By Ken Row
Here's a topic for discussion (meaning I don't know the answer)...
Why is it that many prophecies and interpretations are given in King James English? E.g. "Thus saith the Lord, I am the God that healeth thee".
God doesn't use KJV when He talks to me directly. It's usually short bursts of contemporary English ("Sit down", "Look in the cabinet", "Pray for ____", "Tell him I heard his prayer").
I'm curious...
For those of you who have interpreted messages, do the messages "come in" as KJV, or do they come in as general concepts which you then speak as KJV?
If interpretations are always delivered verbatim (i.e. both received and delivered in KJV or in contemporary speech), have any of you ever seen God speak both ways -- that is, with KJV in some circumstances and contemporary English in others?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteI'm off work today so I'll try to give an answer. I have given your questions a lot of thought and want to begin by saying that we need to be careful how we view any type of 'prophetic utterance'. The purpose of a prophetic utterance is for the edification of the Body. (I Cor. 14:4, Romans 14:19, etc.) This is Paul's 'test' (as it were) for keeping them in the right perspective. Prophetic utterances do NOT mean that God is somehow authenticating something other than the fact that at that moment in time He has chosen to be among the people. (I Cor. 14:25) This can be very deceptive because many will someday boast that they had prophesied, etc. and will still end up in hell. (Matthew 7:22) I point this out because there is a temptation to want to use 'prophecy' or 'tongues and interpretation' as a means of demonstrating ones spirituality. For this cause they may seek to speak with an eloquence that gives a greater majestic weight to their words. But we must have a walk with God as such that we can discern the Spirit of God speaking or the unction of God (an utterance)
The greatest Old Testament prophet was John Baptist. (Luke 7:28) He performed no miracles and have no one a 'word' from God. We have no 'thus saith the LORD' coming from John. Yet his words carried all before them. So we see then that the issue is not the 'revelation' (either past, present or predictive) that a person gives, but the utterance of God. Again, using eloquence or KJV language can sometimes throw folk that are not familiar with the gifts of the Spirit. The gifts can be abused as a means of manipulating people or attempting to draw a reverence for ones self. This is why our hearts have to be utterly right in our approach to the gifts or hell may surely be our destination. The gifts or for the purpose of edifying the body; they are not to be viewed as a measure of ones spirituality, the fruit of the Spirit serves that purpose. (Matthew 7:16) So to attempt to utilize some sort of strange English is a mute point to begin with and only demonstrates an ignorance of the speaker or an exploitation of the ignorance of the hearers.
That is not to say that KJV language may not come forth in an utterance. There is a range of communication that the Holy Spirit uses at any given time. He speaks with groanings that cannot be uttered in intercession, or tongues in personal prayer (I Cor. 14:19) but in a meeting it is expected that the people be able to understand what is being said. (I Cor. 14:16-19) Otherwise it does not edify (build up). So as long as the people are able to understand the words then I think the use of KJV by the Spirit is certainly fair game. This then leaves the question of 'why?' In other words why would the Holy Spirit use KJV?
Cont...
I think the answer is found in John 14:26
ReplyDeleteAnd the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you. (John 14:26 YLT)
We find here that the Holy Spirit will 'remind' us or 'bring to remembrance' what He has said to us. This, I think, is the Lord teaching us in our personal studies and devotional life. depending on what is needing to be said God will draw upon things He has said in the past to make application in the present. IF I have studied with a KJV, an NASB or some other version then that 'language' is the vehicle of communication that brought the understanding to me to begin with. I think the Holy Spirit superintends our understanding to make application of His written word in a given circumstance that warrants it. If I understand Greek to some measure then that is an even deeper understanding that the Holy Spirit can draw from. In this way I think there is a sense in which there is limitation to what God can reveal. It is not typical in circles where bibles readily exist for God to spring revelation into peoples minds so as to exempt them from studying to show themselves approved unto God. I am using 'studying' here in the sense of our devotional life before God that would include study of the word, meditation in the word and prayer. Study just being something we work at (Gk. spoudazo to make a diligent and consistent effort).
Cont...
So in summary I think the same 'type' of rule applies here as we would see in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures. Some NT writers were more eloquent than others in their use of common Greek. The book of Luke and Hebrews are examples of this and it reflects in the KJV translation. The translators could do quite a lot with Hebrews 1:1 to demonstrate their own majestic eloquence; which is quite beautiful. But really, the NT was written in Koine Greek which was the common language of the people. I think the KJV dresses up the language a bit. The question then is; why? What did Paul say:
ReplyDeleteFor they say "His letters are authoritative and forcible, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and as for eloquence, he has none."( II Cor. 10:10 Weymouth Translation)
Cont...
