Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

It's a pity really. Europeans, sick of the tyrannical manner in which their Autocrats were mandating religious positions upon the masses fled to America to find a place they could live and practice their religions freely. Centuries later and people are complaining that there is TOO much diversity of belief, such that the majority can't oppress the minority because everybody is the minority in some fashion.Frankly I agree with you for reasons quite contrary to yours. Severely limiting religious freedoms and mandating religious practices (eg., I was obliged to pray and sing hymns at school) has caused many Europeans to distrust and dislike religion in general leading to a heavy secularisation (particularly in North Western regions - I haven't looked it up, but it seems to be the Protestant ones (ie have a long history of Protestantism) are more secular or even godless entirely).Huge religious diversity has made it very difficult for American anti-theists - one church behaving badly only reflects poorly on a small number of people. It kind of turns into wack-a-mole for them The Catholics are really the only ones that still have to deal with the guilt by association issue in such a direct way. It's hard to find excuses (but they still do!) for funding an organisation that (in parts) kidnaps, abuses and murders children, while the head of that organisation, aware of many of these things, acts to keep them secret and protects the guilty and misinforms the innocent. You don't want to be like the Catholics, right? Stay diverse, safety in numbers. The secularist nazis are coming, after all. Yes, that would be the reason. Presumably because the BoM is scripture.I know its not your scripture, but if you apply that standard then I'm obligated to deny that the Bible is scripture - which results in absurdity when we try and communicate.

It's funny. I'd find it hard to think of anyone that does, but that's because I know hardly any Christians and they sure as shit don't talk about all the time.My Grandmother is a regular Church of Englander and I think KJV is her preferred source, but I have seen her with some revised version or another. Like most Christians don't know most of the contents of the Bible, and way too many have never even read it, I'm sure the same is true of Mormons. Since Mormonism isn't significantly embedded in the culture, they kind of need the extra bump from the BoM to get their faith. I'm pretty sure they are famed for their conservatism aren't they? And as far as evangelism, how many Mormons have you had at your door? They come round my street just about every week in summer. Different ones each time, but the one that speaks is almost always American. I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for converting British people. I like the bit where the neighbours wife destroys/hides the first and only 'translation' and challenges him to rewrite it. The fact that the convicted fraudster (and I believe, later, murderer) couldn't do it didn't seem to dissuade the believers somehow.

I specifically told you that my reasons were quite different, so obviously as they were not aiming at your point, they would miss it.You are keen to call other people's ideas silly aren't you? You don't seem to like it when others do it you. I disagree entirely. A single authorised version may not fall into the language comfort zone of some people, making it harder for them to communicate because they don't feel they really get what's going on. I've never seen this confusion. If anything, I find reading a variety of versions gives me a sense of what is going on better than sticking to one. It leaves me considerably less confused. Different people respond to different styles of writing differently. Some love the Jacobian tone of KJV, others find it terrible and awkward and confusing. Some think the NLT is too casual, but think NIV reads well. It maximises the comfort of the diverse range of people who speak English. I agree. But having a single authoritative source dictate that one single version is 'authoritative' on true Christians, is quite papal. In Message 872 I mentionedRev 22:19, Prov 11:16, Prov 19:18We could start there.

But it isn't silly to point out that the price of religious freedom is that people will be free to have religions you disagree with, with texts you find vile. So what don't you like about KJV2000? You are not a representative sample of all Bible readers. Every church I've been to has their own Bibles so nobody brings their own and they all read from the same edition of the same version. Is that not how you guys do it? Furthermore, I don't remember attending any Church where it was necessary to consult the Bible, doing so would cause you to miss the point of the sermon. I suppose if your church is so hard up it can't afford it's own pool of Bibles having printed sheets for the days reading makes sense. What's wrong with that? Wow - you guys and you're strange customs. Before you organize getting all conservative/evangelical churches to agree on a translation maybe you can do a dry run and standardize the Bible version your church uses. Don't blame the proliferation of Bibles for your confused elders it's really quite easy to choose to use one translation for Church use. I thought Sunday School was for kids? And they make them memorize passages? That's horrid - it sounds like a Madrassa. I've never had an issue, but I suppose this is something of an accessibility issue. You should raise it with your elder. That's fine, but concordances are a little circular. Commentaries are pretty good though, I agree. So just learn Hebrew and Greek and be done with it. It is after all - the word of God. I put in a fair amount of effort to learning German and Italian words so that I can understand opera better (because the translations regularly suck) and that's just a reflection of the human soul. I was raised on the KJV and Shakespeare, I don't have a huge problem with most of the KJV's language although it can slow down reading at times. I agree the KJV does turn an awesome phrase every now and again where modern Bibles may not. But you and I together still don't make a representative sample. And if you are never convinced it is a good source, should people simply abandon the Bible and go with what feels good to them? This sounds awfully close to a concession that you have no argument against it. I wasn't talking about Greek. 70% of the things I referenced were originally Hebrew in any case.I was giving you examples of readings where modern Bibles are better than the KJV, like you asked.

