Why do Christians use old fashioned English?

I've been a Christian a while now, but lately I've started going to church more and getting to know a lot more Christians in real life.

I've noticed that (especially here in the UK) there is a lot of Christians who use old fashioned English (ie saying 'ye' and 'thou').

Now, I can understand them doing this in the 1950s. Many people in my grandad's generation still speaks like this. But why are young people using old fashioned language?

And the weird thing is they only use it in the context of praise. They don't say 'are ye going to church?' but they do say 'praise ye the Lord'!

Everyone's nuts!

And why does EVERYONE refer to Yeshua as 'Jesus', and Miriam as 'Mary'?

Is it all just tradition?

 

its just the KJV [king james version] of the bible i think....personally, i find it annoying, the only reason i post quotes useing it is cause its on a site that has bascially every Holy book online, so i can access all easily...

 

it just emnas the version of the bible they are using isnt a newer translation!
and yeah its probabyl just theyre tradition,but in my opinion tradition is pointless.just as time changes the church sould still be relevant to the world TODAY not 50 or 60 years ago

 

we're bassackwards people, like english teachers or bureaucrats

 

It's a technique that is used to add false authority. The same modern proponents tend to use words like 'exegesis' instead of scripture and 'extant' instead of existant etc etc in order to appear highly educated. Ordinary people think "ooooh, doesn't he use big words? he must be very well educated!"
In Christ's time they were Scribes and Pharisees, and JC didn't like them at all! Matt 23 -
Today it is known as "bullshit", but in theology it is confused with scholarship.

 

MrRee, that's an interesting theory.

But what's the motive? Why would Christians want to make themselves appear more authorititive?

I'm sure it's just a matter of conservatism.

 

I think it has to do with people using the KJV because it's supposed to be the most accurate translation.

 

I don't believe that chance dictates human behaviour Dizzy, and selling religion is no different to selling used cars. People take a vested interest in proving themselves correct and generally don't let truth get in the way of a good story/technique either. All people have personal motives, and one cannot assume anything with human nature. Priests and paedophilia, dishonest cops etc etc prove that no end.

So why would christians need to appear authoritative? ~ I would suggest that by doing so they (and their 'authority' ~ the bible) avoid questioning by naturally enquiring minds. My personal belief on why such enquiry is avoided is that christianity is a myth, and those who seriously study it's formation must come to the same conclusion, and the church is well aware of this.
There is also power in controlling people's minds/behaviour, and the psychological type "controller" is found in roles where they act out their pyschological needs (as are all psychological types involved in replicating circumstance which fulfill personal needs). Michael Jackson come to mind?? It's a crazy world!

Historically and sociologically it can be seen that most people unquestioningly follow directions of "higher authority". Such mind programming begins in childhood with parental instruction, and follows through from there in societal authority figures taking the place of parents. The church is one such accepted 'authority'.
Before modern complexities intervened, the governing bodies of towns were religion based. This is still true of Islamic nations today. Those who had such authority used it successfully, and indeed still do.
One just need listen to the authority based instructive cues in evangelical sermons to see mass mind control in practice. As an observer, watch the people follow the cues ~ frightening, especially when one is versed in hypnotic techniques and sees them being used in christian church services!, one wonders what is really behind it all?

Know the truth, and the truth will set you free...

 

I agree that some use antiquated language to add weight to their words.

However - 'exergesis' does not mean scripture, but the interpretation of scripture.
But really all philosophies tend to construct their own technical language, xianity is no exception.
It all comes from the fact that it is a medieval religion which has been transplanted into modernity.

But - of all the versions of the Bible I've seen, I still prefer King James. Not because it's more accurate, but because of it's poetic qualities.

 

Thanks for the correction BBB ~ appreciated and acknowledged

~ the KJV is indeed poetically lovely, and was indeed my preference above all when I was swiming in it.
How paradoxically hilarious though that Good King James was bi-sexual. I wonder how anti-homosexual christianity justifies the integrity of the KJV and even their religion given their strict, shall we say, sexual decorum?
One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King's bisexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the city taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with fellow teenager Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox was criticized by Scottish Church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the young French courtier apart, as the relationship was improper to say the least. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland.

