6 ms·

I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible: "Because that which may be known of God i

I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:19 & 1:20

CodeBeater 4y ago
Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head). Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the cost of the accuracy of the translation.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  For me, it's the concern that newer translations are very likely derived from older translations; even when they attempt to translate the original Hebrew/Greek, they'll tend to be colored by other translations, be they other English translations or the Latin and German translations preceding the first English translations. That being said, I usually go with Young's Literal Translation due to its explicit focus on, well, being a literal translation of the original Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text; whereas even KJV does its share of editorializing, YLT actively avoids it. Unfortunately, the consequence of such a literal translation is that it makes even KJV look modern and comprehensible by comparison ;)
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  I think some people may do it out of a misguided perception that an older translation is more accurate. I used to read the NKJV out of this misperception, but I tend to stick with ESV these days. It's much more readable (imo), and if the resources I've researched over the years are accurate, it's a better translation than the King James or New King James versions.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English Not almost, it was deliberately archaic when written. But also...the “angloworld” as a whole doesn't.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  KJV is conservative methodists and baptists and high church anglicans. There's also plenty of ESV and NIV kicking anout. Native english speakers often agree the KJV is beautiful in writing and speech.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    Yeah, chalk me up to the beautiful camp. I think the King James Bible reads like flowing poetry at times, which is something I'd never ascribe to the NIV.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      Perhaps check out Douay–Rheims as well, which was produced around the same time: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible
  - andi999 4y ago
    Maybe that it makes the content more difficult to understand is a plus.
- Konohamaru 4y ago
  KJV is in the public domain.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  that archaic language is what people have agreed upon; getting that agreement is not trivial. From an arts point of view, I would say that poetic words with multiple meanings, start a sort of mental process that includes questions and "reaching inward to find meaning"
  - CodeBeater 4y ago
    The latter makes a lot of sense, if people have to put in more mental work to extract a meaning from it, they might treasure their findings more. Cool concept.
- Ishmaeli 4y ago
  Because the King James Version (KJV) was so dominant for so long among English speakers that archaic language came to be associated with Holy Writ. Generations have been conditioned to think that scripture is supposed to sound old. Now, lots of Christian denominations do favor more modern translations, but the KJV refuses to go away. Fun fact from the church I grew up in (Mormonism): aside from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Mormons have a book of scripture called Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelations from God directly to Joseph Smith. But what's funny is that this book is also written in faux-Jacobean English. Smith didn't think it through! The KJV was so dominant in 19th Century America that Smith (like most people probably) just assumed that if God spoke directly to us, he would use language that sounded like the Bible. So when he purported to write down the words of God, that's exactly what he made them sound like. He didn't think about the fact that the the KJV is written in Jacobean English because it was written in the Jacobean era, and that scripture only sounds old to our ears now because that translation has persisted for so long. So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source!
  - schoen 4y ago
    > So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source! You could, though! It would probably be comparably controversial to translating the Hebrew Bible into Modern Hebrew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram
  - mjh2539 4y ago
    I mean...Jesus was an orthodox Jew and prayed in (mostly) Hebrew (the sacral language), not Aramaic (the vernacular language of the Jews at the time). Having a "sacral language" or "sacral register" is not specific to the English or to the KJV. You will find the same phenomenon in other areas as well, some of which aren't even remotely religious. Think of the register of speech people use when writing a paper for publication in an academic journal, it's distinct from the register of speech you'd use when talking with your mother, or addressing graduates at a university commencement speech.
- onenukecourse 4y ago
  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&versi... It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it. The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers. (I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)
- jononomo 4y ago
  The KJV is the pinnacle of the English language.
tines 4y ago
I have an alternate and, I think, unusual view on this subject, which is that Christianity actually teaches that God's existence is, by design, not proven or provable by nature at all. I think this follows from these facts: 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24). * This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of * For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope" 2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture. * "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6) * "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts. This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25. And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually. In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.
- ykevinator2 4y ago
ykevinator2 4y ago

