Minister: 'Extending Sunday shop hours permanently would be an assault on Christianity' (From Bucks Free Press)

Hope this bigot doesn't need an ambulance or fire engine or police assistance on a Sunday or come to think of it a prescription dispensed either.

He does'nt have to shop on a Sunday, leave the rest of us who welcome longer trading hours alone.... Christians don't own Sunday!!

Well let the paying customers decide if opening on a Sunday is a good idea or not, rather than use some fictional 'god' as an excuse to impede economic progress. In this multi cultural society, it is bordering on discrimination that shops are forced to closed because a certain religion says so. What about all the other religions? I'm sure they'd all like laws introduced to suit their lifestyle but its just not sustainable. This is just another one of our outdated laws that certain people who dont like change will not let go of.

its not even the correct argument - given that we live in a country where petrol stations, 'mini-marts' and sports centres (and probably other places I haven't thought of) are all allowed to stay open beyond these hours on a Sunday anyway; what difference does it make (from a Christian point of view) if the bigger shops are allowed to open for 'normal' hours too?

where in the Bible does it grant exceptions for the smaller traders? the bible explicitly stipulates a long list of people and things that aren't allowed to work on the sabbath (though its hard to tell if he means sunday for sure) - by God's own word, even slaves are prohibited from working on the sabbath, so why do independent shopkeepers escape his wrath? (as an aside, you'd have thought that God would have tried to condemn slavery entirely, rather than merely giving slaves a day off each week)

How I wish there was a 'like' button for these comments

All religions have their rules and regulations. Don't join them if it interferes with your lifestyle - whether it's voluntary, inherited from your parents , through conversion or enforced.
.
People 'of religion' should really leave other people alone to live their life the way they choose - and not try to impose their creed , ways of life and 'laws' on others.
.
Not a nice thing to do from any point of view. Sanctimonious , self-righteous , dictatorial and mischievous which every way you look at it.

Are these religious people 'better' than the rest of us ? The past and evolving history of the world shows quite the reverse, to be absolutely honest - and I truly believe that !

Oh there this self appointed pastor goes again.... Those who don't agree with Sunday trading etc have only to stop going out shopping. Those who do want to shop are free to do so. The other aspect is if people want to work on a Sunday. That's a matter for them, their unions and the companies.
Mr Simpson persists in mean spirited outbursts.

I am wondering why on earth the BFP gives him so much time...

I expect it is purely to get the hits on the page up.

demoness the second wrote:
I am wondering why on earth the BFP gives him so much time...

I expect it is purely to get the hits on the page up.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
Sad state the bfp is in that it has to do such things.

demoness the second wrote:
I am wondering why on earth the BFP gives him so much time... I expect it is purely to get the hits on the page up.

That's crazy talk, next you will be telling us they created a fictional blogger to boost page hits!

Dreaming up some fictional character in order to boost whatever it is you are trying to pitch is not a new concept.

Mr Simpson and Mr Cohen are both using ancient marketing techniques .

God job it is only Christianity being questioned here otherwise you would all be accused of racial prejudice.

Once again Rev Simpson hits the nail right on the head.
~
It's about time Sundays were made special again and turned back into a day of rest.
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page.

If you claim to subscribe to a particular faith then you should observe its rules. Most religions impose certain constraints - whether it being not working on certain days, not consuming particular meats, avoiding certain sexual practices, etc. etc. So many people claim to be believers who follows the orthodoxy of a particular religion but then skip observances of the elements that are inconvenient to them. So, If Reverend Simpson is correct and there is a Christian law/rule that states that Sunday shopping is not permissable for those who are of that faith, then they should stop shopping or cease claiming to be Christians.

The only part of Reverend Simpsons statement that I in any object to is the statement "it is God alone who determines whether or not a nation prospers". He should remember that "his" God isn't necessarily everone else's God.

I'm fortunate enough not to need an imaginary friend to get me through life, others are not so fortunate.

Why don't we just let the individual businesses decide if it makes commercial sense for them to open.

I've been thinking..... Perhaps on 2nd thoughts it's nice to have eccentric oddbod, semi religious fanatics, to make us smile a little. Some people have a religion, of some kind, as it's a comfy reassurance that there might be more to life. Others think it's a superstition harboured by insecure people. Bless 'em all and let them have their linctus to calm them as part of a therapy to help them. Personally I think the Earth is flat and there's a Loch Ness Monster, a Yeti in the Himalayas and it's best to throw spilt salt over your left - or is it right? - shoulder. Never open an umbrella in the house, too.....
Mr Simpson thinks he's backing the right religion. Perhaps one of the other faiths is better. Buddhists seem nice, calm people. Or the Quakers?

Scarletto wrote:
I've been thinking..... Perhaps on 2nd thoughts it's nice to have eccentric oddbod, semi religious fanatics, to make us smile a little. Some people have a religion, of some kind, as it's a comfy reassurance that there might be more to life. Others think it's a superstition harboured by insecure people. Bless 'em all and let them have their linctus to calm them as part of a therapy to help them. Personally I think the Earth is flat and there's a Loch Ness Monster, a Yeti in the Himalayas and it's best to throw spilt salt over your left - or is it right? - shoulder. Never open an umbrella in the house, too..... Mr Simpson thinks he's backing the right religion. Perhaps one of the other faiths is better. Buddhists seem nice, calm people. Or the Quakers?

Unfortunately the smallprint of various religions does not accomodate the validity of other religions. In fact the assumption is that "their" religion (and associated God/Gods/Deities) are the only valid options and every else's are imaginary.

