I started to read the Bible this week. I have a New Living Translation version which is very easy to read even though the print is not really big enough for my aging eyes !!!.
Now then....when I was growing up within the Christian Faith I was taught all sorts of things from the bible....... God created the world.....the story of Moses.....Christs birth and Crucifixion and lots more. Now I see that I know virtually nothing !
I'm so absorbed in the stories and messages ...it's facinating and scary. God had such high hopes for his 'Chosen People' and seemed so very cruel in his punishment for thier transgressions.
I'm reading the Bible
I'm reading the Bible
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
There's a lot in it. I can't think of many books to compare it with. If you add a post each time something particularly startles you it'd make for an interesting thread. Who have you met, who did you like, who are the bad guys?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1334927 wrote: There's a lot in it. I can't think of many books to compare it with. If you add a post each time something particularly startles you it'd make for an interesting thread. Who have you met, who did you like, who are the bad guys?
Well just by the amount of revenge, retribution and suffering inflicted, in 'todays' terms then God is pretty hard to understand. Difficult to perceive that his 'son' Jesus that comes across as gentle is the creation of so vengeful a 'father'
Well just by the amount of revenge, retribution and suffering inflicted, in 'todays' terms then God is pretty hard to understand. Difficult to perceive that his 'son' Jesus that comes across as gentle is the creation of so vengeful a 'father'
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
Have you run into Eli yet? Or Samuel?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
I have never been able to read the entire Bible from cover to cover. The only book I own that I've never been able to finish.
I'm reading the Bible
OpenMind;1334960 wrote: I have never been able to read the entire Bible from cover to cover. The only book I own that I've never been able to finish.
Fascinating.
I, too, am reading the Bible right now. And while I devoutly believe in God the Creator and Jesus, I'm taking the Old Testament with a grain of salt since it wasn't written down for over two thousand years. Like my mother said, "It's a good book to live by, but it's not scientific fact."
Fascinating.
I, too, am reading the Bible right now. And while I devoutly believe in God the Creator and Jesus, I'm taking the Old Testament with a grain of salt since it wasn't written down for over two thousand years. Like my mother said, "It's a good book to live by, but it's not scientific fact."
I'm reading the Bible
I have read it although not to the point I could quote chapter and verse. If you forget the nonsense about it being the unchanged word of god down throughout the centuries it's a fascinating story of a society moving from stone age, bronze age to the iron age. The more I read the more I cross referenced biblical sources with others and studied up on the history of Christianity and of the bible the less inclined I was to be religious so be careful, an open mind can change things in ways you might not expect.
I remember reading the story of how moses was shown the promised land, all the farms and orchards and the people moving about and realising all it was was one tribe about to invade and take over the lands of another as had been happening down through the ages. Hardly unique and it wasn't my tribe ( celts get a mention in the bible) so why should I accept that one people had the right to exterminate another just because they believed god was on their side? From that point on when I started looking at it in a whole different right. The jews were influenced by those around them and with whom they traded just as much as they may or may not have influenced them.
I remember reading the story of how moses was shown the promised land, all the farms and orchards and the people moving about and realising all it was was one tribe about to invade and take over the lands of another as had been happening down through the ages. Hardly unique and it wasn't my tribe ( celts get a mention in the bible) so why should I accept that one people had the right to exterminate another just because they believed god was on their side? From that point on when I started looking at it in a whole different right. The jews were influenced by those around them and with whom they traded just as much as they may or may not have influenced them.
I'm reading the Bible
OpenMind;1334960 wrote: I have never been able to read the entire Bible from cover to cover. The only book I own that I've never been able to finish.
I started with my old Bible but it's so much easier with the modern version.
I started with my old Bible but it's so much easier with the modern version.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1334972 wrote: I have read it although not to the point I could quote chapter and verse. If you forget the nonsense about it being the unchanged word of god down throughout the centuries it's a fascinating story of a society moving from stone age, bronze age to the iron age. The more I read the more I cross referenced biblical sources with others and studied up on the history of Christianity and of the bible the less inclined I was to be religious so be careful, an open mind can change things in ways you might not expect.
I remember reading the story of how moses was shown the promised land, all the farms and orchards and the people moving about and realising all it was was one tribe about to invade and take over the lands of another as had been happening down through the ages. Hardly unique and it wasn't my tribe ( celts get a mention in the bible) so why should I accept that one people had the right to exterminate another just because they believed god was on their side? From that point on when I started looking at it in a whole different right. The jews were influenced by those around them and with whom they traded just as much as they may or may not have influenced them.
What I'm reading is really quite shocking....not at all like the 'fairy tales' I was taught. I watched the youtube stuff about the lost gospels this morning..........very interesting. I'm finding that I am delving more into the history of those times how & religions evolved or disappeared including the political side of things.
I remember reading the story of how moses was shown the promised land, all the farms and orchards and the people moving about and realising all it was was one tribe about to invade and take over the lands of another as had been happening down through the ages. Hardly unique and it wasn't my tribe ( celts get a mention in the bible) so why should I accept that one people had the right to exterminate another just because they believed god was on their side? From that point on when I started looking at it in a whole different right. The jews were influenced by those around them and with whom they traded just as much as they may or may not have influenced them.
What I'm reading is really quite shocking....not at all like the 'fairy tales' I was taught. I watched the youtube stuff about the lost gospels this morning..........very interesting. I'm finding that I am delving more into the history of those times how & religions evolved or disappeared including the political side of things.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
Saint_;1334962 wrote: Fascinating.
I, too, am reading the Bible right now. And while I devoutly believe in God the Creator and Jesus, I'm taking the Old Testament with a grain of salt since it wasn't written down for over two thousand years. Like my mother said, "It's a good book to live by, but it's not scientific fact."
It's a 'scary' book to live by Saint. The 10 commandments are quite a basic humanistic premise to live by, but some of the other 'rules and regs.' would be impossible in this day and age.
I, too, am reading the Bible right now. And while I devoutly believe in God the Creator and Jesus, I'm taking the Old Testament with a grain of salt since it wasn't written down for over two thousand years. Like my mother said, "It's a good book to live by, but it's not scientific fact."
It's a 'scary' book to live by Saint. The 10 commandments are quite a basic humanistic premise to live by, but some of the other 'rules and regs.' would be impossible in this day and age.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
-
CinnamonBear
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:08 am
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1334911 wrote: I started to read the Bible this week. I have a New Living Translation version which is very easy to read even though the print is not really big enough for my aging eyes !!!.
Now then....when I was growing up within the Christian Faith I was taught all sorts of things from the bible....... God created the world.....the story of Moses.....Christs birth and Crucifixion and lots more. Now I see that I know virtually nothing !
I'm so absorbed in the stories and messages ...it's facinating and scary. God had such high hopes for his 'Chosen People' and seemed so very cruel in his punishment for thier transgressions.