In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship was a sexual one. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that “Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen!” If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his “wife” and called himself Villiers' “husband”! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his rigon his left.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-james.html


More pretzels, anyone?

 

wyclif & tyndale translated the bible into the common tongue (english) long before the "authorised version" (KJV) was printed in 1611...
and there was opposition to their efforts...
some of the more poetical passages in KJV were lifted directly from tyndale...
attempts to translate the christian scriptures into various european languages were met for centuries with vigorous opposition (as in being killed) from the chuch hierarchy (google: waldenses)...


even in the earlier part of the 20th century, roman catholics were often discouraged from actually reading the bible, so i hear...
ya don't wanna breed heresy by reading the good book without adequate instruction as to the true meaning of some of the more opaque passages, hehheh...

 

MrRee,
First of all, your name is what my ex girlfriend's dad used to call me! My name is Lee and he prounounced his Ls as Rs!

Sorry, but you're totally wrong about this. I can't speak for non-Christian religions, but Christians are not 'selling' their religion when they preach to non-Christians, they are trying to educate them. And they are certainly not trying to prove themselves correct and are uninterested in the truth. That's totally and utterly absurd. Religion is the search for the truth! People don't become a Christian for no reason — they become a Christian because they believe it to be the truth!

This, again, is absurd. Yes, there are a great many 'false' Christians, but that doesn't mean we're all false!

The false Christians fall into two categories:

Fake Christians
There are some people out there who pretend to be a Christian in order to gain favour, especially those in prominent public rôles. President Bush is a good example: he claims to be a Christian, yet every fibre in his body is corrupt and wicked and it's most likely that he works for Satan himself.

Clueless Christians
And there are also a lot of people out there who believe that they are a Christian when they are not. For example: people who think they're a Christian because they sometimes go to church, or because they were born in a country whose main religion is Christianity, or because one of their parents was a Christian.

But these people are not Christians. Please do not cunfuse them with Christians. A Christian is a person who believes in Christ, has accepted Christ as their lord and saviour, invited Christ into their lives, and wholeheartedly believes it. We would never ever try to 'use' our religion for personal gain, or to take advantage of other people. That is the complete opposite of what we believe in.

Again, you're just totally and utterly wrong. To suggest that Christians are in some kind of denial is ludicrous. Why would anyone wholeheartedly believe something that they, at the back of their minds, suspect is false? How could they?

Christians arrive at their faith by questioning, and studying, and pondering, and being inquisitive. We are Christians because we are unlike most people — we are more inquisitive, more analytical, and our desire for the truth is greater. Most people never stop to think about whether God exists; it's just a joke to them, as is aliens or ghosts or crop circles. Most people just aren't deep enough to take these things seriously, so they dedicate their lives to paying the bills and getting by so they can watch TV, have sex, buy fancy things, procreate, and then die. They don't strive to achieve anything more. And that is fine for them. But people like us seek something greater than that: the answer to the bigger questions. To suggest that we are the ones who don't seek the truth is, as I've probably already said, ludicrous!

I am always interested in being proven wrong about my faith, which is why I enjoy talking to atheists. If I had any kind of doubt about my beleif I would not be here, I would just go to Church and hang out with a bunch of Christians who would never challenge my beleifs!

You claim to have studied The Bible to a greater depth than most Christians, and come to the conclusion that Christianity is a myth. So, by all means, explain to me how you reached that conclusion. Not only am I keen to hear it, but by me being keen to hear it, I am proving you wrong about Christians. We are not in denial of the truth. Although I suspect that you are because you seem to be denying the truth about Christians!

I agree that there are a lot of people who get off on controlling people, and such people are often found in positions of authority. They are also found in positions of very little authority trying to make themselves seem more important than they really are. That is human nature.

