King James Version

[currentchristian]

Question sparkyone. When they say KJV1611 do they mean the literal translation as it stood in 1611 or do they accept the later updates, such as what I think was the last major update in 1769?

 

Thanks.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Seems some traditional/conservative Catholics have a beef with the KJV:

 

Traditional Catholic Apologetics: KJV

 

Just hope they don't go to war with each other over it!

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

CC, Cathoholics hate any version of the Babble not approved by Big Momma Church. Prottie Babbles don't contain all the books the Cathoholic versions do, so hence you can imagine the rancor between each camp.

 

It really makes one think that if the Abrahamic god did indeed exist, he must be a complete idiot to have entrusted his revelations to the vehicle of human language, given how much it changes and evolves over only a few hundred years or so

[currentchristian]

CC, Cathoholics hate any version of the Babble not approved by Big Momma Church. Prottie Babbles don't contain all the books the Cathoholic versions do, so hence you can imagine the rancor between each camp.

 

It really makes one think that if the Abrahamic god did indeed exist, he must be a complete idiot to have entrusted his revelations to the vehicle of human language, given how much it changes and evolves over only a few hundred years or so

 

You have me grinning with your "Cathoholics" and "Big Momma Church."

 

It does seem, happily, that even in my own four-decade lifetime we have seen much progress toward ecumenism. The stark divisions among the Christian denominations that existed in my youth no longer are so stark. Of course there are hardline groups that maintain their perceived purity by means of separation from other groups not in possession of the extent of truth they claim to have. My hope is that all rancor between religious groups will grind to a screeching halt, ASAP. But I'm not an optimist.

 

Regarding your second paragraph: I don't see that the Source/God had a choice. If God desires to be in relationship with us, the vehicle used must be one we can perceive or participate in. The universe speaks loudly (to my ears) of a Being Behind It All. But for more intimate conversation, human language must be employed -- as deficient as human language is. For now, it's all we have.

 

-CC

[Vixentrox]

For now it's all we have? becuase your god too stupid to come up with something more efficient. Sci-Fi writers have more imagination than this jewish tribal god.

[Lycorth]

Regarding your second paragraph: I don't see that the Source/God had a choice. If God desires to be in relationship with us, the vehicle used must be one we can perceive or participate in.

 

If you posit an all-knowing god, then I cry "bullshit" for any god that knows better should have done so.

 

If you posit a more limited god, then I applaud you, but fail to see how you reconcile it with Xianity.

[sparkyone]

Question sparkyone. When they say KJV1611 do they mean the literal translation as it stood in 1611 or do they accept the later updates, such as what I think was the last major update in 1769?

 

Thanks.

 

-CC

I would have to say that they believe only one acceptable translation exists. Actually, the pamphlet that I read a few years ago that got me questioning things addressed some of the many changes (mostly minor) made since the first edition came out in 1611 and listed several updated editions. The people I know who are KJV-only just seem to accept what they've been told by others about the translation and pretty much use the most recent update, which doesn't even include the preface written by the translators. It's likely they don't even realize or believe that many different printings have had changes made to them over the years. I've never discussed it with the pastor.

 

Sparkyone

[sparkyone]

I used to be apart of a chruch that was a KJV and Pete Ruckman version of christianity. Pete defintely is about as far to the extreme on the KJV as you can get but he does have a sense of humor. He said in a sermon that there are 2 periodicals he has a subscription to. One is...NO KIDDING, I have found out it is true, ....Mad Magazine, and the other American Rifleman... If you read or listen to what he says in the same mindset you read Mad Magazine...he is hilarious. If you take him seriously...you will only be incredibly offended....

That's funny, because now I remember hearing that he liked Mad Magazine. I didn't realize it was still being published. When I was 15 (over 15 years ago) I bought an issue of it just to see what the big deal was and I don't think I really "got it". I haven't bought one since. I do remember my dad having oodles of Ruckman books and audio and video tapes of his and I even saw him do one of his chalk talk sermons in person once in Boise, ID, a long time ago. I read parts of his book that tries to explain contradictions in the Bible because even as a young person I noticed there were discrepancies. I just never went very far in that way of thinking since I was so compliant and brainwashed.

 

sparkyone

[currentchristian]

For now it's all we have? becuase your god too stupid to come up with something more efficient. Sci-Fi writers have more imagination than this jewish tribal god.

 

Of course, Vixentrox, "my god" is Wise and not simply a "jewish tribal god," but the Energy/Source of all that we human beings are able to discern. Where do you think the Sci-Fi writers got their ideas, anyway!?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Regarding your second paragraph: I don't see that the Source/God had a choice. If God desires to be in relationship with us, the vehicle used must be one we can perceive or participate in.

 

If you posit an all-knowing god, then I cry "bullshit" for any god that knows better should have done so.

 

If you posit a more limited god, then I applaud you, but fail to see how you reconcile it with Xianity.

 

Really, let's think about this as it's an interesting question.

