Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
FWIW Augustine rejected the six day creation as being literal simply on the ground that he did not believe that time began until the completion of the creation. Instead Augustine appears to have believed that God created the heavans and the earth and everything in them instantly, in a moment outside the dimension of time. He certainly wasn't a proponent of the evolutionary method. If anything, Augustine believed that the earth is actually six days younger than indicated in Genesis.
If anyone had suggested to Augustine that God used the evolutionary method (as suggested by so-called Christian Evolutionists) and took up 13 billion years in time to create the heavens and the earth, Augustine would have probably laughed or had them arrested as heretics.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Thanks for the insights!
It was authorized by a King, now wasn't it!
Do I carry the MT? Nah, but I use it.
Well, what edition of the TR do you use.
As for the onus. I think it is your papal pronouncements of infallibility of translation that requires substantiation since the translators made no such foolish claim. So hop up off of yer onus and document.
Once again, you are the one saying it isn't so you prove your point.
In our system of law a man is innocent until proven guilty.
So make your case against the King James.
If you cannot, then admit it and depart.
peace and charity (is that more inspiried ?)
I do not know from whence the quote comes from so how would I know how inspired it is.
What is certain is that you do not what you are talking about and cannot prove the King James to be in error.
In popular Christian culture, the King James translation is seen to possess a dignity and authority that modern translations somehow fail to convey. Even four hundred years after the six companies of translators began their long and laborious task, their efforts continue to be a landmark for popular Christianity. Other translations will doubtless jostle for place in the nations booksstores in the twenty-first century. Yet the King James Bible retains it place as a literary classic, by which all other continue to be judged (emphasis given) (In The Beginning, Alister McGrath, p.300)
Who is this 'Ruckminite' McGrath?
He is the editor of the NIV Thematic Study Bible.
Where the word of the King is, there is power
http://www.pilkingtonandsons.com/bibleissues.htm
WAS KING JAMES A HOMOSEXUAL?
The charge of homosexuality was made by the king’s enemies and only after his death. Stephen Coston’s book King James the VI of Scotland and the I of England Unjustly Accused? (St. Petersburg, FL: Konigswort, 1996) makes the case that the charge was slanderous and untrue. The charge was first made by Anthony Weldon, who had been expelled from his office by James for political reasons and had sworn that he would have his day of vengeance. Weldon not only hated James, he hated the entire Scottish race. Historian Maurice Lee, Jr., warned, “Historians can and should ignore the venomous caricature of the king’s person and behavior drawn by Anthony Weldon” (Great Britain’s Solomon: James VI & I in His Three Kingdoms, 1990, pp. 309-310). See also David Wilson, King James VI & I (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956) and Christopher Durston, James I (London: Routledge, 1993).
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/was-kingjames-homosexual.html
So, King James imprimatur on the translation reflects divine sanction? Sounds like a fine Catholic approach.
Apart from his sexual preferences, are you claiming he had any proficiency in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic to make this endorsement? Or does hs authority arise ex-officio? If the later... Sounds like a fine Catholic approach.
What do you think of Luther's German trandslation? It was published with the approval of Elector Frederick and has received high praise.
Or does God reserve his Pure Word for English readers?
Frieden und lieben
Thanks, ftd. I, too, have read the rumors about James. I'll look for "King James the VI of Scotland and the I of England Unjustly Accused?"
And I notice Coston also wrote, "King James VI & I And Papal Opposition" by Stephen A. Coston, Richard D. Neumeier.
Having said that, let me pick at this: 1986 letter. "Bloodshed was God's design for all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss as a vivid manifestation of life. ('the life of the flesh is in the blood') being poured out. Nevertheless, those who were too poor to bring animals for sacrifices were allowed to bring one-tenth of an ephah (about two quarts) of fine flour instead (Lev. 5:11). Their sins were covered just as surely as the sins of those who could afford to offer a lamb, goat, turtledove, or pigeon (Lev. 5:6-7). That is because the sacrifice was entirely symbolic anyway."
Jesus is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice is compared to the passover lamb where the blood was specifically used to effect the passover of the plague of death, not just the death of the lamb. The Lord's Supper is in remembrance of both His body and blood. MacArthur goofed a little by making this an issue, and he pulled the straw man thing to aid his case. I don't like it. But his fundamental point is still correct, and I will just refer to someone else on this particular doctrine. Certainly I would not call him a heretic for this.
When I was working, my commute was 35 minutes and I tried listening to John on the way in, but he was so intense that I couldn't concentrate & drive. I changed my morning commute time in order to listen to Chuck Swindoll because it was easier listening, but he read between the lines, wrenching an emotional response that wasn't there. I finally switched to listening to taped messages from RC and Boice. None of these men are perfect and speak/write infallibly - but claiming that error is heresy is arrogant.
I think it is a church's responsibility to expose heresy but it is not an individual's right to make that proclamation. What do you think?
I think it is wiser to only claim heresy after consulting other church leaders. I suppose there are times when an exception must be made, but the offense should be very clear and coming from someone with either no record or a bad record. Certainly it shouldn't be flung around at pastors with long records of faithfulness to God's Word.
Regarding Swindoll, he has bought into the trendy comtemplative spirituality and really disappointed me. I think it is a grave error. I won't label him a heretic, but I can't listen to or read him with the same delight. So I understand people's difficulties in dealing with these errors. But I think we must learn to discern between heresy and human error. And we should be merciful and try to persuade each other first.
Amen. We live what we believe.
No, God put this particular King on the throne at the right time to autorize the translation of the greatest Bible in history.
King James I was a Christian who wanted the Bible in the hands of the common man. Commissioned the Authorized King James Bible in 1611. Fluent in Greek, Latin, French, English, and his native Scots. Schooled in Italian and Spanish.
Since I cannot post that link, I will happy to provide it on request.
What do you think of Luther's German trandslation? It was published with the approval of Elector Frederick and has received high praise. Or does God reserve his Pure Word for English readers?
I think Luther's Bible is an excellent work and did a great job in starting the German Reformation.
But the King James is the standard for all translations.
Frieden und lieben
You are from the other group of people the King James translators stated would oppose their work,
'we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil'
In des konigs Wort ist Gewalt!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.