But what does that have to do with Christians? Christianity is a beleif, not a 'position'. Being a Christian doesn't give me any power or control over anyone. In fact it doesn't affect other people in any way. None of my friends care if I'm a Christian. It has nothing to do with them. It doesn't allow me to control them. And none of my clients at work know that I'm a Christian, so it doesn't allow me to control them.

Once again, what you said makes no sense. And what does Michael Jackson have to do with Christians!? Michael Jackson is a child molester, and certianly not a Christian! If he's ever claimed to be one, it's because there are a lot of Chrisitans in America and he's faking it so his records will sell more.

Again, you're confusing something that is true (what you said about people following higher authorities) with something that isn't.

Christianity has been abused in the past (as other religions are abused today) by corrupt authorities. But corrupt authorities didn't start Christianity. Christianity was started in rebellion to the authorities. Christ was a rebel and an activist, and the authorities wanted to get rid of him so they killed him. And they killed his disciples (who wrote The Bible). The people who started Christianity were in no position of authority, and had nothing to gain by telling stories that they knew would get them killed. Subsequently, the corrupt authorities used Christianity as a way of contolling people, and even started wars on the basis of it! But this is irrelevant since it is an abuse of the religion and has nothing to do with how it was founded.

Today, the church and the government are separate and the country is not ruled by the church. Most people no longer believe in Christianity and very few people still go to church. Modern-day Christians are not Christians because of any authority or pressure from anyone. You can't see a church service unless you walk into a church, and you're not going to do that against your will. And no one would study a religion by just walking into a church anyway. Most churches don't preach to unbelievers on a regular basis, they assume everyone in there is already a Christian.

So, today, the only way a person can become a Christian is if they actually have an interest in finding answers to the bigger questions, and they do a lot of studying, or they go on an Alpha course (which of course is a totally voluntary thing). There is no authority telling them they should be a Christian.

Yes, in one's lifetime one is always going to encounter religious types trying to preach their beleif and convert people. But there are far more people who believe the opposite, and in my experience atheists are equally as keen to share their views and to 'convert' people. Anyone silly enough to base their entire religious beliefs on what one person tells them is a fool!

That's an interesting one. I've never heard that before. Could you tell me more about this hypnosis theory, it's interesting. How does it work exactly? (And more importantly, why would anyone want to hypnotise a room that is already full of believers?)

Well, as it happens, I do know the truth because God spoke to me personally and told me the truth! (But I always keep an open mind.)

p.s. By the way, are you struggling to type a dash with your keyboard — or is your tilde (~) purely decorative?

 

Well Dizzy, where to start? Too many loose speculations and assertions! ~ a minor one being I am not athiest!

The best I can say is that your response enforces the point I was making. Belief is a strange component of mind that operates in a similar way to the "love is blind" mechanism. The reasons for belief should be thoroughly and unbiassedly scrutinized. Any belief itself, however, causes biassd perception in and of itself, so to truly scrutinize a belief, it should be put aside ("unless a man be born again" etc .....).

I've been through the full gammut of christianity and even a religious cult thing (as it turned out), and from my experience (and that of the many others who have removed themselves from cult-like organizations, christianity inclusive), the one major common denominator is a refusal (denial) of anything other than what is wanted to be heard or believed. Denial is a psychological state typically and commonly found in emotional attachmment structures that are based upon belief. So it becomes a self-supporting mechanism.
Problem is, when one is in it, one can't see what is really happening because one would rather believe what one wants and tends to believe that everyone else has one's own credo, motives and ethos. But that is a folly that can never be true because every person has purely personal psychological reasons for doing what they do. For you to negate that speaks more of indoctrination than it does for the reality of the psychological situation where 96% of western population come from dysfunctional family units. Crudely, this means that only 4% of the population (western) is psychologically and emotionally "well" enough to make rational choices and decisions. The rest ~ 96%, operate reactively and spontaneously in degrees of severity commensurate with their affliction. Just because a person is christian doesn't mean that they are psycho-emotionally well. Indeed, there is good case for the reverse to be true, for E.g. ~
Through my clinical work, I have looked deep into the hearts and souls of many persons, not just lay persons but also those in religious life and those contemplating entering religious life. And I have consistently seen there a certain “ugliness”—a stain, so to speak—resulting from childhood emotional wounds.
http://chastitysf.guidetopsychology.com/disobedience.htm

One thing that no-one questions is their own beliefs, but rather, most would rather shore up a falsely held belief than to admit that the held belief is false. The state of denial is just as strong as the belief.

