Our Lord is terrible

The KJV translated yare as "terrible" in Psa 47:2 but translated the same Hebrew word as "reverend" in Psa 111:9.

But I do agree that yare terminates in God.

 

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I say Modern English (or better still, Early Modern English) does not always mean the same thing that today's English means. "Terrible" had different connotations for people back then than the word has for us. So the KJV is accurate enough on its own terms, it just isn't accurate in today's English.

 

I would've said something to the effect that God said it, so I believe it. The Lord is terrible. If you say anything else you have to explain away all of the other passages that describe Him as being terrible.

"Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible." - Deuteronomy 7:21

"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" - Deuteronomy 10:17

"And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders:" - Deuteronomy 26:8

"And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:" - Nehemiah 1:5

"And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses." - Nehemiah 4:14​

Where is the fear of God, if God is not terrible?

Terrible - 1. Frightful; adapted to excite terror; dreadful; formidable. (Webster's 1828)​

Does "awesome" describe the fear of the Lord the way "terrible" does? When Bill and Ted say "awesome", does this have the same contemporary meaning as "terrible" did for hundreds of years?

 

I'd say "terrible" means whatever the Holy Bible says it means. If I don't understand it, that's cause to study, not have someone create a new Bible.

 

That's one of the reasons God has so graciously given us the modern versions, so that we don't have to be stuck with an understanding that is 400 years old. Thank God for the MVs!

 

​

Sure, it makes perfect sense that way, but you're using the 1828 Websters!!

Listen to the way most people use the word these days. This lunch was terrible!! That movie was terrible! They're not talking "fearsome" they're saying "rotten".

 

I hear and use bad English all the time. It doesn't mean I'm right and someone should create a Bible that makes sense according to my misuse of the English language.

 

Your viewpoint just doesn't make sense, Rufus. You would take away the simplicity of the word of God for everyone but those who study 400-year-old English. You would deny the simplicity of Scripture to everyone but the elite and the studied, Rufus. That is not how Scripture was meant to be and that is not how we should view Scripture today.

 

I believe Webster captures well the sense behind "terrible," which is the translation of the Hebrew yare at Psa 47:2.

I think "terrible" is still a better word than awesome at this point. Yare conveys both terror and awe before God. "Awesome" only captures the sense of awe but not terror.

"Terrible" captures the sense of terror but not awe. So we need a better word to really convey both the negative and positive senses of yare at Psa 47:2.

Both "terrible" and "awesome" have their shortcomings. But I choose "terrible" at this point.

 

Fine, but unless you explain to people what "terrible" meant to the translators, a lot of people will wonder why the Bible is saying "The Lord is strongly repulsive and extremely bad". That's what "terrible" means to most people now. The current Webster's dictionary lists it as definition #3, but I hear people use it this way more often than any other way.

3: extremely bad: as a: strongly repulsive

This is not a misuse of the English language. It is right there in the dictionary. Today's dictionary, not the dictionary of 1828.

 

Then we need a contemporary word that will capture the sense of God evoking terror and awe as he is beheld and pondererd. What word can we so use?

 

No sir. I would have no hesitation to speak on the street and proclaim that "The Lord is terrible". In fact, next Friday I'll make this my theme verse in your honor...

"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." - 2 Corinthians 5:11​

 

Rufus , if you misuse contemporary English , isn't it a possibility you may use and understand older English in ways that the translators did not intend ?

BTW , here are some pieces from a couple older versions for Ps. 47:2 .

Wycliffe : hiy and fearful

Coverdale : the most hyest to be feared

The point is that the LORD fills his enemies with terror and His people with utmost reverent respect ( kind of redundant , I guess ) .

Rufus and others : What about the lack of concordance in the KJV ? Do you acknowledge that it was a widespread practice by the KJV team ? The same English word was not used for the same Greek ( or in this case , Hebrew ) word . Not that that's a bad thing . I think complete concordance would be silly . There has to be some flexibility according to the various contexts in which a word is being used .

 

I bet you explain what you mean by "terrible" in your sermon. That would be the same thing as defining it for your audience so they don't misunderstand the statement.

I challenge you to leave out any explanation. Just say, "The Lord is terrible" as part of your sermon and refuse to explain it at all, by example, or by elaboration. Let them figure it out for themselves.

Better yet, preach the whole sermon in the Early Modern English of 1611. Let none of today's English tarnish your message.

 

Most KJV-using preachers ( I'm not speaking of KJVO'ers ) when explaining the text of the Bible actually may be closer to the NLTse text . Now that's ironic .

 

"For the LORD Most High is awesome. He is the great King of all the earth" (NLT). But what connotation does "awesome" convey here?

We even say, "That was an awesome shot!" while referring to a basketball going through the hoop. Is that what the psalmist had in mind?

 

Rufus, how long did it take you to dig up this definition that is nearly 200 years old, if not older? Let's see what a modern dictionary says. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary said...

(Emphasis is not mine)

This dictionarycan be found at http://www.m-w.com/ and it is very current (copyright 2007 is shown on the home page), reflecting the way today's reader would be more likely to understand terrible. This is a fine example of why we need modern Bible versions so that today's reader can better understand what the writers meant. Thankfully, God has graciously provided us with the MVs so that we can better understand what is meant in Scripture, just as He provided the KJV for readers in 1611.

 

Yes , TCG , I agree that "we" ( not me though ! ) have debased the word "awesome" in contemporary speech . I hear "awesome" tossed around for the most mundane things . Even the phrase "most awesome" has been done to death . " That was the most awesome shot dude !" That degrades the word . "Beautiful" has been degenerated also .

" ... His terrible swift sword . His truth is marching on..." Okay , that settles it . Let's go back and say terrible once more , the way our ancestors did . But the trouble is -- no movement of ours will be enough to affect a change in the way English is commonly used these days . In sermons words must be defined in the course of the preaching .