Very cool you're reading The Book. It's been since my teens that I read it from cover to cover (took a year.) My favorite book is the Book of John. Love the Psalms too.
In brief, my opinion of God is that He IS a loving Father, above all. He is also just.
The last sentence of your post reminded me of a book I read recently called, The Shack, by William Young. It's fiction, but it puts God in a completely different light than the Old Testament. It's one of those books that you can take from it what you want and leave the rest. For me it put God and the Trinity in such a sweet light. I highly recommend it.
Now then....when I was growing up within the Christian Faith I was taught all sorts of things from the bible....... God created the world.....the story of Moses.....Christs birth and Crucifixion and lots more. Now I see that I know virtually nothing !
I'm so absorbed in the stories and messages ...it's facinating and scary. God had such high hopes for his 'Chosen People' and seemed so very cruel in his punishment for thier transgressions.
Very cool you're reading The Book. It's been since my teens that I read it from cover to cover (took a year.) My favorite book is the Book of John. Love the Psalms too.
In brief, my opinion of God is that He IS a loving Father, above all. He is also just.
The last sentence of your post reminded me of a book I read recently called, The Shack, by William Young. It's fiction, but it puts God in a completely different light than the Old Testament. It's one of those books that you can take from it what you want and leave the rest. For me it put God and the Trinity in such a sweet light. I highly recommend it.
I'm reading the Bible
Every time I read through it I learn something new.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1334997 wrote: I started with my old Bible but it's so much easier with the modern version.
I assume it's the King James version you refer to as the "old" bible.
Compare it with the new briefly and you get a sense of how each translator must have put their own spin on things down through the ages. It's a written down collection of oral traditional stories that were meant to be spoken aloud. At least the King James version was translated in an age when words were used the same way and in a culture with it's own strong oral traditions. It's meant to be spoken and sounds better than it reads - if that makes any sense - the newer translations are for the sound bite age dumbed down for the TV generation for silent reading on your own. What the editor thinks will sell to those not as bright as what he is. I always thinks it's incredibly patronising - we'll make it simple for you because you need our guidance.
If you want to annoy a fundamentalist using the king James to justify homophobia try reminding them that the eponymous James was a gay scotsman. Don't expect them to appreciate the irony though. No sense of humour a lot of them. Maybe that's what characterises fundamentalists of all kinds - an inability to laugh at themselves.
posted by saint
I, too, am reading the Bible right now. And while I devoutly believe in God the Creator and Jesus, I'm taking the Old Testament with a grain of salt since it wasn't written down for over two thousand years. Like my mother said, "It's a good book to live by, but it's not scientific fact."
A lot of the apparently mythical events in the bible can be cross referenced with the stories of other people around at the time and checked with archaeological evidence as well. If you don't understand what earthquakes and volcanoes actually are then it's logical to assume a higher being like the gods being responsible. What kind of story would you make up to explain a shooting star to a child or the earth shaking during an earthquake. If you don't take it as some great truth maybe you will get more out of it. That people can believe the genesis myth as being literally true in incredible.
I assume it's the King James version you refer to as the "old" bible.
Compare it with the new briefly and you get a sense of how each translator must have put their own spin on things down through the ages. It's a written down collection of oral traditional stories that were meant to be spoken aloud. At least the King James version was translated in an age when words were used the same way and in a culture with it's own strong oral traditions. It's meant to be spoken and sounds better than it reads - if that makes any sense - the newer translations are for the sound bite age dumbed down for the TV generation for silent reading on your own. What the editor thinks will sell to those not as bright as what he is. I always thinks it's incredibly patronising - we'll make it simple for you because you need our guidance.
If you want to annoy a fundamentalist using the king James to justify homophobia try reminding them that the eponymous James was a gay scotsman. Don't expect them to appreciate the irony though. No sense of humour a lot of them. Maybe that's what characterises fundamentalists of all kinds - an inability to laugh at themselves.
posted by saint
I, too, am reading the Bible right now. And while I devoutly believe in God the Creator and Jesus, I'm taking the Old Testament with a grain of salt since it wasn't written down for over two thousand years. Like my mother said, "It's a good book to live by, but it's not scientific fact."
A lot of the apparently mythical events in the bible can be cross referenced with the stories of other people around at the time and checked with archaeological evidence as well. If you don't understand what earthquakes and volcanoes actually are then it's logical to assume a higher being like the gods being responsible. What kind of story would you make up to explain a shooting star to a child or the earth shaking during an earthquake. If you don't take it as some great truth maybe you will get more out of it. That people can believe the genesis myth as being literally true in incredible.
I'm reading the Bible
I quite like the New Living Translation, now I look at it. It reads very clearly. Here's my favourite passage from the entire Old Testament:As King David came to Bahurim, a man came out of the village cursing them. It was Shimei son of Gera, from the same clan as Saul’s family. He threw stones at the king and the king’s officers and all the mighty warriors who surrounded him. “Get out of here, you murderer, you scoundrel!” he shouted at David. “The Lord is paying you back for all the bloodshed in Saul’s clan. You stole his throne, and now the Lord has given it to your son Absalom. At last you will taste some of your own medicine, for you are a murderer!”
“Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?” Abishai son of Zeruiah demanded. “Let me go over and cut off his head!” “No!” the king said. “Who asked your opinion, you sons of Zeruiah! If the Lord has told him to curse me, who are you to stop him?” Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, “My own son is trying to kill me. Doesn’t this relative of Saul have even more reason to do so? Leave him alone and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to do it. And perhaps the Lord will see that I am being wronged and will bless me because of these curses today.”
So David and his men continued down the road, and Shimei kept pace with them on a nearby hillside, cursing as he went and throwing stones at David and tossing dust into the air.
2 Samuel 16
“Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?” Abishai son of Zeruiah demanded. “Let me go over and cut off his head!” “No!” the king said. “Who asked your opinion, you sons of Zeruiah! If the Lord has told him to curse me, who are you to stop him?” Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, “My own son is trying to kill me. Doesn’t this relative of Saul have even more reason to do so? Leave him alone and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to do it. And perhaps the Lord will see that I am being wronged and will bless me because of these curses today.”
So David and his men continued down the road, and Shimei kept pace with them on a nearby hillside, cursing as he went and throwing stones at David and tossing dust into the air.
2 Samuel 16
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335115 wrote: I assume it's the King James version you refer to as the "old" bible.
Compare it with the new briefly and you get a sense of how each translator must have put their own spin on things down through the ages. It's a written down collection of oral traditional stories that were meant to be spoken aloud. At least the King James version was translated in an age when words were used the same way and in a culture with it's own strong oral traditions. It's meant to be spoken and sounds better than it reads - if that makes any sense - the newer translations are for the sound bite age dumbed down for the TV generation for silent reading on your own. What the editor thinks will sell to those not as bright as what he is. I always thinks it's incredibly patronising - we'll make it simple for you because you need our guidance.