You don't want to believe that religion is sold like used cars? Try this ~
Direct Selling Organizations
It may seem strange that a page on Direct Selling Organizations would appear among New Religious Movements. It is here because often scholars of religion have persuasively argued that DSO's have many features similar to religions. They are often referred to as "para-religious" which is defined by Arthur Greil as ""phenomena that clearly fall outside the American folk category of religion but which nonetheless seem to be "like" religion in certain notable ways."....................
Although many books have been written about DSO's, the internet provides an opportunity to visually see how DSO's work. It also provides us an opportunity to look at many of the images DSO's provide and compare them with common features of religion.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/dsotour.html

That's about as far as I'd like to take it, other than saying that through my own progress and studies of the workings of the mind and the mechanics/dynamics of mass persuasion, I have found that it is extremely rare for any person to be aware of the existence of, let alone the extent of, any paradigmatic belief/dogma, hence denial.



PS ~ the tilde squiggle is what I use in free-hand case-notes and points to indicate personal experience or acquired information (knowledge)

 

the street bible and the new century version are cool...no old language there plus youth bibles and stuff dont have old stuff as they're aimed at younsters.
ROly.xxx

 

MrRee,

I don't really understand a lot of what you talk about. But I feel you're just going on and on about the same thing (that Christians are not interested in the truth) which, as I've already pointed out, is not the case.

I don't really get what that quote of yours is about. I followed the link, but I still don't get it. Could you explain its context?

What you said about dysfunctional family units, I understand, and completely disagree with:

So, you're saying that 96% of people in the western society are from dysfuncitonal families? Where on earth did you get that from? How could that possibly be true? I have many friends, and I can think of very few of them who is a from a dysfunctional family. They generally all had great parents and great upbringings. I have met people from dysfunctional families, but these people are not the vast majority! They are sure the vast minority. I would say it's something like 5% of the western population who are from dysfunctional families. But that's just a guess. I've lived all over my country (the UK) so I've seen and met a lot of people and I think I'm in a good position to judge.

That's a massive assumption (and complete bollocks)!

The notion that the only people who become Christians are not emotionally balanced people is ludicrous! Yes, it could be true, but it isn't. I'm a Christian, and I am from an extremely good family. I have never been given anything less than complete and utter love from my parents and I have never suffered any kind of trauma. I am extremely emotionally balanced; I've never felt sad in my whole life, (barring one time when I broke up with my ex girlfriend) and I have never felt any kind of anger with another human being. I would say that the only emotions I experience are positive ones. Nobody could call me 'traumatised'. On top of this, I am highly intelliegent. I consider myself fully able to make rational decisions. If I conclude that Christianity is true, then that conclusion is based on sound reasoning. Okay, I may be in error; but I am not predisposed to make such an error because of my emotional state!

 

Dizzy ~ you are disagreeing with facts. What I presented is factual, it's as simple as that. That you don't get it quite simply means that you preferr your adopted viewpoint above factual reality. The website link was a christian psychologists expression of concern about the inordinately high dysfunctionality of christians.
That you disagree with statistically proven facts is of grave concern.
Your assumptions will not change reality.
You also mis-read what the stats say ~ there is no "notion" that christians are any more dysfunctional than others. The problem is that no-one bothers to question theirs or preachers functionality, which leads to a "blind following the blind" scenario.
I will reiterate ~ the figures I quote are statistically true and are attained from [bworldwide[/b] studies.
Your denial of their relevance is likely the result of the denial you require to prop up your beliefs, same os the rest.