Theological Opinions

[jerseydevil]

I'm sorry - but the King James version was politically motivated. You may not like it - but it was.

Edit - I'm not talking abotu interpretive works, nor am I talking about "feminist groups" and so forth. I'm talking about there being a political motivation in the writing of the King James Version. To say there is no bias in the translations of the bible is being completely blind in my opinion. You may not like that there is bias and political reasons for a particular version - but there are in many cases.

[jerseydevil]

first page post problem

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm sorry - but the King James version was politically motivated. You may not like it - but it was.

Edit - I'm not talking abotu interpretive works, nor am I talking about "feminist groups" and so forth. I'm talking about there being a political motivation in the writing of the King James Version. To say there is no bias in the translations of the bible is being completely in my opinion. You may not like that there is bias and political reasons for a particular version - but there are in many cases.

Just saying that the King James Version is politically motivated is not an argument, and it certainly is not going to convince anyone. Please give specific instances of this motivation. Present your case in an argumentative format that may convince your readers, and we could have an interesting discussion. At our house, we own a book that contains four different major Bible translations. Comparisons between the versions should be easy to make. Unless you accuse all four translations of being politically motivated in the same way, this book I own should be useful in resolving the issue. The four contained translations are King James, New International, Living Bible, and Revised Standard. Let's find out where some errors lie, shall we? I'm waiting to see the presentation of your case (which, by the way, ought to contain some refutation of Inked's post beyond the simple 'you're wrong' that you have so far expressed).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Just saying that the King James Version is politically motivated is not an argument, and it certainly is not going to convince anyone. Please give specific instances of this motivation. Present your case in an argumentative format that may convince your readers, and we could have an interesting discussion. At our house, we own a book that contains four different major Bible translations. Comparisons between the versions should be easy to make. Unless you accuse all four translations of being politically motivated in the same way, this book I own should be useful in resolving the issue. The four contained translations are King James, New International, Living Bible, and Revised Standard. Let's find out where some errors lie, shall we? I'm waiting to see the presentation of your case (which, by the way, ought to contain some refutation of Inked's post beyond the simple 'you're wrong' that you have so far expressed).

Excellent point, Lief.

Thinking about the "political" issue, the following verses come to mind : Proverbs 21:1, Romans 13:1, Psalm 2:1-6, and of course, the very profound and relevant Isaiah 3:21!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

So now we're clear on what Biblical submission is ...

well, don't take my word for it - be sure to research it and think it through yourself, too!

What is the purpose of Biblical submission? You said that it wasn't just about keeping the peace. I can see that it could have benefits in that it's 'good for people' to learn to submit their own desires, and to learn how to exercise authority wisely... anything else?

I don't really think it's at ALL about "keeping the peace". I think it's about maximizing glory and power. Your two "good for"s are good points, too, but I don't think it's the main point.

Why is it women submitting to men, rather than the other way around? You've said that it's because men and women are different, by which I imagine you mean that men are designed to be leaders and women are designed to be followers.

No, it's not quite that simple, IMO. How do I word this? Let's see - I think in a marriage, both parties will be enabled to reach their maximum potential, and the marriage will be enabled to reach its maximum potential, in the set-up that God has given for marriage, which is that the man is the head of the marriage as Christ is head of the church, and the woman submits to his headship as the Church submits to Christ. (and btw, children are instructed to "obey"; wives are instructed to "submit". There's a big difference.)

I think part of the problem is that one of our current societal thinking errors, IMO, is that ANY type of submission is wrong. Yet if we keep fighting the law of gravity, we'll get hurt. If we submit to it, we can accomplish amazing things, like putting people on the moon.

How does this work for people who don't fit those roles - for the exceptions to the rule? I said a couple of pages ago (it got buried, I think ) that I was dismayed by the idea of a Christian ideal which can't possibly apply to every relationship. Are people in a marriage where the woman is the best leader justified in just ignoring the idea of submission?

What's your definition of "best leader", btw? and "best leader" in whose opinion? If they both think they're best, you've got a problem!

Seriously, even if everyone agrees that the woman looks like the "best" leader, I still think it's better for both of them that the man take up his assigned role as head. After all, the Christian life is about growing, and what a great opportunity for growth!

See, IMO it's not a case of evaluating who might be a "better leader" using worldly standards. The world has goals and standards as to what is good; ours are different (and IMO much better!) It's a case of the Designer of our bodies and souls saying that the man should take the headship position and the woman should submit to his headship, for the maximizing of joy for everyone involved. Easyness or efficiency isn't a proper goal, IMO. If a guy is a "worse" leader and it brings some problems, so what? Is your goal an easy life, or is it the refining of your soul so it will be as pure gold?

If you marry (and I hope God has this blessing for you), I pray that one day, God will commend you and say, "Sunny, your obedience to me in this area of submission brought about this fabulous fruit in your husband's life that couldn't have come about otherwise. And you grew an even greater crop of fruit yourself, too, because of what happened when you chose to submit and how you dealt with it! Well done, my precious one!"

You and I know, Sunny, that God loves us and wants fulness of joy for us. Don't you think His requests would further this goal?

Lastly (kind of related...), would you consider submission a suggestion or a command for Christians? IOW, is it "try this if you have problems in your marriage, it could sort them out" or "these are the roles and duties prescribed for men and women in marriage, and it's wrong not to follow them"?