Find, or found a better Church that isn't corrupted by free society. Don't blame me for liking freedom, blame yourself for going to a church that takes that freedom to a level that causes problems discussing the Bible with fellow Church-goers who may be corrupted by the African text. Even I think it's sensible to have agreed book for Church use or discussion, even though I think it is OK for someone to reference another text for their own elucidation. I dunno - they have an ugly website that says things 'FAITH ALONE IS REQUIRED' and 'JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN'. It's hard to follow but I think they're KJO - King Jesus Only. I think you'd get on well with them.It's almost entirely not a translation. As a general rule the creator says he didn't look at the Greek, just the common KJV. He simply updated some obscure phrases that never made it into common parlance to make it clear the intended meaning and things like that.The only issue I think you would have with it is occasional word changes, the rational for which is not clear. It's minor things though, like the identity of animals. Deuteronomy 33:17 goes as follows Which has always been a difficult word. So there's small collection of those kinds of things. I'll let you judge if that's vile or unnecessary. Then there are modernisations like Matt 5:13 So a few changes here. Ye to you loses accuracy but on the other hand not everybody can remember which one thou is and which one ye is, so adds an element of confusion to people who haven't read up on this kind of thing. Especially when you consider the word e which was often printed as ye. I know its clear in this particular context, but there may be others where the distinction is important.A paragraph on the first word isn't encouraging you I suppose. It Americanises the 'savour' which is fine I'm sure, and replaces another one of those words that trips people up. Wherefores and wherewiths trip casual English speakers all the time because they are obsolete. I'm kind of fond of thenceforth but 'thereafter' probably increases the number of people that understand the verse.Take a look at your favourite verse over at Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages, it compares a wide array of Bibles so you can see the abominations quickly and easily. Taking Burgon's argument to its logical extent concerning KJV2000 allegations for its construction, would imply we should be using the 1611 version with no j's and lots of e's at the end of words etc. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Maybe you could start a thread on this 'personal relationship' business. It always sounded like the kind of talk that could get you executed until the late 19th Century / early 20th century to me. Not characteristic of Christianity as it has mostly been practiced and discussed historically as far as I have seen. Any idea where this theology / definition of Christianity actually came about? But yeah - another thread probably. I'm not sure how you would make that argument. How would you tell if someone was in actual communion with God? Didn't Jesus say that the relationship, such as it is, is a secret one? That making public show of religiosity by praying or giving to charity in front of others is doing so to be seen and rewarded by men, but that doing it in secret will be rewarded by God in secret?It seems that from a Biblical standpoint it might be difficult to tell who is in communion with God, and that it is probably pride that is driving your view, and since humility seems to the path you should be on...Frankly, since you probably continue praying after you fart (without any intervening ritual), you are probably not in Communion with God. You don't proclaim God is Great as the opening to your prayer or even have a clue abut the salat in general. American Christians lack the Pillar of Faith by slovenly staying in bed during Fajr, proving their faith is all about social and financial gains. Indeed. But nevertheless: Protestants. A group of people who wanted to consider the scripture for themselves and have it printed in their common tongue. Who wanted to come to understand God through such study, not second hand through corrupt clergy.For 16th Century Europe that's as badass freethinking as you'll find anywhere.And then...the American schisms in an environment of freedom of religion the Protestants went wild creating new churches left and right when their own free thoughts about theology conflicted with their previous church.Maybe Christianity isn't about freethinking, but Protestantism is infected with it. What about Jesus' second commandment, Matt 22:39. That sounds pretty humanistic and I don't think Jesus is describing it as 'fluff'. I thought that was Islam? I thought in Christianity you had free will and you freely chose to follow Christ etc? I mean 'surrender to God' you could argue from James 4 (submission) or Romans 6 (slavery). But it's not clear as Paul warns he speaking metaphorically. My reading is that you are to reject those choices that are sins and to only follow the options that glorify god in their righteousness. But you both get to choose different ways of glorifying God and to choose sin while remaining a Christian - unless it is the unforgivable sin or you don't repent or recant or whatever sufficiently. Maybe, but strangely it doesn't explain why you are Christian, you could have submitted to Allah. I guess, given his existence nullifies your freewill, the only explanation is that 'No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand. ' {10.99-100 The Glorious Qur'an}