If you want to annoy a fundamentalist using the king James to justify homophobia try reminding them that the eponymous James was a gay scotsman. Don't expect them to appreciate the irony though. No sense of humour a lot of them. Maybe that's what characterises fundamentalists of all kinds - an inability to laugh at themselves.
posted by saint
A lot of the apparently mythical events in the bible can be cross referenced with the stories of other people around at the time and checked with archaeological evidence as well. If you don't understand what earthquakes and volcanoes actually are then it's logical to assume a higher being like the gods being responsible. What kind of story would you make up to explain a shooting star to a child or the earth shaking during an earthquake. If you don't take it as some great truth maybe you will get more out of it. That people can believe the genesis myth as being literally true in incredible.
If you don't get hung up in all the "is it really factual, or is it just a bunch of myths?" and just read, you can learn a lot, and find the "great truth" it has to offer.
Compare it with the new briefly and you get a sense of how each translator must have put their own spin on things down through the ages. It's a written down collection of oral traditional stories that were meant to be spoken aloud. At least the King James version was translated in an age when words were used the same way and in a culture with it's own strong oral traditions. It's meant to be spoken and sounds better than it reads - if that makes any sense - the newer translations are for the sound bite age dumbed down for the TV generation for silent reading on your own. What the editor thinks will sell to those not as bright as what he is. I always thinks it's incredibly patronising - we'll make it simple for you because you need our guidance.
If you want to annoy a fundamentalist using the king James to justify homophobia try reminding them that the eponymous James was a gay scotsman. Don't expect them to appreciate the irony though. No sense of humour a lot of them. Maybe that's what characterises fundamentalists of all kinds - an inability to laugh at themselves.
posted by saint
A lot of the apparently mythical events in the bible can be cross referenced with the stories of other people around at the time and checked with archaeological evidence as well. If you don't understand what earthquakes and volcanoes actually are then it's logical to assume a higher being like the gods being responsible. What kind of story would you make up to explain a shooting star to a child or the earth shaking during an earthquake. If you don't take it as some great truth maybe you will get more out of it. That people can believe the genesis myth as being literally true in incredible.
If you don't get hung up in all the "is it really factual, or is it just a bunch of myths?" and just read, you can learn a lot, and find the "great truth" it has to offer.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
I'm reading the Bible
LarsMac;1335127 wrote: If you don't get hung up in all the "is it really factual, or is it just a bunch of myths?" and just read, you can learn a lot, and find the "great truth" it has to offer.
The great truth, as you put it, doesn't exist but let's not go there on this thread - You probably know my viewpoint anyway by now. I do think you need to read it but if it's the only book you end up in a bit of a mess, same with the koran. So many people read it and forget there were other people in the world at the same time as the jews of the old testament.
The great truth, as you put it, doesn't exist but let's not go there on this thread - You probably know my viewpoint anyway by now. I do think you need to read it but if it's the only book you end up in a bit of a mess, same with the koran. So many people read it and forget there were other people in the world at the same time as the jews of the old testament.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335115 wrote: I assume it's the King James version you refer to as the "old" bible.
The 'old' Bible I referred to was given to me as a child and was pretty old then. Unfortunatley the front pages are missing .....the only one that remains says "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES: AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED BY HIS MAJETSYS SPECIAL COMMAND A.D.1611
PRINTED BY EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, LTD. - There is no 'published' date.
My new Bible is a New Living Translation version...looks like it was printed in 2007.....in China
Just as comparison for those who don't have a new addition :
GENESIS CHAPTER 1 (Original)
In the beginning God created heaven and the earth
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
GENESIS (NLT)
There is information about the author - Moses according to tradition
Date written - 1450 ~1410 BC
& Content which describes creation, 1st marriage, 1st sin, Abraham etc etcc.
The Account of Creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters
As I read on through this new version I am finding it much easier to digest
The 'old' Bible I referred to was given to me as a child and was pretty old then. Unfortunatley the front pages are missing .....the only one that remains says "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES: AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED BY HIS MAJETSYS SPECIAL COMMAND A.D.1611
PRINTED BY EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, LTD. - There is no 'published' date.
My new Bible is a New Living Translation version...looks like it was printed in 2007.....in China
Just as comparison for those who don't have a new addition :
GENESIS CHAPTER 1 (Original)
In the beginning God created heaven and the earth
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
GENESIS (NLT)
There is information about the author - Moses according to tradition
Date written - 1450 ~1410 BC
& Content which describes creation, 1st marriage, 1st sin, Abraham etc etcc.
The Account of Creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters
As I read on through this new version I am finding it much easier to digest
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1334929 wrote: Well just by the amount of revenge, retribution and suffering inflicted, in 'todays' terms then God is pretty hard to understand. Difficult to perceive that his 'son' Jesus that comes across as gentle is the creation of so vengeful a 'father'
Can we see an example of the vengeful action that is hard to understand?
Can we see an example of the vengeful action that is hard to understand?
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335136 wrote: Can we see an example of the vengeful action that is hard to understand?
I'll have a look and see what I can come up with but I must be careful not to quote out of context.
God set down a lot of instruction,commandments, rituals etc. When these were flouted, forgotten or deliberately 'gone against' his punishments were pretty savage.....plagues, sickness, droughts, blindness, exile and so on. There are of course many examples of rewards for those who were loyalty
I'll have a look and see what I can come up with but I must be careful not to quote out of context.
God set down a lot of instruction,commandments, rituals etc. When these were flouted, forgotten or deliberately 'gone against' his punishments were pretty savage.....plagues, sickness, droughts, blindness, exile and so on. There are of course many examples of rewards for those who were loyalty
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1335135 wrote: The 'old' Bible I referred to was given to me as a child and was pretty old then. Unfortunatley the front pages are missing .....the only one that remains says "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES: AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED BY HIS MAJETSYS SPECIAL COMMAND A.D.1611
PRINTED BY EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, LTD. - There is no 'published' date.
My new Bible is a New Living Translation version...looks like it was printed in 2007.....in China
Just as comparison for those who don't have a new addition :
GENESIS CHAPTER 1 (Original)
In the beginning God created heaven and the earth
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
GENESIS (NLT)
There is information about the author - Moses according to tradition
Date written - 1450 ~1410 BC
& Content which describes creation, 1st marriage, 1st sin, Abraham etc etcc.
The Account of Creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters
As I read on through this new version I am finding it much easier to digest
That is the king James version
Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James the first and sixth being of course the the gay scotsman.
The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Holy Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England
Eyre and Spottiswoode were the Kings printers, you will find their name on a lot of old law books as well. Sounds like your copy might have a history of it's own.
Eyre & Spottiswoode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1920 the firm experienced the dubious distinction of being the first to publish, if not in the "King's English", at least in printed book form, the notorious antisemitic text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with the additional title The Jewish Peril.
The protocols are interesting, they say the pen is mightier than the sword that means it can kill a lot.
PRINTED BY EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, LTD. - There is no 'published' date.
My new Bible is a New Living Translation version...looks like it was printed in 2007.....in China
Just as comparison for those who don't have a new addition :
GENESIS CHAPTER 1 (Original)
In the beginning God created heaven and the earth
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
GENESIS (NLT)
There is information about the author - Moses according to tradition
Date written - 1450 ~1410 BC
& Content which describes creation, 1st marriage, 1st sin, Abraham etc etcc.
The Account of Creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters
As I read on through this new version I am finding it much easier to digest
That is the king James version
Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James the first and sixth being of course the the gay scotsman.
The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Holy Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England
Eyre and Spottiswoode were the Kings printers, you will find their name on a lot of old law books as well. Sounds like your copy might have a history of it's own.
Eyre & Spottiswoode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1920 the firm experienced the dubious distinction of being the first to publish, if not in the "King's English", at least in printed book form, the notorious antisemitic text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with the additional title The Jewish Peril.
The protocols are interesting, they say the pen is mightier than the sword that means it can kill a lot.
I'm reading the Bible
That's interesting about the publishers GMC. My old copy must have been given to me around 1957/8 as I've wtitten my name and the Church I was attending ( St Marys, Sompting) in the front....it's such a pity that the person who gave it to me didn't write a message. It must have been my Grandad I think...he was church Warden at Sompting Church for many years or my Mum who had 2 brothers who were Clergymen.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335174 wrote: That is the king James version
Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The version referred to was never authorised- or at least, there is no evidence that it was authorised, either by monarch or by Parliament. It is only unofficially known as the King James Bible, and that mostly in the USA, that rejected British monarchy, and owes colossal back taxes! It could properly be called the 'King James' Bible, because it has no name at all.
Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The version referred to was never authorised- or at least, there is no evidence that it was authorised, either by monarch or by Parliament. It is only unofficially known as the King James Bible, and that mostly in the USA, that rejected British monarchy, and owes colossal back taxes! It could properly be called the 'King James' Bible, because it has no name at all.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335186 wrote: The version referred to was never authorised- or at least, there is no evidence that it was authorised, either by monarch or by Parliament. It is only unofficially known as the King James Bible, and that mostly in the USA, that rejected British monarchy, and owes colossal back taxes! It could properly be called the 'King James' Bible, because it has no name at all.
That's a slightly extreme view. I agree there was no legislation in Parliament regarding the bible, but the translators themselves in their Preface give credit to King James for ordering its existence:Historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesty's coming to this Crown, the Conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift; yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous Brethren.
The Lost Books of the Bible - King James Bible Translators Preface Part 4
That's a slightly extreme view. I agree there was no legislation in Parliament regarding the bible, but the translators themselves in their Preface give credit to King James for ordering its existence:Historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesty's coming to this Crown, the Conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift; yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous Brethren.
The Lost Books of the Bible - King James Bible Translators Preface Part 4
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1335208 wrote: That's a slightly extreme view. I agree there was no legislation in Parliament regarding the bible
Then it can't be an extreme view, even slightly extreme.
Along with almost all who favor the 'KJV', the poster of the above comment would be banned from real-world debate.
Then it can't be an extreme view, even slightly extreme.
Along with almost all who favor the 'KJV', the poster of the above comment would be banned from real-world debate.
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1334999 wrote: It's a 'scary' book to live by Saint. The 10 commandments are quite a basic humanistic premise to live by, but some of the other 'rules and regs.' would be impossible in this day and age.
Roger that. I mostly have faith in the New Testament. Whether you believe Jesus was the messiah or not, you have to admit he was a pretty amazing person.
Roger that. I mostly have faith in the New Testament. Whether you believe Jesus was the messiah or not, you have to admit he was a pretty amazing person.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335221 wrote: Then it can't be an extreme view, even slightly extreme.
Along with almost all who favor the 'KJV', the poster of the above comment would be banned from real-world debate.
You've no comment on my quote, then?
Along with almost all who favor the 'KJV', the poster of the above comment would be banned from real-world debate.
You've no comment on my quote, then?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
posted by saint
A lot of the apparently mythical events in the bible can be cross referenced with the stories of other people around at the time and checked with archaeological evidence as well. If you don't understand what earthquakes and volcanoes actually are then it's logical to assume a higher being like the gods being responsible. What kind of story would you make up to explain a shooting star to a child or the earth shaking during an earthquake. If you don't take it as some great truth maybe you will get more out of it. That people can believe the genesis myth as being literally true in incredible.
Actually,... Ummmm.... I didn't write that, Larsmac. I don't know how you got my name in that quote.
LarsMac;1335127 wrote: If you don't get hung up in all the "is it really factual, or is it just a bunch of myths?" and just read, you can learn a lot, and find the "great truth" it has to offer.
I agree. Like I actually said, 'It's a good book to live by."
A lot of the apparently mythical events in the bible can be cross referenced with the stories of other people around at the time and checked with archaeological evidence as well. If you don't understand what earthquakes and volcanoes actually are then it's logical to assume a higher being like the gods being responsible. What kind of story would you make up to explain a shooting star to a child or the earth shaking during an earthquake. If you don't take it as some great truth maybe you will get more out of it. That people can believe the genesis myth as being literally true in incredible.
Actually,... Ummmm.... I didn't write that, Larsmac. I don't know how you got my name in that quote.
LarsMac;1335127 wrote: If you don't get hung up in all the "is it really factual, or is it just a bunch of myths?" and just read, you can learn a lot, and find the "great truth" it has to offer.
I agree. Like I actually said, 'It's a good book to live by."
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1335223 wrote: You've no comment on my quote, then?
If anyone thinks it anything other than a deliberate false argument, they can say so.
If anyone thinks it anything other than a deliberate false argument, they can say so.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335225 wrote: If anyone thinks it anything other than a deliberate false argument, they can say so.
This is fascinating, I've never seen a poster out himself from background noise to unmitigated Wally in just two posts before.
That's not "ad hom", by the way, that's conversation. Neither is this a debate, it's a discussion.
This is fascinating, I've never seen a poster out himself from background noise to unmitigated Wally in just two posts before.
That's not "ad hom", by the way, that's conversation. Neither is this a debate, it's a discussion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
Hello Bez, it's nice to see you're gaining from reading the Bible.
Here’s something you might like to bare in mind as you read the Bible……
The Old Testament contains “Physical” Laws.
Back then, you “had” to obey those physical laws.
Today, the Old Testament is read for historical purposes only.
Today we have the New Testament, and it contains “Spiritual” Laws, i.e. the laws are adopted and written within our hearts.
Unlike the Old Testament though, we have the free choice whether to adopt and adhere to the “Spiritual” Laws of the New Testament.
