Hi there Mike. It depends on what you mean by Anglican. If you mean that part of the Anglican communion in fellowship with the liberal side, I think the answer is no. I don't know for sure, because I don't attend any Anglican congregation. I suppose the more conservative ones still use it. There's a conservative Anglican group here who borrows my home church's facilties for their services. I'll take a look and see what I find out. I thought about visiting one of their services, so.....more to come, OK? On the other hand, the KJV may still be the "official" version of the Scriptures, but is in disuse, particularly among the liberals. I'll see what I can find out. I am personally interested to know also. Stay cool.
An order in heaven. Sounds pretty vague, interesting terminology, like some kind of special doctrine or revelation. Of course there would be some kind of order there. But then Jim quotes some verses about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. However, the verses talk of authority in heaven and making disciples. It doesn't mention an order in heaven. Maybe something to do with the order of the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost, like the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and Son(Jesus did say afterall that he would send the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father). Care to explain, Jim?
Anything with one horn could be considered a "unicorn," Jim, and such creatures do exist. KJV does not equal any more error than a modern version. Just take a look at the pentecostal-charismatic folk. You'll be hard pressed to find a KJV among them and look at what they are falling for...."holy laughter," assaulting people to heal them, etc. Makes the KJV look pretty superior even if it is faulty.
Teachers instead of pastors is very fitting for this group of churches. They are so interested in teaching their own ideas(often false doctrine in the pentecostal-charismatic movements) instead of ministering to the soul...just big lecture meetings.
Biblicist, to answer your question about the Godhead, I think the Trinity is a viable "theory" or explanation/point of view but should not be pushed with forceful language(take for example the Athanasian Creed's condemnation of non-trinitarians as being unworthy of salvation). Short answer: No, I am not anti-trinitarian. I am not trying to open up a can of worms, but what's your take on Michael Servetus? I am sure you know about him(rejected the trinity and infant baptism). I believe his execution was an absurd violation of one's accountablity to God for what one believes. I believe there should be room for differences without persecution regarding both issues for which he was condemned. I am sure I'd have burned with him as well, since I am an advocate of freedom of religion and one's accountability to God for what one believes. A linguist too? Great! Any particular languages for which you have a passion?
Hidemi, your answer is worth a lot more than two cents. Makes perfect sense! Maybe they should put a disclaimer in there: "In addition to archaisms, important theological terms and verses have been removed."
Biblicist wrote: Almost the reverse of the approach adopted by previous generations, when a great many not only learned English by using the Bible, but who also learned better English by the same means.
Exactly my approach. My proposal is not a bunch of new versions but a return to or at least an enriching of our English knowledge so we can appreciate what the older language has to offer us. Kids are still learning classical languages in school for a reason, so why not a more developed and useful English? Oh well, I speak as a linguist and know what more "complex" languages are able to convey to the reader, but hey, Biblicist, at least we agree on something for a change!
Jim Lincoln wrote: Any acceptable Bible has to be in contemporary English, which of course is the view of most Fundamentalists.
I have a different proposition: Revive interest in speaking the more precise and accurate English of days gone by..aka..something equivalent to AV English, maybe without the thee and thou and a few other things, but then again those are there for a reason that can be found in the original languages of the Scriptures. However, with a little time and study the KJV can be easy to understand.
Biblicist wrote: The Defined King James Bible explains all archaisms and also has a grammar guide.
Sounds like something possibly investing in, though I shy away from Bibles with commentary notes inside. Sounds helpful for those who have a fear of the AV anyway. I used to have a copy of the original 1611 AV and wished I'd kept it. Oh well, my simple AV pew Bible has served me well for a few years now. Think I'll hang on to it.
Mike, please look at my location above . Potatoland, but enjoying fresh beans and zuchini from the garden now. NASB more literal? Hmm...literal translation, you say? What type of English is used in it--the modern simplified dialect or something with more precision as in times past?
Not all do, Mike. I am sure the typical suit and tie or T-Shirt and shorts of many of today's ministers would look funny to people of New Testament mid-east times and culture. They aren't funny in my opinion anyway. As for vestiges of RCC, we can include the doctrine of the Trinity imposed on virtually all believers, Catholic or not, with threat of damnation for holding a different view of the Godhead besides the Trinity. Pouring or falling of a substance is a legitimate baptism, Biblicist(See Acts 11:15,16). It's in the Scriptures, as are household baptisms and many households include infants and the promise of the Holy Spirit is for our children(Acts 2:38,39).