He desired that their faith would not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. (I Cor. 2:5) That 'power' is the power of a transformed life- like unto his own. It is the power of godliness that those in the last days would 'deny the power thereof.' Not the power of God, but the 'power of godliness.' (II Timothy 3:5) This is rife today. Folk want to hear a word or see a miracle, but they deny the power of an absolutely transformed life. This is another 'key' to what we ought to expect the Holy Spirit to be saying.
ReplyDeleteAs regards to tongues and interpretation, tongues is God wards in it's delivery I think. So I typically expect to hear what the Lord is praying through the person. I know it is used for prophecy a lot, but I think we should see tongues as 'God wards.' That is not to say God can't use it however He wants, but I think it is a good thing to keep in mind. Sometimes it is good to know what the Spirit is saying so that we can say, 'Amen' to what God's will is on earth. (I Cor. 14:16)
The point being that the Holy Spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God. If we could somehow 'tap in' to that prayer (in tongues) as it is being made 'God wards' (prayer should always be vertical. Horizontal praying is questionable and usually is just an attempt to preach at people, etc.) we may gain some insight as to what God's will is for us or some area that He is concentrating on. If that makes sense...
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question. I have heard messages in all forms of cultural language. If a person is speaking in India they don't speak KJV they speak the dialect that they are use to speaking. If the person speaking is from the south it may come forth with some southern twists to the wording. The Holy Spirit doesn't possess us and make us move our vocal chords and mouth. We yield to him and he inspires us to speak the message. Our spirit then bears witness with the messengers spirit that the message is genuine. Just my perspective.
ReplyDeleteI like Bro Wurtz's thought that the Holy Ghost might often speak KJV in order to underscore other Word we've already received.
ReplyDeleteI also like Tim Stewart's (LiveOakRev) thought that the Holy Ghost in the south may speak southern. Since I'm from the North, I think I'd at least have to smile a little if I ever heard somone say, "Thus saith the Lord, all y'all need to...".
It should not be surprising that the same God who created languages and dialects at Babel speaks each of those same languages and dialects himself!
It is an interpretation, not a translation. Therefore, the message could be said by one brother, "Thus the Lord, I come quickly." Another could say, "Jesus says He is coming soon." The Lord uses the personality of the individual, much as in preaching. This is also why the interpretation can be longer or shorter in length of words than the actual message. Daniel saw four words on the wall and interpretted them in sentences.
ReplyDeleteI know we have left off this topic for a while, but I think it's important to know also that the KJV translation has a quality missing from most versions today and that being the ability to 'point the finger'. Many languages have this ability, but we have lost it in modern English. It becomes very important in understanding who is being addressed in scripture.
ReplyDelete'Thee' and 'thou' point at the person being spoken to in an exclusive way, while the word 'you' is a broad pronoun that means perhaps the person and others. 'Thee and 'thou' are specific. I wonder if this may come into play in the prophetic utterances? One thing is certain that God desires to speak specifically to people and churches rather than in a broad sense. The use of 'thee' and 'thou' allow for a more specific address.
As I understand it, both "you" and "thou" point to only one single person. "Ye" refers to a group. (I liken "ye" to "y'all".)
ReplyDelete"You" is formal, used when referencing a king, an elder, or someone we've just met.
"Thou" is informal, usually only used between friends or by a parent addressing a child.
One wonder of our relationship with God is that, given the choice, He prefers we speak with him as a friend ("Thou"), not as a ruler ("You").
In modern English, we use "you" for both, and I don't think God feels disrespected by it as He understands our intent.
The difference shows in other languages that still maintain formal and informal pronouns.
In Spanish, for example, one always uses the "Tu" (informal) form when addressing God, and never the "Usted" (formal) form. But when addressing elders (parents, aunts, etc.), it'd be disrespectful to use the "Tu" form.
Spanish also extends the formal/informal distinction into the plural pronouns -- "vosotros" is informal, "ustedes" is formal, but "vosotros" is used so rarely that many high school Spanish classes don't even teach it. My first encounter with "vosotros" was in my Reina-Valera Bible in Jer 29:11 where God said "I know the plans I have for you[vosotros]". The Spanish NIV has "ustedes" here (per contemporary practice in most Spanish-speaking countries), but the Spanish NIV does continue to use the informal "tu" in verses like Ps 139:1 and Gen 3:8.
Some good points you add Ken. It seems odd to think that 'you' would be a more appropriate way of addressing a superior than thou or thee. But example exist in English history where thee and thou was used in the courtroom to refuse to acknowledge a person's authority and yet if we did not know the language we would miss what was happening. I think this is an area where translations are said to be like kissing the bride through her vail.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking specifically about Luke 22:31-32 KJV. One of my bible tutors from the UK has pointed out how that Satan is said to have desired 'you' (meaning many people) but that the prayer is specific to Peter; "I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." You in modern usage can be either second person singular or plural; whereas in the KJV we see the distinction in this one passage. There are other examples, but I think this one is more relevant to our discussion. I'm not the pedant I ought to be, but seeing these distinctions makes me more attentive to what God is saying to us.