CodeBeater 4y ago

Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head). Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the cost of the accuracy of the translation.

yellowapple 4y ago
For me, it's the concern that newer translations are very likely derived from older translations; even when they attempt to translate the original Hebrew/Greek, they'll tend to be colored by other translations, be they other English translations or the Latin and German translations preceding the first English translations. That being said, I usually go with Young's Literal Translation due to its explicit focus on, well, being a literal translation of the original Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text; whereas even KJV does its share of editorializing, YLT actively avoids it. Unfortunately, the consequence of such a literal translation is that it makes even KJV look modern and comprehensible by comparison ;)
_gabe_ 4y ago
I think some people may do it out of a misguided perception that an older translation is more accurate. I used to read the NKJV out of this misperception, but I tend to stick with ESV these days. It's much more readable (imo), and if the resources I've researched over the years are accurate, it's a better translation than the King James or New King James versions.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English Not almost, it was deliberately archaic when written. But also...the “angloworld” as a whole doesn't.
barrysteve 4y ago
KJV is conservative methodists and baptists and high church anglicans. There's also plenty of ESV and NIV kicking anout. Native english speakers often agree the KJV is beautiful in writing and speech.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  Yeah, chalk me up to the beautiful camp. I think the King James Bible reads like flowing poetry at times, which is something I'd never ascribe to the NIV.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    Perhaps check out Douay–Rheims as well, which was produced around the same time: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible
- andi999 4y ago
  Maybe that it makes the content more difficult to understand is a plus.
Konohamaru 4y ago
KJV is in the public domain.
mistrial9 4y ago
that archaic language is what people have agreed upon; getting that agreement is not trivial. From an arts point of view, I would say that poetic words with multiple meanings, start a sort of mental process that includes questions and "reaching inward to find meaning"
- CodeBeater 4y ago
  The latter makes a lot of sense, if people have to put in more mental work to extract a meaning from it, they might treasure their findings more. Cool concept.
Ishmaeli 4y ago
Because the King James Version (KJV) was so dominant for so long among English speakers that archaic language came to be associated with Holy Writ. Generations have been conditioned to think that scripture is supposed to sound old. Now, lots of Christian denominations do favor more modern translations, but the KJV refuses to go away. Fun fact from the church I grew up in (Mormonism): aside from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Mormons have a book of scripture called Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelations from God directly to Joseph Smith. But what's funny is that this book is also written in faux-Jacobean English. Smith didn't think it through! The KJV was so dominant in 19th Century America that Smith (like most people probably) just assumed that if God spoke directly to us, he would use language that sounded like the Bible. So when he purported to write down the words of God, that's exactly what he made them sound like. He didn't think about the fact that the the KJV is written in Jacobean English because it was written in the Jacobean era, and that scripture only sounds old to our ears now because that translation has persisted for so long. So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source!
- schoen 4y ago
  > So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source! You could, though! It would probably be comparably controversial to translating the Hebrew Bible into Modern Hebrew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram
- mjh2539 4y ago
  I mean...Jesus was an orthodox Jew and prayed in (mostly) Hebrew (the sacral language), not Aramaic (the vernacular language of the Jews at the time). Having a "sacral language" or "sacral register" is not specific to the English or to the KJV. You will find the same phenomenon in other areas as well, some of which aren't even remotely religious. Think of the register of speech people use when writing a paper for publication in an academic journal, it's distinct from the register of speech you'd use when talking with your mother, or addressing graduates at a university commencement speech.
onenukecourse 4y ago
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&versi... It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it. The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers. (I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)
jononomo 4y ago
The KJV is the pinnacle of the English language.

tines 4y ago

I have an alternate and, I think, unusual view on this subject, which is that Christianity actually teaches that God's existence is, by design, not proven or provable by nature at all. I think this follows from these facts: 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24). * This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of * For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope" 2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture. * "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6) * "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts. This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25. And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually. In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.

ykevinator2 4y ago

ykevinator2 4y ago