It’s advisable to keep them though, but we are not forced to obey them.
A really basic simple example...…..
When the Sabbath, for instance, came round in Old Testament times, everyone was ordered to observe it, no ifs or buts, it was the Law, and that Law had to be obeyed.
It was a “Physical” Law. It was a Law that everyone had to observe.
When the “New” Testament came into being, the “Old Testament and its “Physical” Laws became obsolete, and the new “Spiritual” Laws came into being.
Today, we have the free choice whether to observe the Sabbath or not, we are not “forced” to observe the Sabbath, we observe it by our own free will.
Forcing someone to observe the Sabbath, defeats the purpose of the new “Spiritual” Laws.
There’s more to it than that, much more. As I said this, is only a very basic example of how the laws of the Bible have changed since the New Testament came into being.
However, please don’t take my word for it alone. It’s vital you prove all things for, and to, yourself.
You’re reading the very book to do so.
Incidentally, have a think about reading the New Testament first.
One final thing, don’t allow the “Vengeful” God to overshadow your enjoyment of reading the Bible. The word “vengeful” is not as we understand the word today.
Here’s something you might like to bare in mind as you read the Bible……
The Old Testament contains “Physical” Laws.
Back then, you “had” to obey those physical laws.
Today, the Old Testament is read for historical purposes only.
Today we have the New Testament, and it contains “Spiritual” Laws, i.e. the laws are adopted and written within our hearts.
Unlike the Old Testament though, we have the free choice whether to adopt and adhere to the “Spiritual” Laws of the New Testament.
It’s advisable to keep them though, but we are not forced to obey them.
A really basic simple example...…..
When the Sabbath, for instance, came round in Old Testament times, everyone was ordered to observe it, no ifs or buts, it was the Law, and that Law had to be obeyed.
It was a “Physical” Law. It was a Law that everyone had to observe.
When the “New” Testament came into being, the “Old Testament and its “Physical” Laws became obsolete, and the new “Spiritual” Laws came into being.
Today, we have the free choice whether to observe the Sabbath or not, we are not “forced” to observe the Sabbath, we observe it by our own free will.
Forcing someone to observe the Sabbath, defeats the purpose of the new “Spiritual” Laws.
There’s more to it than that, much more. As I said this, is only a very basic example of how the laws of the Bible have changed since the New Testament came into being.
However, please don’t take my word for it alone. It’s vital you prove all things for, and to, yourself.
You’re reading the very book to do so.
Incidentally, have a think about reading the New Testament first.
One final thing, don’t allow the “Vengeful” God to overshadow your enjoyment of reading the Bible. The word “vengeful” is not as we understand the word today.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
I'm reading the Bible
binbag;1335231 wrote: When the “New” Testament came into being, the “Old Testament and its “Physical” Laws became obsolete, and the new “Spiritual” Laws came into being.So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?
One final thing, don’t allow the “Vengeful” God to overshadow your enjoyment of reading the Bible. The word “vengeful” is not as we understand the word today.The word "vengeful" doesn't appear in any translation I've read, God tends to be described more often as "jealous". I'm quite sure Bez was using "vengeful" in its current meaning. Vengeful fits what happened to the murmurers, for example, or the children shouting Go Down Baldy at Elisha.
One final thing, don’t allow the “Vengeful” God to overshadow your enjoyment of reading the Bible. The word “vengeful” is not as we understand the word today.The word "vengeful" doesn't appear in any translation I've read, God tends to be described more often as "jealous". I'm quite sure Bez was using "vengeful" in its current meaning. Vengeful fits what happened to the murmurers, for example, or the children shouting Go Down Baldy at Elisha.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
binbag;1335231 wrote: When the “New†Testament came into being, the “Old Testament and its “Physical†Laws became obsolete, and the new “Spiritual†Laws came into being.Reply....
spot;1335234 wrote: So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?.Which church are you referring to spot?
And did I nonchalantly refer to "historical interest" as "merely historical interest"?
spot;1335234 wrote: The word "vengeful" doesn't appear in any translation I've read, God tends to be described more often as "jealous". I'm quite sure Bez was using "vengeful" in its current meaning. Vengeful fits what happened to the murmurers, for example, or the children shouting Go Down Baldy at Elisha.Psalm 94 (King James Version)
Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.
Psalm 94 (New International Version)
O LORD, the God who avenges,
O God who avenges, shine forth.
--------------------------
Jeremiah 51:6 (New King James Version)
Flee from the midst of Babylon,
And every one save his life!
Do not be cut off in her iniquity,
For this is the time of the Lord’s vengeance;
He shall recompense her.
Jeremiah 51:6 New International Version
Flee from Babylon!
Run for your lives!
Do not be destroyed because of her sins.
It is time for the Lord's vengeance;
he will pay her what she deserves.
-------------------------------------------
Isaiah 35:4 (King James Version)
Say to them that are of a fearful heart,
Be strong, fear not: behold,
your God will come with vengeance,
even God with a recompense;
he will come and save you.
Isaiah 35:4 (New International Version)
say to those with fearful hearts,
"Be strong, do not fear;
your God will come,
he will come with vengeance;
with divine retribution
he will come to save you."
spot;1335234 wrote: So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?.Which church are you referring to spot?
And did I nonchalantly refer to "historical interest" as "merely historical interest"?
spot;1335234 wrote: The word "vengeful" doesn't appear in any translation I've read, God tends to be described more often as "jealous". I'm quite sure Bez was using "vengeful" in its current meaning. Vengeful fits what happened to the murmurers, for example, or the children shouting Go Down Baldy at Elisha.Psalm 94 (King James Version)
Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.
Psalm 94 (New International Version)
O LORD, the God who avenges,
O God who avenges, shine forth.
--------------------------
Jeremiah 51:6 (New King James Version)
Flee from the midst of Babylon,
And every one save his life!
Do not be cut off in her iniquity,
For this is the time of the Lord’s vengeance;
He shall recompense her.
Jeremiah 51:6 New International Version
Flee from Babylon!
Run for your lives!
Do not be destroyed because of her sins.
It is time for the Lord's vengeance;
he will pay her what she deserves.
-------------------------------------------
Isaiah 35:4 (King James Version)
Say to them that are of a fearful heart,
Be strong, fear not: behold,
your God will come with vengeance,
even God with a recompense;
he will come and save you.
Isaiah 35:4 (New International Version)
say to those with fearful hearts,
"Be strong, do not fear;
your God will come,
he will come with vengeance;
with divine retribution
he will come to save you."
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
I'm reading the Bible
binbag;1335268 wrote: Which church are you referring to spot?
And did I nonchalantly refer to "historical interest" as "merely historical interest"?
