Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Since you asked...

I don't mean to be controversial. I really don't. Infact there are situations almost every day with friends, familiy and church memebers where I choose to remain silent about issues that I believe are evident in the Bible and that I feel very strongly about. I do this because I know that me spouting off what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Bible isn't always the most beneficial thing to do. I admit that I struggle with this, because I love to discuss theological issues. Anytime anyone asks me a Biblical question, a twinkle appears in my eye - not because I like to argue or disagree with people, but because I love taking the Word of God and attempting to explain its intricacies. But, I rarely will debate with anyone because too often the end product is not profitable or edifying to anyone involved.

That being said. I'm kind of on a rant today, it didn't really initiate with this issue, but somehow it has surfaced. Boiled up from the cauldron of independent Baptist teaching I was fed as a child, probably. Who knows. Anyway, "KJV only" has been on my mind. The issue is ridiculus to me and is so indicative of the attitude of the present Christian sub-culture. Most who would claim this belief aren't even willing to consider the circumstances in which this version was translated. I'm not saying that it's a bad translation, although I don't prefer it and I think there are better choices - I'm not going to advocate "New American Standard only" either. Strangely enough, I've never heard anyone claim that the King James Version is the only inspired version who wasn't English speaking. Interesting, isn't it? And doesn't it seem rather arrogant to claim that God has only spoken in English. Erhhh.

Christie
posted by Rick and Christie
Home