«

»

11 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Rox

    It sounds somewhat similar to Northern Ireland.

    But whatever happened to the Masai ?

    1. Stephen

      The herdsmen to which that Tom referred would most likely be Masai or Samburu. Both try to preserve their nomadic way of life in a world which increasingly likes to divide up the land and own and fence off bits of it. I’m not dissing the ownership of property, just pointing out the clash of cultures.

  2. Bob Hutton

    Christians in African countries like Kenya, Ghana and Zambia, show a great deal more Biblical sense than in the UK. I will give 3 examples:

    a) these countries have strict laws against unnatural perversions.

    b), many believers there have a huge respect for the King James Version, and refuse to countenance modern versions.

    c) they tend to be more forthright in standing against wickedness, than in the liberal, politically correct, UK, which is rapidly going downhill, and heading for the same fate as the Roman Empire.

    Indeed, I would suggest the time has come when missionaries from Africa should be coming to the UK!

    1. Rox

      I wonder how well they understand the King James Version ?

      Ayaan Hirsi Ali was brought up in Africa, and she describes the enormous respect which her grandmother accorded to her copy of the Koran, although she didn’t understand it at all because :
      i) She couldn’t read.
      ii) She didn’t understand Arabic.
      Nice binding, though.

      See “Heretic: Why Islam needs a Reformation Now”.
      https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heretic-Why-Islam-Needs-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00FVW8MH0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502106255&sr=1-1&keywords=Heretic+Islam+Reformation

      1. Stephen

        Well, the King James Version is widely accepted in the African churches and is easier to understand than many other versions. For example:
        John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
        John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
        That’s not that hard to grasp, is it?

        1. Rox

          I have never understood that bit myself ! What is this Word ? Why is it called a “word”” ?
          This is a lot less concrete than the beginning of Matthew or Luke, whereas in Mark “Jesus came into Galilee” suffices.

          The nearest I have come to understanding it is a theology graduate explaining that the author of John was influenced by the Greek philosophical concept of Logos. But that isn’t really inherent in the text.

          Thus you have chosen passages which no translation makes easy to understand. For example:
          “In the beginning the Word already was, the Word was in God’s presence, and what God was the Word was.”
          “So the Word became flesh; he made his home among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” (Both from The Revised English Bible).

          It’s one of these things which people happily read or sing without entirely understanding it, like :
          ” Offspring of a virgin’s womb.
          Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
          Hail th’incarnate Deity, ”

          You may understand that, but I bet most people don’t.
          At school, I assumed that the flesh of a virgin was hiding God’s head inside her (until the head eventually emerged). What are seven-year-olds expected to make of it ?

          Coming back to the language of the King James Version, however, your quote includes:
          “dwelt” , “beheld” and “begotten”. These are all archaic.
          Also, “full of grace” suggests “graceful”, which is probably not what it means.

          1. Stephen

            The ‘word’. Christian theology has moved on from when Luke, Mark and even Matthew were written. Now, in John’s Gospel and Paul’s letter to the Colossians, the Apostles are seeing Jesus as the Person of the Holy Trinity through whom all things were made and indeed exist. And they know from Genesis that God gave the word and by his word things were created. So now, John can see Jesus Christ as the Word through whom all things were created. You may be none the wiser after that, but I hope you are now better informed.

          2. Rox

            Well, a little bit wiser, and it is obvious that John was written post disputationem rerum.

            The fact is (according to Wikipedia) that the Greek λόγος as imagined by the Stoics was the divine animating principle pervading the Universe. So what you describe would indeed be much the same thing before it was incarnate and veiled in flesh.

            But what is your average African on the roof of the Nairobi bus going to make of this ? Will he even master crucial archaic phrases like “Thou shalt not covet” ? Why should he be expected to ? There is nothing specially holy about the English of King James’ time (or somewhat before that).

          3. Stephen

            No, we don’t ride on the roofs of transport in Kenya. People are well educated, thank you, and can read and understand English. And Kiswahili. And a mother tongue.

    2. jsampson45

      They have been already, e.g. see “Great Britain has Fallen” by Wale Babatunde (New Wine Press 2002).

    3. akd.jenkins@tiscali.co.uk

      Bob: then at least those three things illustrate the good that came out of colonialism, through which the missionaries brought the message of salvation to Africans. Even John Sentamu had positive things to say about the Empire.

Leave a Reply