(At the opening of our study, a question arises, "...was King James Catholic or Protestant?")

"History records that King James was sympathetic to the Roman Catholic institution, his mother's official religion," I respond.  Others affirm the same. 

"But wasn't he the first of the reformed monarchs?"

"More protestant in form--his mother, Mary Queen of Scots had found it politically advantageous to be Protestant; King James was more Catholic in philosophy, that is he admired the wisdom of centralizing authority, like the Pope. "[1] 

Do any of you know which Bible the pilgrims came here with?  It was not the 1611 King James Version, but the 1560 Geneva Bible--a lesser known translation--by John Calvin and a host of Greek and Latin scholars--from earliest available manuscripts. The Geneva Bible distinguished itself with its copious margin notations--rare insight into the translators' findings. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first "Study Bible". The Geneva Bible was also the first Bible to add verse numbers to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier.

But some historical accounts demonstrate that King James did favor what such notes implied.  Notes which served to underscore believers' freedom in Christ perhaps proved to too anti-Catholic for the King's divine inclinations. And constitutionally, James I was also governor of the The Church of England.  But church governor did not wield the same infallible authority as the Pope.

The Geneva Bible was also the first Bible to add verse numbers to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Even King James' aunt, Queen Elizabeth I, had herself commissioned a translation called the "Bishops' Bible". John Wycliff provided the first English translation of the New Testament around 1380-1384. In 1530 (revised 1534), William Tyndale (known as the father of the English Bible)printed his English New Testament, plus the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the book of Jonah.  Interestingly, in Germany in 1534, Martin Luther had completed printing of his translation of the Old and New Testaments. While the first English translation of the complete Bible was done by Myles Coverdale in 1535, who revised Tyndale's work and translated the rest of the Old Testament from Latin and German versions.

So why did King James need another version of the Bible to be translated? 

By discouraging marginal notations referencing such passages, however, they remained buried in scripture.

One of our visitors comments--"I have a hard time believing this. The King James version of the Bible is the most widely used Bible (in all Protestantism) isn't it?  If James was sympathetic to Catholicism, how do you explain the KJV's popularity?"

Some preferred tools for successful control of masses have always been:

Generally speaking,  we are more knowledgeable of sports scores and top-40 countdowns than our own history or constitution.  The Entertainment Tonight mentality seems to prevail nowadays. We exalt celebrity. We enjoy a high degree of comfort, as well numerous choices today.  We like things our way. Basically, it seems to me that as long as folks can buy beer and watch a ballgame, they can't be bothered with boring stuff like history or the Bible. And we are rewarded for self-centeredness-- "Do what thou wilt." But we can only make the choice--we cannot also choose the consequences of that choice.  If we remain ignorant, the wool can and will be pulled over our eyes concerning our freedom and religion.   Four hundred years ago, citizens had less choices and little comfort.  They were dependent upon the government and the church for everything, but they wanted out from under government's thumb. I think King James certainly saw the value of keeping a nation under His thumb.

And while we do welcome all questions and issues here at Fireside, especially those pertaining to scripture---such questions really tend to cut into our very limited "study" time depriving us all of the one thing Gene and I are dedicated to sharing----this incredible book; a book still available today--God's love letter to humanity, our very own English versions having been enabled by the sweat, blood, and often horrifically sacrificed lives of men and women throughout the past two thousand years, who have made it their life's work to preserve it for us.  We as comfortable, privileged Americans can not fully appreciate this because we grew up either having one or at least knowing about it.   We have forgotten, or just ignored, the true price of our "free" gift. 

Let us then, before we run out of time this evening, and before this book becomes once again illegal:-), welcome all of you to our Fireside tonight, and let us conclude our study by opening our Bibles to the book of John, chapter one, and beginning with verse 29 (which is the end of our April study) read through verse 51.

There are only two times the word "Lamb" is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the Bible.  We find that both instances are in letters written by this same alleged author, John, both in his gospel and then later in Revelation. What did the apostle John know? 

That is correct--that this Man, whom he previously knew only as his cousin Jesus, has now been set apart (word is "sanctified") by God before John as God's chosen Messiah.  Now John knew whom he had been sent to "make straight the way for."  John's baptism of water was for that purpose--to point toward a better baptism.  Water baptism would symbolize the end of the Old Covenant with God's people, Israel.  The Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, would bring a New Covenant in resurrection via "the baptism of the Spirit".  Life from death.  Up from the water.  Water to wine. Death into life.  And yet, upon John's profound first proclamation of "Lamb", his disciples do not respond.

What do we know about any testimony given 2000 years ago--what was the importance of a testimony vs. just a really interesting story? 

That's right--it becomes valid in a court of law upon two affirming witnesses. 

