Could somebody please explain this for me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus (a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something a Seventh Day Adventist or Extreme Fundamentalist would say.

They are saying that he is not saved because he is CAtholic and only “Bible Christians” can be saved.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
Bill O’Reilly’s book “Killing Jesus” is written from a historic, rather than religious viewpoint. The person commenting is a Fundamental of some stripe convinced that the Bible can save them and wants Mr. O’Reilly to know this. Oh, and it must be the KJV, you know, the one God dropped out of heaven.
 
Heard it tonight as well. The person obviously just doesn’t understand that a book could be written from that angle. Please don’t tell him that the Old Testament in the KJV does not contain all the books that were considered Scripture when Jesus was studying and reading them in Temple… One would think Jesus would have mentioned something if the wrong books were considered sacred.
 
SteveVH said:
Bill O’Reilly’s book “Killing Jesus” is written from a historic, rather than religious viewpoint. The person commenting is a Fundamental of some stripe convinced that the Bible can save them and wants Mr. O’Reilly to know this. Oh, and it must be the KJV, you know, the one God dropped out of heaven.
Click to expand...
I thought that non-Catholic Christians believed that we were saved in Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you look at the difference in an older NAB compared to a KJV or NIV for example they are much closer today than in earlier years. I’ll attribute that to more access to the bible, more people with a higher education and more linguists and translators.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
Are there any non-Catholic Christians here who agree with this quote and why?
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
Bill O’Reilly is Catholic.

The viewer may be one of those fair and balanced Christians who think all Catholics are going to hell.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
It means virtually nothing to me. I find the idea obsurd.

Always good to see your name pop up, jimmy. Hope you are well.

Jon
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
The KJV is the King James Version of the bible–i.e. the protestant bible. The person who said that was obviously protestant and probably aware that Bill O’Reilly is Catholic. I hope to read “Killing Jesus” as soon as I can get my hands on it. I have already read “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy”–his first two historical treatments of the assassinations of those 2 presidents. BOTH were outstanding and interesting, easy reads. What I understand “Killing Jesus” to be is a book based on secular rather than simply biblical evidence that Jesus not only lived but was crucified and died exactly as we believe it happened. I have done some reading myself on this subject–I mean if Jesus did exist and was crucified, and since we certainly have written historical documents from even before the first century, it would only seem reasonable that other people including pagans would have been aware of a great miracle worker running around raising the dead and healing lepers. History DOES infact prove that Jesus existed and the manner of his teachings and death. I believe that O’Reilly is attempting to explain the politics, beliefs and all that around why someone who was welcomed into Jerusalem with waving palms and acclimation could end up crucified and dead on a cross so shortly later–from a historical perspective. All Christians know that Jesus came as salvation for mankind. The history and politics around this truth are what I believe that O’Reilly is delving into–and his books are pretty darn good in my opinion! Quite probably what you refer to was from some fundamentalist Christian who doesn’t think anyone should look further than the bible for anything pertaining to Jesus–an attitude which I would consider to be a crock of cr*p!👍
 
Jimmy_B said:
Could somebody please explain this for me? Tonight, I was watching the Factor, with Bill O’Rielly on Fox TV and a viewer wrote -

***"Mr. O’Rielly, you said Killing Jesus *(a book written by O’Reilly) is history and is not religious. You need to read the KJV (Protestant - King James Version) Bible or you will not be saved."

What in the world does this mean?

Note: 1. I inserted that, which is highlighted in blue. 2. I’ve intentionally omitted the name of the person who made this comment.
Click to expand...
Giving the person the benefit…

The person may believe that reading things about Jesus other than the Bible are not positive. And the only Bible they know is the KJV. Thus the reference. The person might have a sincere preoccupation about Mr. O’Reilly’s soul.

I’ve met simple well-hearted people that all they know is that the KJV is the word of God. They have no idea about various denominations, etc. They are just happy that they can read and hear the word of God. For them, it only comes in the KJV.

Peace,
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Giving the person the benefit…

The person may believe that reading things about Jesus other than the Bible are not positive. And the only Bible they know is the KJV. Thus the reference. The person might have a sincere preoccupation about Mr. O’Reilly’s soul.

I’ve met simple well-hearted people that all they know is that the KJV is the word of God. They have no idea about various denominations, etc. They are just happy that they can read and hear the word of God. For them, it only comes in the KJV.

Peace,
Click to expand...
The original Bible was the Septuagent written in Greek. It was then translated into Latin. There were English Bibles around long before the KJV and even the KJV we have today is not the original but was edited in the late 1700s. Same for the traditional Catholic Bible the Douay Rheims. What that is today was edited by a Bishop Challoner in the 18th or 19th century.
 
The fellow who told O’Reilly is a fundamentalist-isn’t it easy to dislike him? -In his mindset his comments are true

It is nonsense of course - I attend a weekly Bible study at our Episcopal Church-the number of different Bibles used by our group is quite impressive -the most common are the “Good News” Bible and the “Catholic BIble” but some King James and some “standard Bible with study Guide” and a few with the Jerusalem Bible

I would remove the Book of Revelation from the Bible and add the Gospel of Thomas
:cool:
 
There are groups that are “King James Only” believers-- they believe that only the KJV of Scripture can be used for a variety of reasons. This person belongs to a KJV Only group.
 
LegoGE1947 said:
The original Bible was the Septuagent written in Greek. It was then translated into Latin. There were English Bibles around long before the KJV and even the KJV we have today is not the original but was edited in the late 1700s. Same for the traditional Catholic Bible the Douay Rheims. What that is today was edited by a Bishop Challoner in the 18th or 19th century.
Click to expand...
Really!? :rolleyes:

PS - There is no thing as an orginal Bible of the septuagint, as it was a collection of scrolls - check Patrick457 thread here. 😉
 
Jimmy_B said:
I thought that non-Catholic Christians believed that we were saved in Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you look at the difference in an older NAB compared to a KJV or NIV for example they are much closer today than in earlier years. I’ll attribute that to more access to the bible, more people with a higher education and more linguists and translators.
Click to expand...
Well, the term “non-Catholic Christians” covers a wide gamete of beliefs. Apparently this person thought Bill O’Reilly needed the KJV in order to be saved. I can only address the words that were spoken.
 
rossum said:
Don’t forget the magic glasses, so that Moses could translate it from 15th Century English into Hebrew. 😃

rossum
Click to expand...
Ahem… We don’t usually like to bring out the “magic glasses” thing, but yeah, there’s that too. 🙂
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Really!? :rolleyes:

PS - There is no thing as an orginal Bible of the septuagint, as it was a collection of scrolls - check Patrick457 thread here. 😉
Click to expand...
The Scriptures that Jesus and the first Christians would quote from was the Septuagent. Of course there was no New Testament at that time, they only had what we know as the Old Testament. I’m sorry if my facts were wrong on some points. We are all learning.🤷
 
LegoGE1947 said:
The Scriptures that Jesus and the first Christians would quote from was the Septuagent. Of course there was no New Testament at that time, they only had what we know as the Old Testament. I’m sorry if my facts were wrong on some points. We are all learning.🤷
Click to expand...
Actually the quotes are not 100% from the septuagint.

They were indeed in their vast majority from the septuaging (I think in the neighborhood of 70%).

The purpose of my post was to give the person the benefit of the doubt. You know the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? :).

It was not to justify how, when, where or by whom was the Bible written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top