It was a perfectly innocuous question, you needn't fly into the air. The Church - the ecclesia, the people of God, the body of believers both current and departed, those militantly fighting the good fight and those triumphantly egging them on from the clouds playing their harps, flapping their wings, drenched in the Blood of the Lamb. It's called the Church, right down to the capital letter at the front.
If the Old Testament and its Physical Laws became obsolete, why has it been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest? - by all means drop the "merely".
And did I nonchalantly refer to "historical interest" as "merely historical interest"?
It was a perfectly innocuous question, you needn't fly into the air. The Church - the ecclesia, the people of God, the body of believers both current and departed, those militantly fighting the good fight and those triumphantly egging them on from the clouds playing their harps, flapping their wings, drenched in the Blood of the Lamb. It's called the Church, right down to the capital letter at the front.
If the Old Testament and its Physical Laws became obsolete, why has it been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest? - by all means drop the "merely".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335186 wrote: The version referred to was never authorised- or at least, there is no evidence that it was authorised, either by monarch or by Parliament. It is only unofficially known as the King James Bible, and that mostly in the USA, that rejected British monarchy, and owes colossal back taxes! It could properly be called the 'King James' Bible, because it has no name at all.
authorised
- 3 dictionary results
au·thor·ize
/ˈɔθəˌraɪz/ Show Spelled[aw-thuh-rahyz] Show IPA
–verb (used with object),-ized, -iz·ing.
1.
to give authority or official power to; empower: to authorize an employee to sign purchase orders.
2.
to give authority for; formally sanction (an act or proceeding): Congress authorized the new tax on tobacco.
3.
to establish by authority or usage: an arrangement long authorized by etiquette books.
It was authorised or commissioned if you prefer by King James who didn't actually need to ask anybody's permission. Political move of course to make the bible translation available more suitably protestant in nature. It's also known as the king James bible or the authorised version everywhere it is used in the English speaking world- of which america is but a part - and especially in those bits where they spell authorised properly. What you call it in america is interesting but not of great significance. I dare say if you call it the King James authorised version in the states some would want to know who authorised it which would no doubt raise the question of whether a translation authorised by the king of the newly united kingdom had the authority to authorise it. Which he clearly did because he did so but I bet some wouldn't be able to get past the first page for arguing about it.
They are still re-writing it taking out the bits that don't suit. Apparently there is work in progress to remove all the liberal bias from the new testament - the bits about love thy neighbour and help the needy. There are other problems thirteen men travelling around together without any women wives sounds a bit like the village people and there is the problem of judas Iscariot kissing jesus . I suspect, however, the tale if apocryphal
posted by spot
So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?
I would suggest because being able to terrorise people in to doing what they are told with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't was just too tempting for the powers that be. In a way it's simpler to be dispassionate about it and think of the church as being separate from religious belief. The former is a political creation formed for expediency and the latter something that has been taken advantage of. Does the way the christian church has been used by successive rulers to keep their grip on power make the message of the late JC any less significant? If only Christians would practice what he preached and binned the old testament altogether. Sadly there is something in the nature of man that is attracted to the vengeful, vindictive, capricious and sadistic god of the old testament.
authorised
- 3 dictionary results
au·thor·ize
/ˈɔθəˌraɪz/ Show Spelled[aw-thuh-rahyz] Show IPA
–verb (used with object),-ized, -iz·ing.
1.
to give authority or official power to; empower: to authorize an employee to sign purchase orders.
2.
to give authority for; formally sanction (an act or proceeding): Congress authorized the new tax on tobacco.
3.
to establish by authority or usage: an arrangement long authorized by etiquette books.
It was authorised or commissioned if you prefer by King James who didn't actually need to ask anybody's permission. Political move of course to make the bible translation available more suitably protestant in nature. It's also known as the king James bible or the authorised version everywhere it is used in the English speaking world- of which america is but a part - and especially in those bits where they spell authorised properly. What you call it in america is interesting but not of great significance. I dare say if you call it the King James authorised version in the states some would want to know who authorised it which would no doubt raise the question of whether a translation authorised by the king of the newly united kingdom had the authority to authorise it. Which he clearly did because he did so but I bet some wouldn't be able to get past the first page for arguing about it.
They are still re-writing it taking out the bits that don't suit. Apparently there is work in progress to remove all the liberal bias from the new testament - the bits about love thy neighbour and help the needy. There are other problems thirteen men travelling around together without any women wives sounds a bit like the village people and there is the problem of judas Iscariot kissing jesus . I suspect, however, the tale if apocryphal
posted by spot
So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?
I would suggest because being able to terrorise people in to doing what they are told with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't was just too tempting for the powers that be. In a way it's simpler to be dispassionate about it and think of the church as being separate from religious belief. The former is a political creation formed for expediency and the latter something that has been taken advantage of. Does the way the christian church has been used by successive rulers to keep their grip on power make the message of the late JC any less significant? If only Christians would practice what he preached and binned the old testament altogether. Sadly there is something in the nature of man that is attracted to the vengeful, vindictive, capricious and sadistic god of the old testament.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335279 wrote:
It was authorised or commissioned if you prefer by King James who didn't actually need to ask anybody's permission.
He did need it. He had much trouble with Parliament in that respect. He would probably not have got that permission had he asked for it. It is the unauthorised nature of this translation that is significant.
Political move of course to make the bible translation available more suitably protestant in nature.
He actually made it more Catholic, than either the Great Bible of Henry VIII, that was authorised (and it still is the only authorised Bible in the Church of England!), or the Geneva Bible, that the vast majority read when he came to the throne. He also made the new version more formal and more difficult to read than other versions, which is probably one reason why it is approved by so many whose insincerity is manifest. Its archaisms, its errors, and its outdatedness also contribute to its popularity with those who have low credibility, people who regret that the Bible was ever allowed to be translated out of the dead language of Latin, that it was ever written at all.
It was authorised or commissioned if you prefer by King James who didn't actually need to ask anybody's permission.
He did need it. He had much trouble with Parliament in that respect. He would probably not have got that permission had he asked for it. It is the unauthorised nature of this translation that is significant.
Political move of course to make the bible translation available more suitably protestant in nature.
He actually made it more Catholic, than either the Great Bible of Henry VIII, that was authorised (and it still is the only authorised Bible in the Church of England!), or the Geneva Bible, that the vast majority read when he came to the throne. He also made the new version more formal and more difficult to read than other versions, which is probably one reason why it is approved by so many whose insincerity is manifest. Its archaisms, its errors, and its outdatedness also contribute to its popularity with those who have low credibility, people who regret that the Bible was ever allowed to be translated out of the dead language of Latin, that it was ever written at all.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335332 wrote: He did need it. He had much trouble with Parliament in that respect. He would probably not have got that permission had he asked for it. It is the unauthorised nature of this translation that is significant.