Who are John's other witnesses?  God, Himself... the "One who sent me," John the Baptist states.  There's another one...h-m-m-m-m, who could that be?  That's right, John of Zebedee, who is writing this book.  (He will clarify this at the end of his letter/book. )

And what is John the Baptist's "sign" to the Pharisees and Jews (and all of us who are reading this story now) that John the Baptist is merely reflecting the true Light and is not the Light himself?  That's right--(1) the lesser (water) baptism , and (2) his own self-effacing humility.  John the Baptist speaks of  a better way coming--a better "baptism"; a Newer Covenant.  How is baptism of the Holy Spirit different?   By means of the new, greater baptism, the Lord actually changes one's heart; one's nature.  Water has no power unto itself, it merely washes the outer man.  But Spiritual baptism changes the inner man.  It is more than forgiveness for the sins we've committed, it is life from spiritual death--a spiritual change of heart is a change only God can enable, one through which God opens us to the irrefutable truth of His scriptures, and enables us to live differently--not merely give lip service to get credit for our intentions.  It is a way bigger and better baptism than by water for remission.  Spiritual baptism is also given freely to all who turn to the Lamb of God for salvation.   Sadly, many churches do not want to turn lose of the control of God's ' free gifts (see above).

We have not discussed why the term Israelite is important.  We will talk about it more in time.  For now, those people defined as "Israelites" were Jesus' "own" people spoken of in John 1, "...He came to His own and His own received Him not...." 

Jesus informs Nathanael of his character.  He speaks of him as a true Israelite, "...in whom there is nothing FALSE".  This is an especially incisive observation.  How could Jesus know Nathanael's inner character?  How could He know anything about him at all--hadn't they had just met?  Jesus speaks of His having "seen" Nathanael "under the fig tree."  What do you suppose Nathanael was doing under the tree--what was the significance the "fig" tree?   It is where one went to pray as  good Israelite, to meditate upon the word of God.  To whom was Nathanael praying?  That is correct: God.  Jesus, who is with God, and IS God, and is also The Word (John1:1)--that Word upon whom/what Nathanael was probably meditating--reveals His knowledge of Nathanael in this most intimate way.   And He also adds that it took evidence before Nathanael moved from a state of prior skepticism, to his confession of faith. 

Jesus is also revealing to the readers through John, His own divinity, as well as His humanity. Jesus uses the phrase Son of Man, connoting His human connection and relationship to us--our kinsman the Hebrews called it--through His own body/flesh. 

Within but this first chapter of John, we have read many additional names and terms for Jesus of Nazareth--the Word, the true Light, the Life, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, God, and the Son of Man, among them.  But what is most important is who you believe He was.  That is the question this beloved apostle and this book, the Bible, causes us to ask ourselves--who was this man, Jesus of Nazareth? 

I believe He is the only One upon whom we can truly depend; He is the immovable, immortal Rock to whom we can cling, upon whose sufficient foundation His "church" was built--not a church made with hands and bricks and bolts, but one without doors--that body of believers around the world--His disciples, those of us who follow Him still.  His sheep.  Those who trust in His sufficiency alone for their eternal lives, and not in the doctrines of men, nor empty promises, nor spiritual IOU's from some religious denomination or organization.

To know the truth, seek to know Jesus Christ--for He is the truth, the way, and the life. 
To Him alone be the power, the glory and the honor, forever.  Amen.

Trust Him.
Amen.

And thus chapter one of the book of John ends.  Let us now gather our belongings and any dessert you might now want, drinks and such, and proceed out to our campfire area to roast marshmallows and join the music!

--Betty

EDITOR'S NOTE: The first English translations of the Bible were enabled, not by King James,  but by Tyndale, Wycliff, and Coverdale in England, with great personal sacrifice for having translated the Word of God into the language of the people--Tyndale himself was hanged and his body burned to discourage such future endeavors. Read more about how King James' translation of the Bible was accomplished--learn about the various manuscripts used to translate our English Bibles today. You can also read about the rest of the Royal House of Stewart (and all its spellings), Merovingians and Carolingians--who they were alleged to be, and how their allegedly "divine" bloodlines have affected history throughout the ages and still influence politics and religion today.  A good place to begin to learn about all of this is your local library, as well as on the internet.  I buy newer books at Half-Price books and older ones at flea markets and shops all over Texas.  Recently I purchased an interesting one on the History of England for a quarter at Literacy Austin's annual Bookfest. [2]

Follows, however, are some internet starting points, FYI:-)

FOOTNOTES:
1.  "History of England," Revised Edition, by W.E. Lunt, Professor of History, Haverford College; Harper & Brothers Publishers, NY, London, 1938; pps. 387-427.
2. ibid.