to do better.

I agree about there being more than language. But it's the trappings of putting on a deliberate "difference" I'm trying to discuss. Jesus spoke to people authentically and was about as casual as you can get. I can't imagine that being informal needs to get better. Anything else is a deliberate choice on our part that only changes the outside.

The thing I'm most disappointed in is the apparent lack of curiosity, of interest in hearing something different being suggested.

Christians can go ahead and be seperate from the world by speaking in alternate English and by working at being different, or even by just accepting a culture full of pride and false modeling of holiness. The example of behaving differently in "God's house" - because a building is somehow thought to be set apart by how we use it - is one example that seriously approaches idolatry if not only being scripturally unfounded.

Those things either drive people away - people can often sense when somebody isn't being sincere. Or another result, that I've seen over and over, is people who want to belong are lead to believe in an unobtainable model of perfection. People in that sort of environment are far too often afraid to be real, to admit to struggles and to faults, for fear of rejection.

We cannot create an environment for holiness. What we can do is ask God to help us be holy and then get out of his way.

Just a quick aside, about informality in church services. Music that's shallow and trite and set up like it's a concert powerfully turns me off and away. A lot of people love that, though, so without thinking too deeply it can appear to be very successful. So if, in case my advocation for not trying to be formal looked like I'd be for that, I'm absolutely not.

And by the way, you can see here how there are some who identify as being Christian but whose behavior betrays them. We can only fake it for so long. It's tragic that there will be those who've convinced themselves only to hear "I never knew you". Really sad.

 

[martinlb]

I can't imagine

To me, it appears you want to create your own authority/priestly class, using old English or not using old English. This is wholly unscriptural.

I can't imaging where you see that. Or how you think telling me to come back when I can walk on water is at all helpful or appropriate.

 

[jonojim1337]

I can't imagine

I can't imaging where you see that. Or how you think telling me to come back when I can walk on water is at all helpful or appropriate.

I don’t know what to make of your sigh as I pointed out the great commission was given to and fulfilled by Jesus’ Apostles. You can witness about Christ in whatever language you like but it will be very hard to change church tradition.

 

[martinlb]

My sigh was over receiving what felt like reactive responses, with no evidence of any interest or curiosity.

Moving on from that, I don't understand the reason for your reference to the great commission? What were you saying with that? I'm asking out of wanting to understand; it's not a challenge.

And I certainly agree with the difficulty of changing tradition ... whether it's helpful and productive or not. I believe the gospels pretty much tell us that's true.

 

[jonojim1337]

My sigh was over receiving what felt like reactive responses, with no evidence of any interest or curiosity.

Moving on from that, I don't understand the reason for your reference to the great commission? What were you saying with that? I'm asking out of wanting to understand; it's not a challenge.

And I certainly agree with the difficulty of changing tradition ... whether it's helpful and productive or not. I believe the gospels pretty much tell us that's true.

You said something about old English being a stumbling block when reaching out to people. I interpreted it as you wanted to fulfill the Great Commission, as some do. Only problem is that the Great Commission has been achieved, by the Apostolic Church, as the gospel has already reached the ends of the earth. Moreover, the foundational structure of the Church has already been laid. So anything you want to change there, you have to first be ordained a priest from someone who has been ordained by the Apostolic Succession.

Anything else is just witnessing, and you’re free to use whatever language and translations you wish.

 

[David Lamb]

Good question. Does the use of casual speech when talking about or to our Lord convey the seriousness and respect with which we're supposed to treat Him? I would say no.

You have a very mistaken idea of why people use more formal language if you think it's a self-serving thing done for one's own pleasure.

In large part, it's that most English speakers don't have the difficulty understanding the language you seem to think they do.

But as I have said before, "formal English" does not mean "English of 1611." Informal English existed in the 17th century, including swearing and slang. Also, it is quite possible to speak formally using contemporary, 21st century English.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Some of us were raised with the KJV and it is a source of comfort and nostalgia and often the first time we came across the Bible. The language used isn't a barrier because, when I was growing up, we read it and sought understanding if we didn't understand. We didn't just give up trying to learn out of the effort it required or lack of resource.

Why don't people up their knowledge instead of decry what is from when it was from?

It's great there are newer versions, in more modern text, but I will always say the Lords Prayer via KJV, Psalms 23 etc.

The KJV reminds me of my grandma, church, poetry and the homage and respect language gave to God at the time it was written.

Re: Wycliffe, I read this as well as the Geneva. If I don't understand the phraseology or the letters etc, I find out.

 

[David Lamb]

Some of us were raised with the KJV and it is a source of comfort and nostalgia and often the first time we came across the Bible. The language used isn't a barrier because, when I was growing up, we read it and sought understanding if we didn't understand. We didn't just give up trying to learn out of the effort it required or lack of resource.

Why don't people up their knowledge instead of decry what is from when it was from?

It's great there are newer versions, in more modern text, but I will always say the Lords Prayer via KJV, Psalms 23 etc.

The KJV reminds me of my grandma, church, poetry and the homage and respect language gave to God at the time it was written.

Re: Wycliffe, I read this as well as the Geneva. If I don't understand the phraseology or the letters etc, I find out.

That is fine when you know you need to look up a word or phrase. However, there are words and phrases in he KJV which are still used today, but with totally different meanings. Examples are: "carriages", "prevent" and "fetched a compass." Unless you know that such a word or phrase has changed its meaning, you would not see any need to look it up.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

That is fine when you know you need to look up a word or phrase. However, there are words and phrases in he KJV which are still used today, but with totally different meanings. Examples are: "carriages", "prevent" and "fetched a compass." Unless you know that such a word or phrase has changed its meaning, you would not see any need to look it up.

Well, that is a failing in our school system, I guess.

And, the failing in our school system was left as a gap in the failing of our churches who should have taught the correct usage re: phrases/words required if they are using the KJV.

 

[Rescued One]

If people choose to speak or act during church, prayer meetings, bible studies, and so on, in a manner that's not how they normally conduct themselves I'd like to suggest there's the actual possibility of a problem.

Holiness and piety are not things that change when we speak in KJ English; they aren't things that we can create or enhance by changing the form of English we use.

What might the implications be of feeling we can?

I think this would usually be a subconscious experience but that actually would make it more serious, not less.

I have attended many denominations. I never heard any group of people who use King James English every day. I can't recall every church I've attended, but a somewhat accurate list is this: Methodist, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist including Southern Baptist, various Mennonite churches, Reformed Church of North America, Presbyterian, non-denominationl, Eastern Orthodox, "Full Gospel" charismatic, and Mormon. Mormons said we should use "Thee" and "Thou" in prayer. It seems silly to me; non-English speaking countries don't.

 

[David Lamb]

Well, that is a failing in our school system, I guess.

And, the failing in our school system was left as a gap in the failing of our churches who should have taught the correct usage re: phrases/words required if they are using the KJV.

Why expect teachers in schools to teach that "carriages" used to mean "luggage," that "fetched a compass" meant "turned around," etc.? Such meanings are not "correct usage" in the English of today.