Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Sep 9, 2012.
Elvis Presley's bible fetches $94,600 at UK auction [LINK]
But all we want to know is, what version is it?? :laugh:
Must have been one of the Geneva bibles. Surely King James I of England would have never authorized Elvis to use HIS authorized version.....Well, after some reflection on the private goings-on of King James I of England, maybe ole King Jimmy might have after all!!!
King James was (as king) a politician/monarch...not really a theologian. But I am thankful he "authorized" those who produced the KJV to do the work they did.
I wonder though.....would any of US like to share our darkest secrets or our "dirty laundry" on an internet forum....or anywhere else in public? Elvis, King James I, and all the rest of us are no more, even on our BEST day, than sinners in need of a Saviour.
For the record.....I hope both of them were saved at some point in their lives.
I'll bet (but I'm NOT a betting man) that Elvis had a KJV:smilewinkgrin: since he came from the generation just before most of the MV's were flooding the bookstores for fun and profit!
I'll admit in advance I could be wrong about that!
Hopefully, Elvis knew in a personal fashion the "real king of all rock and all roll!"
Hey, wait, Elvis wasn't THAT long ago! I grew up hearing his music.
I would bet it was the Authorized version....hardly any of the new versions were even written when Elvis was alive.
I got a copy of the Bible, and the version is the authorized BSS. In Exodus 3:5 for example, it states "And the Lord said, take of your blue suede shoes, for you are on Holy ground." (Blue Suede Shoe Version, Copyright 1977, Council of Graceland)
Elvis was born in 1935, which woulda made him age 20 when J. J. Ray laid the foundation for the current edition of the KJVO myth with his book, God Wrote Only One Bible, copied largely from the goof-filled book that became the "owner's manual" for KJVOs, Our Authorized bible Vindicated(1930) by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson.
When Elvis was a child, his family attended the First Assembly of God Church in Tupelo. Later, one of his uncles became its pastor and encouraged him to develop his musical ability.
Elvis released his first Gospel music album, His Hand In Mine, in 1960.
Let us not forget that Elvis was one of the earliest, and certainly the most-famous, of victims of scrip-drug abuse. Despite all his wealth and fame, Elvis was still basically a poorly-educated country hick. Long as a doctor prescribed it, he believed it was OK for him to take any drug.
I'm 99 % sure that, given the time Elvis grew up in, and his church background, that his Bible would be a KJV. (We don't know if this Bible was a gift, or one that Elvis went out & bought, do we?)
Roby,Roby,Roby...ya just couldn't resist that first paragraph could ya:BangHead:...oh well...J.J.Ray is dead now so he won't be talking back.....but neither will Elvis! ( I never was a big Elvis fan) but he certainly gave the preachers in our country a lot to talk about...didn't he? He was one big hunk-a,hunk-a burnin' love!
Anyway...I think you are probably right about the Bible being a KJV. I did a search and some of the photos that were posted of the Bible at the auction showed close-up shots of some of the pages with his handwritten notes and the language on the pages included the thee's and thou's and hath's,etc.,etc..
Actually,the Bible was indeed a gift to him from his uncle Vester and aunt Clettes (love those names!) for his first Christmas at his Graceland home in 1957.
Elvis Presley's bible fetches £59k at Stockport auction - but his underpants go unsold | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
BBC News - Elvis Presley's Bible is auctioned for £59,000(Includes pictures of the text)
I do find it kind of annoying and disgusting that they saw no shame in auctioning off his Bible in the same lot as his dirty underwear. Oh well..."the love of money..........":tear:
Gregory Perry Sr:
Newp! Part of Christian living is to be TRUTHFUL.
Funny This Is....
Funny thing is...we actually do agree on that...we just obviously don't always agree on what the truth actually is. I think we can both agree on one thing...the KJV IS the Word of God....and as long as we can agree on that point I will do my best to try and be civil. At least I know that (at least) one of the versions you use is a good one (and you can say the same for me:smilewinkgrin. I agree to disagree except for the agreements that we can agree upon!!!!!:tongue3:
The Lord will straighten us both out in whatever points we need straightening in His good time. I seriously doubt that either of us are going to change our minds here. At least we aren't arguing about Calvinism....I hope.:laugh:
yes, but did it include the ole "Fried banana with Peanut butter sandwich?" diet in exodus?
Many preachers (and rightly so IMHO) talked (ranted[?]) on and on about his "stage presence" (i.e., very suggestive gyrations, etc.). OTOH, some of these very same preachers are strangely silent (and, in fact even condone by their by that silence [even to the extent of actually playing slowed-down tempos of those very same "songs(?)" as what I suppose one might classify as "background music" and/or "golden oldies"].
My question to those same preachers is this: If the music was "sinful"/"of the devil"/"born in hell"/etc., etc., when such music first came out (c. mid 1950's), why is it now acceptable to listen to it now simply because it's now performed in, say, orchestrated so-called "easy listening" music??
If it was "sinful"/"harmful to one's Christian testimony"/"causing a stumbling block," etc., etc., THEN, please tell me why it's NOW acceptable to listen to it?
IOW, if something is ever to be classifed as a sin, shouldn't that something be FOREVER a sin?
No, but that is because the blue suede shoes is the only inspired part.
You're right...We will never completely agree as long as you advocate the non-Scriptural KJVO myth. I refuse to budge from believing only those doctrines of worship derived from Scripture.
And I'll tell ya my view of calvinism in case you're curious...I reject most of it, especially the predestination parts. If everyone is predestinated already, with no chance to change it, why worship at all?
Bumping this thread so that I can get a very specific answer to my Post #14.
By "very specific answer" I mean actual book, chapter and verse(s) that come right out and tell the reader in no uncertain terms that it is NOT a sin to listen to a slower-tempoed, orchestrated arrangement of the very songs that Elvis once sung (which, at the time he first sang them) were roundly condemned [and, IMHO, rightly so] as sinful, "of-the-devil," "harmful-to-one's-Christian-testimony," "putting-a-stumbling-block-for-new-'babes in Christ'," etc., etc.
IOW, do you (whoever "you" may be) firmly believe that if something is/was ever a sin, should that "something" (whatever that "something" may be) not forever be a sin?
Example: God condemns lying as a clear violation of His Holy, immutable Law as put forth in the Ten Commandments.
Thus, according to Revelation 21:8, ("But ... a liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" [KJV]). Why? Because lying is a violation of the third commandment, hence it is a sin.
So, therefore, why is listening to a slower-tempoed, orchestrated arrangment of the very same songs that were considered sinful when Elvis first sung them not also roundly condemned (and with the very same fervor that his songs were roundly condemed)?
Very little music (by that I mean the musical arrangements) is "original" any more. I remember way back in high school when our music teacher wrote what he thought was a completely new arrangement for the lyrics to our school's 'fight song'. He played it for several months until he was informed by an older music teacher from another school that his "new, unique" arrangement was just a faster rendition of some old, once-popular arrangement written in the 1920's.
Again, those who condemned his original songs were NOT same as God doing that, as their decision was based upon traditions/preferences, even an Anti Black component!
So what you're saying is that, in reality, their fervent denunciations of Presley's (or, if you move it up another decade, the Beatles, etc., etc.) songs was based upon traditions/preferences more than a "Thus saith the LORD, ...." (with perhaps a little 'Anti Black' racism thrown in for good measure), right?!!? :smilewinkgrin: