Our Lord is terrible

Maybe not, if he/she were Greek!

 

. . .and about 2000 years old, giver-or-take.

 

All you do is explain to the small greek 8yr old that terrible is what kids used to say when they meant awesome. Then they can go home and tell mom what a terrible cook she is.

 

More for me! (And that is very important)

Lacy

 

I rest my case.

 

Oh Day of Rest for the I sigh
When shall my moment come?
When I shall lay my Armor By
And rest in peace at home.

And the popular in the 1930s but
not so popular in the Twenty-oughts chorus:

We'll Work Till Jesus Comes
We'll Work Till Jesus Comes
We'll Work Till Jesus Comes
Then we'll be gathered home!

Caveat: you can't have a copyright on the
stuff that is in my head :godisgood:

 

That was a poor choice of words Cranston. "Out dated"?

Since when is God's word outdated?

"Older versions" may have been a better choice.

And BTW: I happen to use Elisabethen english fairly regularly.
"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

 

God's word is not outdated. It was never outdated and it will never be outdated. That is why God has graciously provided us with modern Bible versions - so that His word is just as alive and fresh for today's reader as it was for readers nearly 2000 years ago.

It is merely Elizabethan (or older) English that has become outdated. Those who seek to limit God's word to antiquated language do a great disservice to His word. We are told to spread the Gospel message. That Gospel message is in both oral and written form. Those who seek to keep the written word in antiquated language seek to make the written word understandable only to those who understand the old style of language rather than to make it understandable for the masses. The Gospel was never intended to be understandable only to the elite, but that is what some folks seek to do today. Those who seek to limit God's word in this way will be held accountable for their actions.

 

I am giving you a hardy amen for your stance, for this post and for the previous. It is refreshing to know of others who will stand as well, and not be washed with the tides of modern liberalism. Amen and amen brother.

 

Amen Brother. Most Christians went with the world in light of their English language degeneration. If more had hid his word in their heart for about a 300 year span, this would not have likely been the case.

 

Man: I don't get it. Why am I in hell?

God: You didn't trust in my Son.

Man: Why should I? One of your own people said you were terrible.

God: I AM terrible!

Man: Huh? You admit it? And you're even proud of it?

God: Absolutely.

Man: You know, I have a feeling we aren't using the same definition of "terrible".

God: So?

Man: So why didn't your guy clarify this?

God: Why should he? If you can't be bothered to learn Early Modern English in order to understand my people, then you have no business in heaven.

Man: Wow. You really ARE terrible.

 

Since language change is equated by some with degeneration, perhaps we should use a truly pure English translation and go back another 200 or so years.

"For the Lord is hiy and ferdful; a greet kyng on al erthe."

If change is degeneration why allow the degeneration from 1395-1611 to be reflected? We should all be pushing for the restoration of 14th century English instead of 17th century English.

The topic of this thread should therefore be "The Lord is ferdful."

If you don't know what ferdful means it is your fault for accepting the degeneration of the Engish language.

Let's be honest, how many would be able to define "ferdful" if you didn't know the verse?

 

Why not go backta the very roots of English, before Wm. The Conqueror & his Normans began to pollute it, when John 3:16 read thus: “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

How DARE those KJVO Modernists tryta pawn off a bible version on us that changes that best-known verse in the entire Bible!

 

Yes it does, for just as you turned to a dictionary for your definition of "terrible", the same can be done for "awesome".

1. impressive and frightening: so impressive or overwhelming as to inspire a strong feeling of admiration or fear

2. excellent: used as a general term of enthusiastic approval (U.S. slang) ​

I imagine it is in the slang sense that Bill and Ted (are they the ones who had "excellent adventures"?) used the word.

As for the "hundreds of years" you mentioned, I looked up "terrible" in an etymological dictionary, which said that the word was used in the sense of "very bad, awful" in 1596.

 

That sounds to me rather like writing "bar" in mistake for "bear", and expecting my spell checker to point out the mistake. It won't, because it doesn't recognise it as a mistake. Similarly, if you said, "God is terrible" to someone who applies the usual contemprary meaning to that word, why should that person even think that he has not understood you? If you know that the word could be misunderstood, why not explain it?

 

I turned to the 1828 for ease and it's a dictionary I mostly trust. However, the best way to define the term is to read the 55 verses where the word "terrible" is used in the Holy Bible.

They are the "excellent adventures" duo. It is the slang sense that they used the term. However, I submit that since most of Americans are addicted to television and movies, they get their meaning of the words more from there than the Bible. The majority of the time people are using the word is in the slang sense because their output (their speech) becomes consistent with their input (contemporary amusements).

I have no issue with that, for that is a fair definition of the word.

"Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;" - Deuteronomy 8:15​

However, I do not believe the use in the above verse is the same as the use in the below verse...

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

 

We live in an age where the definition of the word "is" is debated and misunderstood. Do we need to do another Bible rewrite to use the contemporary use of "is" (whatever that may be)? I often spend time asking people "What do you mean by that?" This is the expression I use when someone says things like "Our troops are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq." Well, the way individuals are using "freedom" today is far different from how our founders used it so I desire to hear it defined (though it is rare that I get a solid' definition). Again, I am glad to explain any word that I type or utter to anyone that asks. It is an important aspect of proper communication to ensure that one understands what the other is saying. However, I will not change the words of the Holy Bible in order to maybe use a word that people might understand better. The Holy Bible says that God is terrible, I believe it and I will not hesitate to read any passage of the Holy Bible exactly as it is written.

 

Why can't we get answer to the idea this question?

 

The Holy Bible says God is ferdful, I believe it and will not hesitate to read any passage of the Holy Bible exactly as it is written.

 

But the bible was not originally written in English, nor was it written in 1611, so should not your final words in the above message read:

I believe it and I will not hesitate to read any passage of the Holy Bible exactly as it was translated into English in 1611.​

In 1611, it was translated into the English in current use then, not the English that had been in use four hundred years earlier. Why, then, is it so wrong to have (or to desire, if you believe one does not exist yet) a translation from the "original tongues" into current English? (I should stress that I don't mean using slang, or "gender-inclusive language", or anything of that nature).