Ah, the complexities of bible translation! You have to love it. To your original question, Ken, I think it simply boils down to the individual response to what God is speaking to them. What troubles me more than which translation we interpret from is that so many "prophesies" and "interpretations of tongues" tend to be similar in content. "Yea my coming is nigh! Look not to the right or the left, etc..." I think in many cases Pentecostals fall into a trap of repeating words they've heard before in both content and interpretation.
ReplyDeleteDare I open this can of worms? Here goes: In the same light of interpretation language, why do most "tongues" sound the same? At Pentecost there were multiple languages spoken as the Spirit gave utterance to those who had been filled. Are the tongues we have today actual languages or do we have only "unknown tongues" and "tongues of angels?" If the latter is true, it would seem to me that there would be more distinction and various kind of tongues. Don't get me wrong, I believe in tongues. I'm just curious if others have had similar questions.
I won't try to answer Jon's question here as there is not enough room to really dig out the issues. I think the New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements handles the subject well in glossolalia. If there are any that don't have this resource you can get the large hardcover here http://tinyurl.com/mo3t98 used for aboyt $27 + shipping. Well worth it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem today, I think, is that we have focused so much on tongues as initial evidence that we have left out the essential need for an utterance to be back of the speaking. Mormons speak in 'tongues', but the question is do they speak with an utterance? This is the authenticating evidence that the Holy Spirit indeed is indwelling. They all spake with tongues as the Holy Spirit gave them the utterance. There is a Divine enablement that must be present in order for tongues to be authentic. I think the picture in the Old Testament of Solomon dedicating the Temple is front and center. http://tinyurl.com/mqabga
I don't think I am being overly critical when I say that many want to speak in tongues but do not want to completely surrender to God. They want to 'receive' the Holy Spirit while they resist His authority at the same time. This is impossible. I think this is what gives rise to much of the strangeness that has happened over the years. When we get ourselves utterly on the altar- until the altar is 'full' then the Fire of God will fall, the glory fill the house and the voice of God will be in our mouth. If a person speaks something ecstatic and they have not fully surrendered to God it cannot rightly be understood as baptism in the Holy Spirit. I think we need to recover the truth of Acts 2:4 and in so doing will answer many of the questions.
One thing it took me a time to pick up on--what the Scripture calls it is "interpretation," never "translation." It is the message in the vocabulary of the interpreter. Since we are so imbued with the King James vocabulary, it appears to come somewhat naturally--but it is an interpretation, and thus, not infallible or an exact translation. That has helped me.
ReplyDeleteyou can not have a word for word translation of the Greek with out the King James, you men are in the ministry and do not know this????-Joe Ferrari
ReplyDeleteJoe,
DeleteWe're actually not discussing scripture translation here. We're asking about prophetic utterances and interpretations of messages in tongues -- why is it that some people, while prophesying do so with KJV-style language ("Thus saith the Lord, I have heard thy prayer"), while others use contemporary language ("The Lord says, I have heard your prayer")?
Ken, yes I know. There are specific reasons why someone would use the KJV language, just for the same reasons that language is used in the KJV itself. First, if you read a Textus Receptus, the pronouns "yee" thee" etc and the inflections "....th "....st" are actually in the original Greek word for word. And is a singular word itlelf in each case.
ReplyDeleteThese pronouns reflect singular or plural second person. Modern English would need more than one word to do this, however not one Modern Enlish Tranlsation does this. This is important for the reference to be exact.The importance is the same as a legal contract, ex: a mortgage, business contract etc. Which are usuallly hard to understand with out and attorney, as legallly it is important to be exact as to who is being refereneced as to what without any possibilty of misunderstasnding. If one doesnt understand the contract the attorney cannot redo the contract in an easier to understand version, it is the attorney's job to explain what it means wiith out changing it so there can be no misunderstanding what and/or who the conditions are referring to. Also the KJV language has a definite rythm.
For the ending inflections, it shortens the sentence, adds rythm.
IN Both the pronouns and ending inflections, the evidence is definetly clear it WAS NOT A COMMON USAUGE LANGUAGE in the KJV times. EX: the preface to the 1611 KJV uses these words like only twice!!!!
In a prayer, intrepretation or prophecy it would be the exact reasons, if those specifice reasons are intended by the Holy Ghost.
The reason it was used and not common is, it is a reverent language. And, was intendend to be a reverent language in the KJV according to much and defninite research. The internet is full of research that proves this. The SAME reason would be true in prayers.
ReplyDeleteI have some good info on this on my site www.thefirstreligiononearth.org
I have some good info on this