My Thoughts On Your Problems.

As it is necessary to join a group before you can post I admit I have not lost my faith in God.

I did not take a course of action to reply to all the pain and suffering that is written here and in many similar groups because I do not believe for one second that I have all the answers, and as such talk from life’s experiences.

There is no doubt in the world that the religious background of all individuals will influence them as they grow up.

Your concept of God will also have a bearing on trying to form a Spiritual relationship.

If you want God to be a means to an end, it simply will not work.

In the era in which we now live the Christian message has been so diluted that it has become almost meaningless, some people allow a Pastor or Televangelist to do our thinking for us and in so doing take away any personal responsibility and very shallow lives are the result.

Those of the Catholic faith, Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are a classic example of a Spiritless religious approach to God, all are works orientated and believe that they have the exclusive rights to Gods truth.

If anyone would like to hear more on this brief introduction then I will do my best to respond rather than engage in trying to convert anyone.





churinga churinga
70+, M
4 Responses May 14, 2012

Re ambd.<br />
In response to your inaccurate approach as to how the KJV Bible came about i submit the following.<br />
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND <br />
<br />
In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Over the course of his lifetime four more editions would come out, each differing in various ways from the other. It was this Greek text that influenced the life of Martin Luther.10 Indeed, all of the Reformers11 used this text — a point KJV Only advocates often make. We should point out, however, that their choice of the text was not due to anything other than availability. Erasmus’s text was widely published and relatively inexpensive, and hence was easily obtainable. Textual studies had not yet advanced to the point of even being able to identify different kinds of text types in the underlying Greek manusc<x>ripts. Therefore, to attempt to enlist the Reformers as advocates of one particular text type over another is to embroil them in a debate that was not theirs. <br />
<br />
Robert Estienne, better known by his Latin name, Stephanus, continued Erasmus’s work. Theodore Beza, who succeeded Calvin in Geneva, used Estienne’s work. Beza was particularly interested in the Greek manusc<x>ripts of the New Testament, even collecting a few of the more important manusc<x>ripts himself. He produced a number of editions of the Greek New Testament. <br />
<br />
All of these editions — the five of Erasmus, Stephanus’s text (primarily his 1550 edition), and Beza’s editions — were available to the King James translators while they labored between 1604 and 1611. Since these editions differed at various points,12 the translators also played the role of textual critics, weighing the various readings and making decisions as it seemed best to them, just as modern editors and translators do. It is important to note that the resultant King James New Testament text did not exist in that exact form prior to 1611. That is, there is no family of manusc<x>ripts, or even a single manusc<x>ript, that reads exactly as the King James New Testament. The translators used an "eclectic" methodology, recognizing that no single manusc<x>ript should be elevated to the status of the "standard," but that each manusc<x>ript contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of texts.

By James Carroll, July 16/07

When the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, citing insights of science or the rise of sectarian violence, denounce the very idea of God, fundamentalists strike back by attacking pillars on which such modern criticism stands. In this mode, Pope Benedict XVI last week issued two unexpected decrees, restoring the atavistic Mass of the Council of Trent and resuscitating an outmoded Catholic exclusivism -- the notion of a pope-centered Catholicism as the only authentic way to God.

Sounds like Benedict needs a pretzel and a beer and calm down.

re: Churinga:<br />
I am VERY well read on the history of the Christian religion. I have studied it for years. Did you realize, that during the reformation, Martin Luther HIMSELF TOOK OUT words AND books that were in the 'original" bible? He took out several books and TOOK OUT the words "faith AND works". The ORIGINAL bible had the words "works" and these were later removed by reformationists who disagreed with certain aspects of the bible. Luther wanted a bible that agreed totally with his teachings. He disliked books in both the Old and New Testaments that disagreed with his teachings. He particularly disliked the New Testament Book of James, which condemned his teaching on Salvation by Faith Alone, and the Old Testament Book of Maccabees, which advocated Prayer for the Dead, and therefore could be used to justify the doctrine of Purgatory. He called the Book of James the "Epistle of Straw."<br />
Luther therefore took the golden opportunity of his translation of the Bible into German to try to cut certain Books out of the Canon of sc<x>ripture. Of James he said, "I will not have him in my Bible in the number of truly principal works." He didn't dare remove books from the Bible entirely - that was too big a step for even him to take. What he did was to take them out of their accepted places in the Bible, and put them in a separate section, which he termed the Apocrypha. These books, he said, were not inspired by God, though they contained "many good sayings." (Luther’s Works, 35, 397)<br />
From the Old Testament he removed the Books of Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, as well as Esther and part of the Book of Daniel.<br />
From the New Testament he removed the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.<br />
In fact his fellow Protestants balked at removing books from the New Testament, particularly since there was no other reason for their removal than that they contradicted Luther's views. The four New Testament Books that Luther had placed in the Apocrypha, were reinserted in future Protestant Bibles, along with most of Esther. But if Luther had had his way, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation would not be in Protestant Bibles. In this way Catholics came to have a Bible of 73 books, and most Protestants a Bible of 66 books.<br />
The oldest existing versions of the Jewish Old Testament include the Seven Books. It is from these versions that the early Christian sc<x>riptures were made. The best, oldest and most complete version of the Jewish Old Testament we know today is called The Septuagint, and this includes the books that Luther deleted.