I consider it a command. But we are all free to disobey commands, and do it frequently Yet if we love Him, we will strive to obey Him, especially as we come to know his loving heart towards us more and more. His commands are for our joy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Just saying that the King James Version is politically motivated is not an argument, and it certainly is not going to convince anyone. Please give specific instances of this motivation. Present your case in an argumentative format that may convince your readers, and we could have an interesting discussion. At our house, we own a book that contains four different major Bible translations. Comparisons between the versions should be easy to make. Unless you accuse all four translations of being politically motivated in the same way, this book I own should be useful in resolving the issue. The four contained translations are King James, New International, Living Bible, and Revised Standard. Let's find out where some errors lie, shall we? I'm waiting to see the presentation of your case (which, by the way, ought to contain some refutation of Inked's post beyond the simple 'you're wrong' that you have so far expressed).

You know Lief you don't have to tell me what the hell to do nor to act in sucvh a damn condescneding way as you just wrote this - "..Please give specific instances of this motivation. Present your case in an argumentative format that may convince your readers...". I don't have time to post about it right now. I was making a statement of fact - you can also look it up on the motivations of King James to have a bible. It was institued by King James of England and I had studied about it in the past. If I find the information - I will present it - in my own time. I don't need you telling me how the hell to present my arguments. When I get a chance - I will post about it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

A fab example of the Bible being ahead of its time!

I don't think it's "ahead of its time" at all.

I think it is independant of time.

[Rían]

I thought your request was reasonable and polite, Lief. I look forward to the discussion, if it ever occurs.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

king james wanted to, erm 'educate' the masses, or as we would term it, 'bring them into line', so there is absolutely political motivation here.

[Rían]

Does it necessarily follow that the translation is in error? I don't think so.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Does it necessarily follow that the translation is in error? I don't think so.

maybe not necessarily, but usually

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I thought your request was reasonable and polite, Lief. I look forward to the discussion, if it ever occurs.

Well I'm glad you did - I however didn't.

And yes - LCoU knows the history - at least part of the history of King James Bible.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I'm glad you did - I however didn't.

And yes - LCoU knows the history - at least part of the history of King James Bible.

I did not mean to be condescending, and I'm sorry if I was. You know that in my posts up to now, I have never intended to insult you.

Anyway, if you're going to say the King James bible is politically motivated, you're going to have to back up what you say. Just saying the bible is politically motivated is not convincing, all by itself. I'm sure you know that. It's like if I said, "Jesus is the God of the Universe!" and expected you to believe it just because I say so.

[Nurvingiel]

Well I'm glad someone gets it Sun-star. Of course I'll do my own research too, one day, but I do want to understand RÃ*an's take on it. I see now why differences between men and women were important earlier. However, I still disagree at the weight you give each one.

You did say that both men and women are strong, and both men and women are beautiful, and I agree with that. I also agree that men and women are beautiful and strong in different ways, however I don't put a lot of emphasis on such a general statement. I don't understand the point of so much emphasis on gender. The average man is stronger than the average woman, but what does that mean to individual people? Not a whole lot.

As for the translation thing, maybe Lief's 4 book volume can shed some light on this..? What do the other versions have for those quotes? (Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:23-24, Ephesians 5:21-23.)

Thanks for those links JD. I'm about to watch the Akathist Hymn.

BTW I hope I cleared up the PC misunderstanding RÃ*an. I think you thought that about me once before and I probably had a similar response. I'm egalitarian - if that appears to be politically correct, well, I don't care. It doesn't hurt my beliefs. The reason I wanted to clear this up is because then you would miss the point of what I was saying.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

political motivations behind the james trans are a historical fact, he almost lost his throne to the young pretender, and to prevent further uprisings he 'educated' the populus to his propaganda, simple as that

[Nurvingiel]

You mentioned this in another thread Chrys, what's the Samsara?

And as if this wasn't confusing enough already... there appear to be about 10 different versions of the Bible. What's the Amplified Bible? (Makes me think of a Foamy cartoon... )

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

samsara - eternal cycle of life, death and rebirth, reincarnation, karma and the eternal path

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting. Is that... *attemps to recall old social studies class* ... represented by a great wheel?



The Ankathist Hymn is very cool. It's actually two incomplete prayer services that aren't related, but put together they form the Ankathist prayer service, which is for Mary the Mother of God.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I did not mean to be condescending, and I'm sorry if I was. You know that in my posts up to now, I have never intended to insult you.

Okay then. I know you aren't usually like that. But I just got back from the store and sent that message off real quick before I left. Then I get back and read what sounded like a lecture on how I should post it.

Anyway, if you're going to say the King James bible is politically motivated, you're going to have to back up what you say. Just saying the bible is politically motivated is not convincing, all by itself. I'm sure you know that. It's like if I said, "Jesus is the God of the Universe!" and expected you to believe it just because I say so.

You know - the King (or in the current case Queen) of England is NOT the head of the church for the hell of it. The church and politics of england are interwined. It's a fact. And King James put the version out for HIS political purposes.

The motivation behind the KJV translation was in large part due to the Protestant belief that the Bible was the sole source of doctrine (see sola scriptura) and as such should be translated into the local venacular. By the time that the King James Bible was written, there wa already a tradition going back almost a hundred years of Bible translation into English, starting with William Tyndale. At the time of the King James Bible, the authorised version of the Church of England was the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible, however, enjoyed little popular esteem, and its popularity was eclipsed by the Geneva Bible, whose marginal notes espoused a Protestantism that was too Puritan and radical for King James's taste.

However - I prefered the King James over other text and I never liked the New Living Translation bible.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by nurvi

Interesting. Is that... *attemps to recall old social studies class* ... represented by a great wheel?

yes, an eight spoked wheel, the symbol also appears on the indian national flag, prime belief in hindu and buddhist beliefs