±«Óătv

It's the only true version. (*snigger.)

I listened to very few of the readings on Radio 4. One I did hear was about some insane guy who heard a voice in his head telling him to take his son out for the day and to kill him. So, he tied up his son and reached for the knife; but at the last moment the voice said kill a goat instead. What a great father/son bonding exercise - I wonder if the son ever visited a psychoanalyst as a consequence!

newlach (@ 2) -

" I wonder if the son ever visited a psychoanalyst as a consequence!"

I doubt it (I think he probably had a bit more understanding of what was really going on than you give him credit for). But I suspect that if he had been subjected to an upbringing of materialistic meaninglessness, emptiness, futility and wearisomely predictable (anti-logical) scepticism, then that might possibly have been a valid option, as it is today in our wonderful 'post-Enlightenment' neurotic society.

LSV,

If someone takes their kid out today because a voice in his head says he has to kill him as a sacrifice and at the last minute the voice said go ahead and he does, is that a defence in court - god told me to. Probably only in a mad theocracy. To be honest if you took him out and then spared him you would probably, rightly, be sectioned.

You really are supposed to stop drinking after boxing day.

btw given that the old testament has much worse things commanded by "god" don't come back with the he wouldn't would he nonsense because we all know, coz it's in the book, he would.

LSV,

Is the correct response from a parent to say

'I will kill my child if you tell me to'

or

'you will have to kill me first'

I know the parents and people I would rather respect.

Dave,

You failed to notice that this incident was a test for Abraham (Genesis 22v1) 'God was not asking for the blood of Isaac, He was looking for the heart of Abraham.'

(For more information you probably have missed, see Hebrews 11v17 - 19)

Abraham discovered - as have many millios since - that God can be trusted!

pastorphillip,

You failed to notice that Abraham was quite willing to murder his only child because a voice in his head told him to. Abraham wasn't aware it was a test, unless the voice had told him to stop, I doubt you, or any other bibical scholar would argue that he wouldn't have done it.

All the 'test' shows is that people are quite willing to do heinous acts on behalf of their god. But we know that already.

Ok, So the example newlach gave from an exerpt in the King James quotes a man ready to murder his son, in which LSV responds: maybe the son was a "bit more understanding of what was really going on than you give him credit for" and refers chidingly to our "post enlightenment, futile, meaningless, empty society" that it may offer him *emotional support* if that happened in todays world- I wonder how LSV would react then to a woman saying she wanted her abortion because God told her to kill the child inside her womb. Im sure he'd like to see her emotionally supported to the nearest mental institution, that such a thing would be an affront to every good Christian,that she was a potential murderer and that she was obviously *ill of mind* rather than spiritually connected to God.

So where exactly do you fit in LSV. With our futile, meaningless, anti-logical times or do you support the death of children if sanctioned by God?

pastorphilip (@ 6) -

I quite agree with you, pastorphilip. You are absolutely right.

Also, since Isaac was the 'child of promise', he is representative of the people of God, who are redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ (in fact, from a legal point of view, every member of the human race is redeemed in this way). The event in Genesis 22 is a prophetic statement concerning the redemptive plan of God, and the whole point of it is the fact that Isaac's life is 'redeemed' by the ram (Gen. 22:13), which prefigures God's work of redemption in Christ.

Isaac would, of course, have understood the meaning of this, despite the strangeness of the event. The idea of redemption is therefore at the heart of the Jewish religion leading up to the fulfilment in Christ.

Of course, unbelievers will interpret it how they will, with their 'psychological insights' and feigned concern for Isaac's wellbeing. Don't you just love 'em?!

(Perhaps they could show the same concern for the unborn as they claim to show for Isaac? Not asking much, is it?)

Typical theist dogma, defending the indefensible. The story of Abraham is just one of many horrible and evil tales within the bible. Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to the believers to pick and choose what's important in the stories and what should be ignored (owning slaves, killing gays, murdering children, raping women etc etc etc).
The facts are simple: in the book a man is 'told' to kill his son and is about to do just that when he hears another voice saying 'on second thoughts'...today, he'd be classed as a complete loony! Trying to claim this view is simply an interpretation by unbelievers is pretty ridiculous. Old Abe was obviously a father of the year contender.
Some bible stories are inspiring, some written with beautiful prose, and others pure wicked and nasty. All in all, a great recipe for a successful work of fiction, but living life according to the conflicting and contradictory elements is a little bit silly. Morality through fear as 'taught' in the bible has not the same power as morality through understanding and compassion.