He actually made it more Catholic, than either the Great Bible of Henry VIII, that was authorised (and it still is the only authorised Bible in the Church of England!), or the Geneva Bible, that the vast majority read when he came to the throne. He also made the new version more formal and more difficult to read than other versions, which is probably one reason why it is approved by so many whose insincerity is manifest. Its archaisms, its errors, and its outdatedness also contribute to its popularity with those who have low credibility, people who regret that the Bible was ever allowed to be translated out of the dead language of Latin, that it was ever written at all.
I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. Look up the meaning of the word authorised for yourself - the semantics of the word seem to escape you as obviously you don't grasp the meaning of the word - either that or you are deliberately being obtuse, and while you are at it read a bit about the history of the period. No king hoping to remain on the throne would have dared make the translation more catholic. Simple fact - he authorised the translation and it is known as the king james authorised version. What you call it in the states is completely and utterly irrelevant.
He actually made it more Catholic, than either the Great Bible of Henry VIII, that was authorised (and it still is the only authorised Bible in the Church of England!), or the Geneva Bible, that the vast majority read when he came to the throne. He also made the new version more formal and more difficult to read than other versions, which is probably one reason why it is approved by so many whose insincerity is manifest. Its archaisms, its errors, and its outdatedness also contribute to its popularity with those who have low credibility, people who regret that the Bible was ever allowed to be translated out of the dead language of Latin, that it was ever written at all.
I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. Look up the meaning of the word authorised for yourself - the semantics of the word seem to escape you as obviously you don't grasp the meaning of the word - either that or you are deliberately being obtuse, and while you are at it read a bit about the history of the period. No king hoping to remain on the throne would have dared make the translation more catholic. Simple fact - he authorised the translation and it is known as the king james authorised version. What you call it in the states is completely and utterly irrelevant.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335363 wrote: he authorised the translation
Cite the documentary evidence, please.
Cite the documentary evidence, please.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1335270 wrote: It was a perfectly innocuous question, you needn't fly into the air. The Church - the ecclesia, the people of God, the body of believers both current and departed, those militantly fighting the good fight and those triumphantly egging them on from the clouds playing their harps, flapping their wings, drenched in the Blood of the Lamb. It's called the Church, right down to the capital letter at the front.spot, here's something I came up with a number of years ago for my own benefit and keep pinned beside my monitor.
I thought I would share it with you.....
"The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".
spot;1335270 wrote: If the Old Testament and its Physical Laws became obsolete, why has it been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest? - by all means drop the "merely".That's a very good question. Why not give me the answer.
bb
I thought I would share it with you.....
"The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".
spot;1335270 wrote: If the Old Testament and its Physical Laws became obsolete, why has it been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest? - by all means drop the "merely".That's a very good question. Why not give me the answer.
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
I'm reading the Bible
binbag;1335389 wrote: "The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".Perhaps you could apply that to the negative aspect of "And did I nonchalantly refer to "historical interest" as "merely historical interest"?.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335279 wrote:
I would suggest because being able to terrorise people in to doing what they are told with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't was just too tempting for the powers that be. In a way it's simpler to be dispassionate about it and think of the church as being separate from religious belief. The former is a political creation formed for expediency and the latter something that has been taken advantage of. Does the way the christian church has been used by successive rulers to keep their grip on power make the message of the late JC any less significant? If only Christians would practice what he preached and binned the old testament altogether. Sadly there is something in the nature of man that is attracted to the vengeful, vindictive, capricious and sadistic god of the old testament.That's a very interesting read, but I'm rather dismayed you suggest "I should practice what I preach", and "get rid of the Old Testament"
Sorry and all that gmc but....
1:
You don't know me so you can't say "I should practice what I preach".
2:
I don't preach to anyone.
3:
The Old Testament is full of wise words and encouragement found in Proverbs.
Beautiful poems and songs found in the Book Of Psalms.
etc. etc.
4:
I myself would never advise anyone to get rid of the Old testament.
........................................................................................
Oh, and just in case you are tempted to repeat spot's words ="you needn't fly into the air", allow me to share this with you also....
It's something I came up with a number of years ago for my own benefit and keep pinned beside my monitor.
I thought I would share it with you also..
"The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".
bb
I would suggest because being able to terrorise people in to doing what they are told with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't was just too tempting for the powers that be. In a way it's simpler to be dispassionate about it and think of the church as being separate from religious belief. The former is a political creation formed for expediency and the latter something that has been taken advantage of. Does the way the christian church has been used by successive rulers to keep their grip on power make the message of the late JC any less significant? If only Christians would practice what he preached and binned the old testament altogether. Sadly there is something in the nature of man that is attracted to the vengeful, vindictive, capricious and sadistic god of the old testament.That's a very interesting read, but I'm rather dismayed you suggest "I should practice what I preach", and "get rid of the Old Testament"
Sorry and all that gmc but....
1:
You don't know me so you can't say "I should practice what I preach".
2:
I don't preach to anyone.
3:
The Old Testament is full of wise words and encouragement found in Proverbs.
Beautiful poems and songs found in the Book Of Psalms.
etc. etc.
4:
I myself would never advise anyone to get rid of the Old testament.
........................................................................................
Oh, and just in case you are tempted to repeat spot's words ="you needn't fly into the air", allow me to share this with you also....
It's something I came up with a number of years ago for my own benefit and keep pinned beside my monitor.
I thought I would share it with you also..
"The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1335397 wrote: Perhaps you could apply that to the negative aspect of "And did I nonchalantly refer to "historical interest" as "merely historical interest"?.Hah, you don't get it spot.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
I'm reading the Bible
binbag;1335407 wrote: Hah, you don't get it spot.
Either it's a conversation or it isn't. Either we engage and exchange views and find what common ground exists or we don't. There aren't any points to be won.
Either it's a conversation or it isn't. Either we engage and exchange views and find what common ground exists or we don't. There aren't any points to be won.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
binbag;1335406 wrote: That's a very interesting read, but I'm rather dismayed you suggest "I should practice what I preach", and "get rid of the Old Testament"
Sorry and all that gmc but....
1:
You don't know me so you can't say "I should practice what I preach".
2:
I don't preach to anyone.
3:
The Old Testament is full of wise words and encouragement found in Proverbs.
Beautiful poems and songs found in the Book Of Psalms.
etc. etc.
4:
I myself would never advise anyone to get rid of the Old testament.
........................................................................................
Oh, and just in case you are tempted to repeat spot's words ="you needn't fly into the air", allow me to share this with you also....
It's something I came up with a number of years ago for my own benefit and keep pinned beside my monitor.
I thought I would share it with you also..
"The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".
bb
I was referring to a comment spot made not your good self. It was a general comment aimed at christians in the wider sense not you in particular. It would be interesting if you were to give your answer to the question.
So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?
It seems almost impossible to discuss religion without someone deciding it is a personal attack on their beliefs.
posted by xyz
Cite the documentary evidence, please.