 

If we start with the premise that a Source exists. (I know you do not embrace this premise, but for the sake of this point can you go with it for a minute?) How is that Source to communicate, if It desires to do so? It could appropriate Channel 7 on XM and Sirius and every cable/satellite channel on Earth and broadcast a commentary every Friday evening at sunset when Shabbat commences. I wonder how many would listen? I sure would!

 

But prior to the 20th century, what could It have done to communicate?

 

By means of the universe itself is one way. By means of human perception is another. A third way is the same means It could with an XM broadcast -- with words, but via human beings seeking the Source. It (i.e., Source) seems to have inspired prophets in all people groups (again, we're going with the starting premise that It is). It inspired the literate classes to desire to write down the words of the prophets and the insights gained about It, however incomplete or off the mark these ideas may have been. It sent an ambassador (Jesus) to visit us and represent Itself. (Others believe in other ambassadors, of course, in place of Jesus or in addition to him.) Some wrote down the words of Ambassador Jesus (and/or the others) and wrote down what they perceived the meaning of the experience of the visit. And so on.

 

Of course, it's incomplete. Imperfect. Not as much as I'd like to have.

 

How else might It have communicated with us, if It exists?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Question sparkyone. When they say KJV1611 do they mean the literal translation as it stood in 1611 or do they accept the later updates, such as what I think was the last major update in 1769?

 

Thanks.

 

-CC

I would have to say that they believe only one acceptable translation exists. Actually, the pamphlet that I read a few years ago that got me questioning things addressed some of the many changes (mostly minor) made since the first edition came out in 1611 and listed several updated editions. The people I know who are KJV-only just seem to accept what they've been told by others about the translation and pretty much use the most recent update, which doesn't even include the preface written by the translators. It's likely they don't even realize or believe that many different printings have had changes made to them over the years. I've never discussed it with the pastor.

 

Sparkyone

 

Thank you. I told this story once before on here somewhere, but I'll repeat it for you.

 

In my late teens, a friend and I were very involved in a conservative, rural A/G church in which everyone used the KJV. There was no mandate that we do so; just what everyone did. (And the KJV, of course, is a beautiful literary work very enjoyable to read.)

 

My friend and I at some point became aware that "other" translations existed and we began using the New American Standard Version, which I still like -- even though these days I use the NRSV. A revivalist came to the church for a weeklong series of exhortations to holy living, etc. He got off on a tangent one evening about the KJV and how we should be faithful to it, etc. He grabbed my friend's NAS version of the Bible, held it up to the audience as only a pentecostal preacher can and talked about the power he could feel emanating from it!!! We held our breath, fearing he'd notice it was not KJV but NAS. He didn't.

 

-CC

[sparkyone]

Thanks for sharing that story, CC. I'm reminded of a post in another thread about David Gibbs telling a story about a demon-possessed man seeing light emanating from the KJV bible but not as much from some other versions. I've heard David Gibbs preach, and he is very persuasive (he's an attorney after all) and was riveting for me as a teenager. However, I really have to question that sort of story anymore.

Your story is almost comical, but sad at the same time. Do people just convince themselves that "power" emanates from a certain book and so it's real to them? Obviously it wasn't the Bible doing the emanating, since it wasn't a KJV, right? I guess folks can convince themselves that something is real if they want it to be true badly enough.

 

Sparkyone

[Lycorth]

How is that Source to communicate, if It desires to do so? It could appropriate Channel 7 on XM and Sirius and every cable/satellite channel on Earth and broadcast a commentary every Friday evening at sunset when Shabbat commences. I wonder how many would listen? I sure would!

 

Choosing a more instantaneous method of communication is always preferable to choosing a limited one. The above example is good - but choosing to send one single prophet (Jebus) instead of many prophets at the same time, and expecting this to have even the slightest success, is lunacy.

 

But prior to the 20th century, what could It have done to communicate?

 

If the god is all-powerful and all-knowing, it could've immediately implanted its messages in people's minds with but a thought, knowing this is a sure route to success. If the god isn't all-powerful but still all-knowing, it would at the very least devise a way to repeatedly reveal its basic truths to people, since it would still realize the need to do so. Using one single prophet or expecting one single act performed in history to have the same grandiose significance to people living many hundreds and thousands of years in the future is foolishness.

 

A god who doesn't know it all or have all the power to do whatever it wants may possibly choose the above path, since it doesn't know any better, but that then calls into question the message of that god. If it doesn't know any better than us nor has any more power than we do (from which we can benefit in some way), then is its message worth hearing?

 

Parents know children don't learn from a single example. Even if it's a big one, they will eventually forget the lesson (and muddle it along the way) if it's not constantly reinforced. When we learn songs, we forget them after awhile unless we practice and reintroduce the information to ourselves often enough. Same for new skills - or anything. If there was a god who wanted to tell us something, it should have at least known that people would require constant reinforcement, especially with something so important as escaping eternal torment or whatever, right?

 

So, either "God" exists and is a dummy for not doing a better job in conveying his message, or just plain doesn't exist (since such a level of stupidity cannot be reasonably assigned to a being who is supposed to have made the entire universe).

 

You can see why I choose the latter explanation, I think.