Most Brits don't believe the Bible is relevant to their own lives
A new study by the Bible Society has found that only a minority of Brits see the Bible as relevant to their own lives.
In the survey of nearly 20,000 adults, only 18% said that the Bible was "relevant to them personally".
This was despite 40% of those surveyed saying that they were Christian.
Over half (52%) of the respondents agreed that it was important to know the Bible because it has shaped British culture, and a majority (61%) said that it was good for children to know Bible stories....
Dr. Tim wrote: Excellent points, BMc, but I fear you are casting pearls before swine. Jim has shown repeatedly that he has no interest in the truth. May his arms fall off the day he throws away the best English translation of the Bible ever.
Thanks, sir. However, it is not necessarily for Jim that comments are made.
Open lies and misleading statements of that kind need challenged for many out there presently taking on board such none acceptable utterances. Take care
BDM wrote: One can certainly appreciate the point that many modern translations are suspect because of the heterodoxy of the translators. Still, insisting on retreat to a less than perfect translation of 1611, as all translations must be (and in fact usually using a 1769 tenth edition of that translation, which alleviates some of the earlier nine editionsâ imperfections), is still retreat, not an advance for the Kingdom of God. We can continue to appreciate and use âthe KJV (tenth edition)â without making it into an idol that is as detestable to God as any other idol.
excerpt from, "KJV-Onlyism---Biblical or Cultic?"
Well, the KJV was never perfect as its own translators pointed out
More than four and a half centuries has also turned the KJV and many places just inaccurate or gobbly gook. So, unless you are a Shakespearean actor it is nearly worthless. If it hasn't been converted into modern decent English.
Excellent points, BMc, but I fear you are casting pearls before swine. Jim has shown repeatedly that he has no interest in the truth. May his arms fall off the day he throws away the best English translation of the Bible ever.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Gentlemen, I don't know why we're arguing at all if we are talking about Bibles that are in the English language âđ the KJV is in Elizabethan which is not in good contemporary English. I suppose that's one reason why the NKJV sales so well because it can used to translate the KJV. But for many that's not appreciated because it actually help fix numerous errors that are in the KJV. But if you don't want errors corrected and just want the KJV in modern language, you can get http://www.kj21.com/ (The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21Âź)) But again if you have or can get easily, what you should use are one of the following, the NASB, ESV, or even the NKJV you can toss the KJV away. It has served its purpose. Or leave it out on the coffee table
Sorry you cannot perceive the many arbitrary variations and washed down terms, words and concepts those modern versions sustain.
Gentlemen, I don't know why we're arguing at all if we are talking about Bibles that are in the English language âđ the KJV is in Elizabethan which is not in good contemporary English.
I suppose that's one reason why the NKJV sales so well because it can used to translate the KJV. But for many that's not appreciated because it actually help fix numerous errors that are in the KJV.
But if you don't want errors corrected and just want the KJV in modern language, you can get
http://www.kj21.com/ (The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21Âź))
But again if you have or can get easily, what you should use are one of the following, the NASB, ESV, or even the NKJV you can toss the KJV away. It has served its purpose. Or leave it out on the coffee table for show--if nothing else.
https://tinyurl.com/tcbtohs ([KJV] A Good Translation, But Nothing More) from which an excerpt,
Jeff Smelser wrote: The King James Version, or "Authorized Version," of the Bible, first published in 1611 under the authority of England's King James (hence the designation, "Authorized"), was in that day a very good translation, and is yet today a useful translation. However, it has never been due the reverence which many people have toward it. In fact, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version.... .... One should not adhere to any translation to the exclusion of all others, and this is certainly true of the King James Version and the New King James Bible. One who uses either of these should also have a copy of one of the newer translations which are not based upon the Received Text. Especially recommended are the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible.
An excellent article from a series of excellent articles all found at,
Barnes Bible Commentary wrote: Intending after Easter. There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover, ÎŒÎ”ÏÎ±ÏÎżÏÎ±ÏÏÎ±. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honour of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that; nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the times of the apostles. The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of love, or the Venus of the North, in honour of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April. (Webster.) ....
excerpt from, "Acts 12:4" Lurker, I rather be right than on the right!
Timothy, thanks for the well wishes.
the above is not from Doug Kutilek, at all but the famous Bible commentator of the 19th century, Albert Barnes. đ
Doug Kutilek wrote: ...let me say first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV does at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it" are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil. To enslave English readers to a single translation which is often archaic and obscure, occasionally wholly unintelligible and sometimes plainly inaccurate when other versions that remedy these defects are easily accessible is a monument to mere human tradition and is, as it were, to spit in the face of the very purpose of Bible translation,...
excerpt from, https://tinyurl.com/yz2v3fgx (Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations)
https://tinyurl.com/yz2v3fgx (Resolution On Moral Character Of Public Officials) excerpt from which,
SBC wrote: .... WHEREAS, Some journalists report that many Americans are willing to excuse or overlook immoral or illegal conduct by unrepentant public officials so long as economic prosperity prevails; and
WHEREAS, Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in Godâs judgment (1 Kings 16:30; Isaiah 5:18-25); and... .... Be it finally RESOLVED, That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character....
Wow, Republicans who live in glass houses â I would further add I'm not a Democrat but an Independent
Jim, what difference does it make which version of the Bible you use if you have no intention of obeying it anyway? In the King James Version, Exodus 23:2 says, âThou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.â Your beloved ESV says, âYou shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice.â Either way, you are a rebellious and disobedient reprobate who not only endorses the wickedness of the God-hating Democratic Party, but urges others to follow their pernicious ways as well. I donât give a rip what John Ankerburg or NPR or Bozo the Clown has to say. What does GOD say? And why do you continually ignore Him? Finished here for now. A blessed Veterans Day to allâincluding Jimâwho served to defend our freedomsâeven the freedom to be idiots.
John Ankerberg Show wrote: Wallace: Iâd say volumes to them. I think what has happened in American Christianity at the end of the twentieth century is that weâve replaced the pursuit of truth with the pursuit of certainty. The cults are extremely certain about what they believe, but they donât have truth. And thatâs a deceptive thing. In fact, thatâs post-enlightenment and itâs not really very biblical Christianity to view that. Iâd also say that before the age of printing, one person sits in a pew; another sits in a pew. They donât have the same manuscripts in front of them, so they donât have certainty. Only Protestants have had to wrestle with this problem.
excerpt from, "The King James Controversy Revisited â Program 2"
Interesting that some people have connected the fetish of King James Version Onlyism. What Dan Wallace commented on what was before Trump has even on the scene politically. So it makes it even a more interesting comment. You probably can see the links for the various KJVO programs that Ankerberg had at the bottom the above article for example.