The difference between church and congregation is as though the rights to what we write on LiveJournal were tomorrow assigned to the company running it, and we could type only what they wanted us to type. In this context LiveJournal is the 'church' and we are the 'congregation'. Who the promises are made to is of the essence. To perpetuate the idea that the church as we know it was known to Paul in any way shape or form is a deceit - and it is made for a very good reason. Fear.
When Tyndale died in the flames, he died praying that God would open the eyes of the King of England. It happened. A few years later Henry VIII decided to publish the Great Bible. This was a slightly Latinised version of Tyndale with the work of others filling in the gaps Tyndale was prevented from translating. Henry then required every 'church' (building) in England to buy a copy AND to provide a full time reader who could read the bible to any illiterate person who wanted to know what the bible said.
The result of this was that the truth was told openly for the first (and in some respects the only) time; that the bible denied the divine right of kings and did not know of any church organisational structure whatsoever. This was so dangerous to crown and church that Henry soon had to withdraw the Great Bible and ban it from being owned by poor people on pain of criminal proceedings.
When the KJV was created, specific stipulations were made which required the 'translators' to use 'church' and not 'congregation'. Why? Because neither the church nor the crown dared have the truth repeated. Later bibles then build on that 'tradition'; but when doing so, they are gutless (my own favourites included).
Thankfully the KJV translators deliberately failed to live up to their commission, which was to Latinise the language of the KJV beyond the understanding of ordinary men and women at that time. It did a little when James wanted it to do a lot - for which reason he refused to authorise it. It is called the Authorised version because it was authorised by the Church of England - not James.
James' name is to be found in one bible, though; the Scottish printing of the (earlier) Geneva bible. He was then a Scottish prince and was thanked by the publishers. Later, when King of England, James claimed to be unaware of the Geneva bible until a lady had introduced him to it. But can you imagine a bible even today being dedicated to Prince Charles without a requirement to at least make him aware of doing so?
So James was a liar; he attempted to have the KJV made even more religious sounding than it is; and he refused to authorise the bible he had taken part in instigating. That is the least of the arguments against the KJV, but it is one of the more intriguing, which is why I will leave it at that - unless you are hungry for more --- the rest of my argument is horribly true, but not exactly spellbinding.
The difference between church and congregation is as though the rights to what we write on LiveJournal were tomorrow assigned to the company running it, and we could type only what they wanted us to type. In this context LiveJournal is the 'church' and we are the 'congregation'. Who the promises are made to is of the essence. To perpetuate the idea that the church as we know it was known to Paul in any way shape or form is a deceit - and it is made for a very good reason. Fear.
When Tyndale died in the flames, he died praying that God would open the eyes of the King of England. It happened. A few years later Henry VIII decided to publish the Great Bible. This was a slightly Latinised version of Tyndale with the work of others filling in the gaps Tyndale was prevented from translating. Henry then required every 'church' (building) in England to buy a copy AND to provide a full time reader who could read the bible to any illiterate person who wanted to know what the bible said.
The result of this was that the truth was told openly for the first (and in some respects the only) time; that the bible denied the divine right of kings and did not know of any church organisational structure whatsoever. This was so dangerous to crown and church that Henry soon had to withdraw the Great Bible and ban it from being owned by poor people on pain of criminal proceedings.
When the KJV was created, specific stipulations were made which required the 'translators' to use 'church' and not 'congregation'. Why? Because neither the church nor the crown dared have the truth repeated. Later bibles then build on that 'tradition'; but when doing so, they are gutless (my own favourites included).
Thankfully the KJV translators deliberately failed to live up to their commission, which was to Latinise the language of the KJV beyond the understanding of ordinary men and women at that time. It did a little when James wanted it to do a lot - for which reason he refused to authorise it. It is called the Authorised version because it was authorised by the Church of England - not James.
James' name is to be found in one bible, though; the Scottish printing of the (earlier) Geneva bible. He was then a Scottish prince and was thanked by the publishers. Later, when King of England, James claimed to be unaware of the Geneva bible until a lady had introduced him to it. But can you imagine a bible even today being dedicated to Prince Charles without a requirement to at least make him aware of doing so?
So James was a liar; he attempted to have the KJV made even more religious sounding than it is; and he refused to authorise the bible he had taken part in instigating. That is the least of the arguments against the KJV, but it is one of the more intriguing, which is why I will leave it at that - unless you are hungry for more --- the rest of my argument is horribly true, but not exactly spellbinding.
Reply
Leave a comment