"...defending the indefensible."

Funny, but I thought that so called 'humanists' (a word which is really a misnomer, when referring to those who think that human beings are nothing more than bundles of chemicals) were supportive of child sacrifice, what with their support for the destruction of the most vulnerable people (i.e. those in the womb)!

There's a hefty chunk of an open thread on this blog which charts the opinions of those who are the real 'defenders of the indefensible'.

The day atheists / "humanists" / materialists start having some genuine respect for the value of human life is the day I start considering that they might have some right to talk about morality. But before that day arrives, all I can say is that their hypocrisy is breathtaking in its audacity (which is hardly surprising given that they make morality up as they go along, as their benighted philosophy requires them to do).

By the way... please explain (without breaking the rules of basic logic) where the concept of 'the intrinsic value of human life' is to be found in the philosophy of materialism. I would love to know.

As someone who bought up the King James version, I just love it. Even yet in my 61st year I can recite things like the 1st 14 verses of John Chapter 14, rattle of the books of the bible and other memory verses from this version of the bible. The King James version while it may not literally translate from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic texts nevertheless it was earth shattering in its day, because it enabled the common man to read the scriptures in the then most common and used language and has led to people accepting Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord and for that we give the glory to God who inspired men like Wycliffe and Tyndale and other biblical translators.
Whilst I find the NIV version the most accurate of all translations the King James version will always have a special place in my heart.If it was good enough in King James's day, It's certainly good enough for me. Keep reading and let the Holy Spirit lead to to a pesrsonal relationship with Jesus Christ through it.

Have the post office issued a set of commemorative stamps to mark the occasion ?

They did for Gerry Anderson's puppets.

Does that say something about the post office ?

LSV, as usual you make sweeping statements about athiests etc that have no grounding in fact and are, to be honest, downright stupid. Explain your position regarding athiests and their lack of respect for human life; what evidence have you for that? Are you suggesting that only those who follow the scriptures (well, some of them) have this respect? If so, my apologies to you as it's clear that nobody associated with christianity has ever demonstrated a viewpoint advocating slavery, murder or any other denial of rights to a fellow human.
Your arrogance is astounding, particulalry when it's based on belief in a book that clearly demonstrates countless times that human life is practically worthless in the eyes of the god within its pages. How do you pick and choose which parts of the 'book of god' you believe and adhere to? Saints, the lot of you. The old addage is as true today as ever: evil people do evil things and good people do good things; but for a good person to do evil things, that takes religion.
Tullycarnettbertie, an honest question seeking an honest answer: if you admit that the KJV is not a literal translation then to all intents and purposes you are saying that it is not the word of god. How does it follow that it can lead you to JC if it's been tainted by revision and distortion? Is it the work of man, and therefore infinitly fallible, or the work of god? I take your point about the book becoming more accessible by the masses thanks to the KJV, but that made more and more question the validity of the contridictions and nasty words spread here and there throughout both testaments. So, in many ways I suppose the rationalists of the world owe a debt to King James. Once the questions begin in earnest, it quickly becomes apparant that the answers aren't contained within the bible without the suspension of rationale and reason. It took me a long time to realise it was okay to follow those questions through to their logical conclusion, and life is very grand indeed.

By the way, just in case the usual theist rhetoric appears all but denouncing the OT and much of it's message, old JC himself said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
So 3 camels for your wife, sir?

By the way, just in case the usual theist rhetoric appears all but denouncing the OT and much of it's message

Theist and Christian are not commensurate.

I'd also be interested in seeing examples of this 'rhetoric' being 'usual'.

At any rate I don't reject the Old Testament.

So 3 camels for your wife, sir?

Perhaps you should read something on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, there's 2000 years of reflection on this. I realise this would cut down the time you have to make ignorant jibes but at least then you might be able to intelligently respond to the different positions taken by Christians today and in history.

"I realise this would cut down the time you have to make ignorant jibes but at least then you might be able to intelligently respond to the different positions taken by Christians today and in history."

Andrew, my ignorance knows no bounds it seems for there is absolutely nothing in your post that calls a single line I have typed into question. Indeed, my post is completely in line with previous comments in this discussion. Either way, the OT contains some pretty horrendous stuff and it appears JC condones and reaffirms it in the NT. Could you please enlighten me as to how my post is actually wrong or what it is about it that you don't follow? My 'jibes' and your condecension aside, there is a valid debate going on.

