Permit me to write a few lines in addition to what has been written in the “Beacon Lights” concerning “Some Thoughts on Using You and Your”. I find the discussion most interesting.
I read in my dictionary that the form “thou,” which is the personal pronoun of the second person singular in the nominative case and of which all the other forms of the British dialect are related, is archaic except in some elevated or ecclesiastical prose. Archaic language is “that which is worked by the characteristics of an earlier period, antiquated, current of an earlier time but rare in present-day usage.”
With those definitions in mind, let us remember, first that we hold to the King James version of God’s Word, which contains this language. Therefore, for us to more fully grasp Scripture and enjoy the blessings thereby, we must use “thou” and all the forms included therein since our prayers are essentially Scripture. Secondly, perhaps at some date the English language will become more transformed so that many words will be archaic to the point of words having unrelated or opposite meanings. Hopefully at that time, lest we bear an unburdensome yoke by not understanding Scripture due to a language barrier, the church authorities will adopt a Bible translation eliminating much of the archaic language so that we with our children may again read God’s Word for a richer blessing to God’s glory. I do not believe that the King James version has become so archaic to warrant this change yet, and possibly never will until the Lord returns.
Concerning those who have eliminated this degree of archaic language, we must not condemn them for becoming antichristian in conduct, but, tolerating their practice, show them that they have introduced nonuniformity for they do not speak the language of Scripture as we have it in the beloved King James version. I believe that is why so often you see the elimination of this archaic language coupled with an unfaithful translation of Scripture, for have not recent observations by our pastors in the “Standard Bearer” and “Beacon Lights” over the years pointed out this unfaithfulness?
We must spend little time concerning the degree of archaic language and considerable time concerning the depth of the archaic language unless our study becomes difficult and we turn to our ecclesiastical bodies for a clearer translation.