I have no intention of wasting my time, but I would suggest make sure you fully understand the meaning of the word authorised and delve in to the union of the crowns and the resulting politicking between king and parliament that went on for yourself. I'm scots and find it depressing as it is without trying to explain that the american view on the matter of whether it was authorised or not is a debate about semantics that is totally irrelevant and pointless. Think what you like.
The copy Bez has possibly has an interesting family history behind it which is what I was pointing out to her, it's possibly a family bible handed down through the generations - but that's for her to pursue in private.
Sorry and all that gmc but....
1:
You don't know me so you can't say "I should practice what I preach".
2:
I don't preach to anyone.
3:
The Old Testament is full of wise words and encouragement found in Proverbs.
Beautiful poems and songs found in the Book Of Psalms.
etc. etc.
4:
I myself would never advise anyone to get rid of the Old testament.
........................................................................................
Oh, and just in case you are tempted to repeat spot's words ="you needn't fly into the air", allow me to share this with you also....
It's something I came up with a number of years ago for my own benefit and keep pinned beside my monitor.
I thought I would share it with you also..
"The reader of the written word may, at times, be unable to determine the attitude behind the writer of the written word. On these occasions, adoptive positiveness very often calms the undecided mind".
bb
I was referring to a comment spot made not your good self. It was a general comment aimed at christians in the wider sense not you in particular. It would be interesting if you were to give your answer to the question.
So why has the Old Testament been considered sacred scripture by the Church since the start of Christianity, instead of being considered works of merely historical interest?
It seems almost impossible to discuss religion without someone deciding it is a personal attack on their beliefs.
posted by xyz
Cite the documentary evidence, please.
I have no intention of wasting my time, but I would suggest make sure you fully understand the meaning of the word authorised and delve in to the union of the crowns and the resulting politicking between king and parliament that went on for yourself. I'm scots and find it depressing as it is without trying to explain that the american view on the matter of whether it was authorised or not is a debate about semantics that is totally irrelevant and pointless. Think what you like.
The copy Bez has possibly has an interesting family history behind it which is what I was pointing out to her, it's possibly a family bible handed down through the generations - but that's for her to pursue in private.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335443 wrote: I have no intention of wasting my time
Unsurprisingly. Unsurprising, too, that such reluctance be hidden away as the last reply in a combined reply. Such behaviour is unsurprising to those experienced in dealing with those who prefer the Bible's sharp message to be blunted with archaic language. Such behaviour is unsurprising in those who support a book named after a king whose boorishness and wayward behavior were rather too well known.
It would indeed be a waste of time, because there is no such documentation. There is not a royal opinion or, much more importantly, a Parliamentary statute, anywhere, that authorises the use of this book in any denomination or place of worship. People assume that the book has authorisation, partly because of statement 'appointed to be read in churches' on the frontispiece- but this was the printer's own ambiguous addition. But the alarming fact is that for hundreds of years no other Bible (if indeed it can be called a Bible, so many are its errors) was printed in England, and no alternative was made available, despite the availability of far better Greek manuscripts to make improved translations, and despite the criticisms of scholars that such translations be made. So the 'authorisation' of this book is via a mixture of deceit and inertia by coercion. Again, an unsurprising characteristic of a book promoted by those whose character is notably unchristian.
Of course, most Americans have the sense to avoid the appellation 'Authorised'. They can hardly recognise the authority of a king and government from whom the early settlers had escaped. Those settlers used the Geneva Bible, so if Americans want a translation more aligned with their own provenance and history, it is the Geneva that they will take up- and some have, of late.
However, adult, educated Christians are never satisfied with any translation.
Unsurprisingly. Unsurprising, too, that such reluctance be hidden away as the last reply in a combined reply. Such behaviour is unsurprising to those experienced in dealing with those who prefer the Bible's sharp message to be blunted with archaic language. Such behaviour is unsurprising in those who support a book named after a king whose boorishness and wayward behavior were rather too well known.
It would indeed be a waste of time, because there is no such documentation. There is not a royal opinion or, much more importantly, a Parliamentary statute, anywhere, that authorises the use of this book in any denomination or place of worship. People assume that the book has authorisation, partly because of statement 'appointed to be read in churches' on the frontispiece- but this was the printer's own ambiguous addition. But the alarming fact is that for hundreds of years no other Bible (if indeed it can be called a Bible, so many are its errors) was printed in England, and no alternative was made available, despite the availability of far better Greek manuscripts to make improved translations, and despite the criticisms of scholars that such translations be made. So the 'authorisation' of this book is via a mixture of deceit and inertia by coercion. Again, an unsurprising characteristic of a book promoted by those whose character is notably unchristian.
Of course, most Americans have the sense to avoid the appellation 'Authorised'. They can hardly recognise the authority of a king and government from whom the early settlers had escaped. Those settlers used the Geneva Bible, so if Americans want a translation more aligned with their own provenance and history, it is the Geneva that they will take up- and some have, of late.
However, adult, educated Christians are never satisfied with any translation.
I'm reading the Bible
Christians have been fighting each other over whose version of the bible is correct for generations. Some people would try and start an argument in an empty room. Some things will never change it seems.
YouTube - Argument Clinic
YouTube - Argument Clinic
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1335453 wrote: Christians have been fighting each other
So say the vile.
So say the vile.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335455 wrote: So say the vile.
And who are the vile ? Just to satisfy my inquisitive nature. I'd like to avoid these vile creatures if I can
And who are the vile ? Just to satisfy my inquisitive nature. I'd like to avoid these vile creatures if I can
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
I'm reading the Bible
Ahh 
Favorite book still I'm going through it again myself.... This time i have the parallel version, with hebrew and greek... sooo interesting how small things matter through out the bible.... Hope it's going well for ya
Favorite book still I'm going through it again myself.... This time i have the parallel version, with hebrew and greek... sooo interesting how small things matter through out the bible.... Hope it's going well for ya Smoke signals ftw!
-
CinnamonBear
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:08 am
I'm reading the Bible
Predictable from board to board when the subject of The Book comes up. Same ol', same ol', denial, anger, intimidation, lala .... sigh
Excuse me for not knowing the author of this quote, but it fits in well here ...
"Nobody speaks more of God than an atheist." ---- sorry I don't recall the author. However, the quote speaks for itself even if I don't have the words correct, the meaning is there and very true. Love it.
Excuse me for not knowing the author of this quote, but it fits in well here ...
"Nobody speaks more of God than an atheist." ---- sorry I don't recall the author. However, the quote speaks for itself even if I don't have the words correct, the meaning is there and very true. Love it.
I'm reading the Bible
Snowfire;1335485 wrote: And who are the vile ? Just to satisfy my inquisitive nature. I'd like to avoid these vile creatures if I can
Those who say, "There is no God and life is meaningless then you die."
You know...atheists!
Those who say, "There is no God and life is meaningless then you die."
You know...atheists!