The rhetoric I referred to has appeared countless times on these pages, but I suppose faith can be blind in a million different ways...

Andrew, there's no getting away with it,in all religions around the world, humans use and abuse holy books to suit themselves and their vested interests. Im a believer in God. I also think the Bible has a valid role to play in the modern day, but it should be treated for what it is- as distant and flawed. Some parts perhaps have been accurately preserved through time,other parts haven't. There are also elements that are definetly more influenced/teinted by human failings than Godly intervention/inspiration right from the start. This is perhaps what makes the Bible still so fascinating yet dangerous in the hands of those who wish to use it as a stick. It's the job of the reader to decipher which part they feel speaks to them, and more often than not, what the reader gets out of it is a reflection of their personality. This is why many who look at religion from the outside say the religious pick and choose what they find relevant and discard what they don't. It really is just a way of giving credence to your already existing views and saying I'm right, your wrong but I have God on my side to proove it- look, read this...*Bible quote..*

There are two points in the Abraham/Isaac story - that God is to be trusted, and that, unlike some other religions of the time, He does not want human sacrifice. Much of the Old Testament is about using story to deliver a message.

The Abraham/Isaac story also shows that god is cruel. That message seems to appear throughout the OT.

I note that E-Volve said, "there is a valid debate going on."

I wonder if anyone could point me in its direction?

Mcc,

"Old Testament is about using story to deliver a message"


So is the old testament allegory or law, aesops fables had some nasty characters but had a nice message, is the OT the same.

Which bits are allegory and which bits are law?

Is slavery bad,
Is gay sex bad,
is owning slaves bad
is owning wives bad
which bits please?

Dave,

Don't forget a literal 6-day creation and global flood!

PeterM2: nope - they all get closed! :-)

Back to the topic, the recognition of the place of the 400 year old King James Bible in the English speaking world:

Simply from a language appreciation, those who object to the reading of the King James on its 400th aniversary, do an injustice to what has been the most widely read English book for over 350 years. David Crystal in “Begat, The King James Bible and the English Language” (2010) explores the influence of the Bible on the English language. He gives us interesting examples of words and phrases taken from the King James Bible that have been adapted and used in various different contexts.

Take the expression “feet of clay”. In the book of Daniel, we read of an enormous statue that is described as having legs of iron but “his feet part of iron and part of clay” (2:33 KJ). This phrase has been frequently used, especially during the 20th century. Perhaps the most recognizable is the title, “Feet of Clay”, given by Terry Pratchett to his 19th Discworld novel. One writer states that this figure of speech is generally “used to indicate a weakness or a hidden flaw in the character of a greatly admired or respected person”.

In the book of Daniel this is not the case. The feet are a combination of materials indicating weakness in a divided kingdom and the statue is smashed to smithereens by a huge rock. This example perhaps illustrates the need for people to read and understand what is actually written in the Bible and its literary context. Then we can begin to engage in a productive discussion of the message of the Bible.

To this I would add an article that well worth reading: “What Makes the King James Version Great?” It is by another professor of English, Leland Ryken.

Michael

I read Ryken's article yesterday, it's well worth reading.

Ryken has just released a book on the KJV, you can see an interview with him about it here;

Michael in Dublin, it's one thing to examine the KJV in the context of its literary prowess, but quite another to accept the words within are the work of or a direct way to 'god'. Just because there are many well written and quotable bits and pieces contained within it doesn't give any credence whatsover to the idea that it's a book to live your life by. I could quote you much of Monty Pythons Life of Brian but that doesn't mean I want to join the PFJ.
Obviously, the KJV had an impact on the English language but does that have any bearing at all on the truth of the book? The message of the bible and the literary value of the book are not remotely the same thing; those are two completely different discussions. There are literary masterpieces that dramatically overshadow the bible in their beauty, skill and scope, yet these works of man (and woman) aren't promoted as a contradictory road to salvation.
I doubt anyone is arguing against the historical significance of the KJV. My issue is with the idea that we all must conform to the ways of living and thinking laid out by bronze age men (and the threat of eternal damnation to unbelievers force fed to many of us from we were kids) whether from the accesible version of the bible given by King James or any other text dealing with the same material.