The KJV of the Bible was the very first Bible I ever opened and read and the only reason I switched to the NKJV was because I kept getting side tracked by the Thees and Thous which are not part of the language I speak today. I have read many articles on the Internet about why a translation of the Bible is or is not the one true translation, etc.and here's my take on this. Unless God stands in front of me and says: "Babs, I don't want you reading that version of My Word because it is not My Word but someone else's." then I'm going to keep right on reading all the translations that I hear the Holy Spirit speaking to me through and I'm going to enjoy every minute of it! We are all adults here and free to make our own choices about what we believe and what we read, etc. And I thank God that we live in a Nation where this is true and where no one can take that right away from us.
Okay, everyone. I know that this is a Hot Button Issues area, but let's take it down a couple of notches. You don't have to agree with one another, but let's discuss the issues rather than the people who have them. Feel free to discuss the issues vehemently if you wish. I am not trying to shut down the discussion. Let's just dial down any personal references. That said, a comparison between someone who attended a seminary and someone who did not is a fair comparison, particularly when it comes to establishing credibility. In no way does this mean that someone who has not attended a seminary has no credibility when it comes to Biblical matters, as there are people who are well versed in the Scriptures who have not done so. It's still a fair reference to make, however. When someone makes a statement about anything, if it makes sense to me I might buy into it regardless of whether it is sourced or not, but when something doesn't seem right to me, I like to see a credible source, and if the person making the statement is himself a credible source, there is some weight to that. When I accept something on the basis of whether it makes sense to me, I should mention that I am not always right. Like many other people in the 1970s, I read Erich von Däniken's Chariot of the Gods, and it seemed to explain a lot of things that I had been wondering about. It made sense to me at the time. I was young then and now that I am no longer young, it doesn't make as much sense to me. It is tempting to accept something because it fills in some of the blanks, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Anyhow, please continue but be careful about getting personal.
The Universal Life Church may well have increased their standards over the years. In the 1970s, all I had to do was send them five bucks. I did later attend a legitimate Bible college but did not receive a degree, and do not refer to myself as a pastor except when I am actually doing that, which isn't often, but I have served as an interim pastor and as a youth minister for short periods of time.
As nearly always, the voice of reason has made the way into this somewhat scattered topic. Thank you @Ken Anderson. May I add to your statement that if we are to converse it should be as if we were having a coffee together discussing rather than debating as in: "What do you think about this or what do you think about that" or even a sly, "this is what I propose. Debate without credible proof is not a good debate and very seldom does anything to help and almost always hurts someone even if it is someone who is not participating. One question I like to ask myself before conversing about theoretical Biblical teachings is "will this affect my salvation one way or another" and / or "how will it affect others on their journey"? My salvation is not even a slight moot point and neither should it be with others so the bottom line is how to improve our understanding and reasoning behind our salvation, the crucified Christ, and how we should conduct ourselves as Christians. Nothing else really matters. Whether or not Paul was an apostle or why Peter didn't sit with the Gentiles or even why James was called "camel knees" has nothing to do with salvation and never will. Simply........Jesus Saves, and all else is just background knowledge.
There are and, as part of my job, I have assembled several of them in our category on Online Ordinations. Some of them, like the Universal Life Church, will ordain you for a fee, while others require varying degrees of educational achievement. While I respect the benefits that can come from a truly Biblical theological education, which cannot be assumed, the history of Christianity does not sustain the modern requirement of most Christian denominations that pastors receive an accredited education in theology. Neither the apostles (who received a much better education) nor their immediate successors were first sent to a seminary before taking up the ministry. So, to some extent, I agree that degrees are not necessarily required of an effective pastor. However, the completion of a Bible-based program of study is generally more effective than trying to figure it all out for yourself. This can reasonably add to a person's credibility, as well. As for the King James Version, the OP to this (old) thread suggests that the KJV was somehow responsible for the witch trials. While there weren't a whole lot of other versions available at the time, I can't see how the version had anything to do with it. People who want to use the Bible wrongly to support a non-Christian agenda will be able to do that regardless of the version they choose. Even among our mainstream churches, we can see evidence of that even today.
The KJV was probably the best at the time it was translated and compiled, at least in English. I think more is known now than was then, but it doesn't change much.
I'm trying to figure out why this necrothread was revived/reopened. The OP started this thread in March 2016 and disappeared 2 weeks later, never to be seen again. I guess there's no harm done, but 8 years? YMMV
As you indicated Hoot, 8 years is a fairly long time and during those 8 years we have had a lot of new members. New members, or even old ones, aren’t necessarily prone to digging up old threads but will only respond to the newer ones. Reviving an old thread brings about new interest within the membership and is also good for SEO. Added to that, when someone has something on their mind and wants to post it, it is far better to find an old thread that matches those thoughts than to start a new thread.
During the time that this forum has been here, I have often revived old threads that I thought might generate new interest, and have encouraged others to do so. Usually, when I do that, I will have come across the thread while looking to see what the search engine bots are looking at. If the search engines are still looking at an eight-year-old thread, it seems reasonable to revive it so that they have something new to cache. Otherwise, I sometimes come across them when I am looking through the threads for things that can be deleted, merged, or moved. Or, I think of something I want to talk about and know that we already have a discussion on that.