My words were not 'how the King James Bible" came to be. King James was born 3-4 generations AFTER the Reformation started, which started during King Henry VIII reign. King Henry was at that time dissolving the Catholic faith in England because he wanted a divorce from Queen Katherine AND he wanted to be Supreme Head of the Church of England. This church was based on the Catholic Religion with a few minor changes. Oh and BTW, the Bible was written in LATIN back in those days. Martin Luther, at the same time that Henry VIII wanted to change his church, (not his bible), just some rules of the Catholic Church to form his own unique church. At that time, Martin Luther started with his own theories, mainly that of being saved by faith alone, and also wanting to remove many of the books from the bible, also wanting a bible everyone could understand. He was the FIRST man to suggest these things, he got the ball rolling so to speak. He also thought that ALL people should have access to bibles that were written in a language they could understand, and this was generally not accepted either, because many misinterpretations were expected to develop when lay people got ahold of bibles they could read themselves. After Luther made the rounds of Europe and started a rebellion, many other ppl decided that he was right, and he had many followers. They were called "Lutherans" and even more branches developed with even different rules, called "Protestants". During the reign of Elizabeth 1, the primary religion in England was changed to Anglican, and Protestantism started to grow in Europe and though Elizabeth tolerated all religions in her country, she wanted everyone to practice the Anglican faith. So Protestantism grew and took hold, and Luther's ideas were widely accepted. Luther died before King James Stewart was even born, but his ideas had a strong foothold in Europe by that time. King James Stewart 1, believed as Luther believed, and his goal as a King was to write a bible that all people could read, not a latin bible but an English one. James had alot of help in gathering the materials to write this bible, which you mentioned above in your note, but the IDEAS he used were Martin Luthers'. The original idea to write a bible readable by all ppl was not King James 1, it was Martin Luther.
You may think I dont know what I am talking about but I do. I graduated from a Lutheran college, I was required to study Martin Luther and the Reformation, and I belong to a Book Club where we focus on the English Monarchy from 950-1900, the end of the Victorian era. I KNOW this stuff inside and out, and you keep making reference to my "inaccuracy" and my "obvious non conversant with the history of my faith", and so forth, and that is simply not true. I dont understand your arbitrary comments toward me on this subject. Cant a debate be just that, without the put downs? thanks

Re amdb.<br />
You obviously are not conversant with the history of your faith for one thing, and oblivious to the Biblical teaching of Jesus as to Him alone being the way of truth, those people that labor on one attribute of God simply do not allow for any other matters to be taken into account.

Your comment "Those of the Catholic faith, Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are a classic example of a Spiritless religious approach to God, all are works orientated and believe that they have the exclusive rights to Gods truth" is very judgmental and inaccurate. Where did you get this information, that these religions think that they have exclusive rights to God's truth? I am a Catholic and I certainly dont feel that I have exclusive rights to God's truth. The main message of God and Jesus is to LOVE, it is the greatest commandment. ALL religions have their place, it is whatever works for that person.

if there is a God. i can't imagine there isn't one. i really think there is reason for each religion or anti religion. this belief though has brought me a long ways from my childhood upbringing and now. i am confused. miss theclosed minded days when life was black n white and safe.

If you are unaware that non catholics are refered to as heretics throughout history then i suggest you look it up, also Mormons and JWs claim they are the only true religion.

I have been handed a couple of pamphlets by some Southern Baptists in my little town, and the pamphlet was entitled: "101 reasons why Roman Catholics are Heretics". I have been accused of all sorts of misdeeds because I am a Catholic. It is a shame that all religions cant just accept each other. Each religion has it's benefits and some suit ppl better than others. To each his own