For Christians the existence of one, and only one, God is in quite large print and is one of the basic tenets that underpin the belief of its followers.

The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by eight members of the Church of England.

There were, and still are, no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have, were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these manuscripts, with no two alike.

The King James translators used none of these anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version that their king and parliament would approve.

So, 21st Century Christians believe the ‘Word of God’ is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scro;;s that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.

That’s not faith. That’s insanity.

2nd to last paragraph in my comments above:
'scro;;s' should be 'scrolls'.

According to ‘Christian Research’, as of 2005, British church attendance was down to 6.3% of the population. In the 2009 census, the number of British people declaring themselves as having ‘no religion’ was 51%.

Therefore, why should the 'out of touch' clergy of a small minority of the British population, dictate to the vast majority when they can and cannot go shopping?

A VOTER wrote:
According to ‘Christian Research’, as of 2005, British church attendance was down to 6.3% of the population. In the 2009 census, the number of British people declaring themselves as having ‘no religion’ was 51%. Therefore, why should the 'out of touch' clergy of a small minority of the British population, dictate to the vast majority when they can and cannot go shopping?

Might have something to do with the Church of ENGLAND having the Monarch and Head of State as its official 'boss'. This then means that Government and religion in the UK (well, England at least) are intertwined.

Maybe the option to split Church and State should be an election issue?

J B Blackett wrote, “People of religion should really leave other people alone to live their life the way they choose - and not try to impose their creed , ways of life and 'laws' on others”.

In polite and friendly response, I point out that God’s laws are for all people without exception. I also ask, Why should secularism impose its creed on society? Why should God-rejecting humanism have precedence? All societies in every age and place operate on some kind of credal system, be it theistic or atheistic. The point is, Which is the best system?

I submit that the Christian scheme has far better credentials than secularism, whose main claim to be accepted is that it happens to be the prevailing view at present. The truth of Christianity, however, is vindicated by something far more enduring than contemporary thinking, namely the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Also relevant are the countless blessings that the Christian faith has brought to this nation over the centuries.

The sabbath is designed for man’s benefit. Giving people a weekly day of rest is hardly a form of repression. God made man in such a way that he is designed to need a time of rest and worship for one day in seven.

During the secularist French Revolution the authorities tried to abolish the 7-day week and replace it with a 10 day one. The new scheme simply did not work. The experiment only lasted from 1793 to 1806, which is good evidence that trying to subvert God’s created order will never work, for it is an attempt to deny what we are as human beings.

The secularist revolutionaries knew what they were doing, however. They realised that to abolish the sabbath is to attack and severely weaken Christianity’s influence. The express purpose of their changeover to a 10 day week was to destroy any national identification in France with the Christian faith.

Likewise the fashionable rejection of the fourth commandment in contemporaray Britain is a plain statement by the nation that it no longer wants any formal connection with the faith of Christ.

However, fashion does not equal truth, and we should reflect upon all the benefits which the Christian faith has brought to this country. It was, for example, the Puritans of the 17th century who did so much for the development of parliamentary government by opposing autocratic monarchy, and it was the 18th century Evangelical Awakening in England which prevented here a French-style revolution and the ensuing social chaos. It was evangelical Christians who enacted all the great social reforms of the 19th century (e.g. re child labour and factory working conditions). Furthermore, it was Bible-believing Christians, not secularists, who brought about the abolition of slavery. Nor was it the secular state which invented education for all. What the state did was to take over the church schools which were already in existence.

In various industries now people who do not wish to work on Sundays for Christian reasons may have difficulties in obtaining employment, and may well find themselves being sidelined, when it comes to making progress in their careers.

It would surely be beneficial for people living in town centres or in the vicinity of supermarkets and retail parks, or along main roads, if they could enjoy just one quieter day each week in their normal living environment.

You asked, “Are these religious people 'better' than the rest of us ?” My reply is, No of course not. I am a Christian, because I am sinful and in need of God’s mercy. The whole point of a special day of rest is that it gives us more time to focus on the great salvation which the Lord Jesus Christ has accomplished on the Cross for all who turn from sin and believe in Him.

Yours in courteous discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

In polite and friendly response, I point out that you are truly barking.
Enjoy your invisible best friend and all of your gang that believe in him too.
Leave the rest of us be to decide what we do with our Sundays and let us worry about the consequence of not following your book of rules.

Yours in courteous discussion (hardly discussion is it, if it doesnt fit your way of thinking its wrong)

Peter Simpson said...
6:16pm Mon 3 Sep 12
J B Blackett wrote, “People of religion should really leave other people alone to live their life the way they choose - and not try to impose their creed , ways of life and 'laws' on others”.

In polite and friendly response, I point out that God’s laws are for all people without exception. I also ask, Why should secularism impose its creed on society? Why should God-rejecting humanism have precedence? All societies in every age and place operate on some kind of credal system, be it theistic or atheistic. The point is, Which is the best system?
........------....
And I say in reply that I impose nothing on anybody for any reason whatsoever.
.
Humanist / agnostics / atheists and their ilk are not dictatorial , dogmatic , demanding or deluded.
.
Unlike all the pious self-righteous always right 'devout' religious types with their proclaimed direct (or indirect) communications with their particular gods. Some of them are quite bloodthirsty , bigoted and violently minded , you know.
.
May you somehow find the peace you seek in your personal own way. But you might not find it in a mere 'book' written for distant races/ peoples a long long time ago. Who told you you could ?

Rev Crackpot says "God is for everyone". No he isn't! Your God is for you and your religion and not at all for people who do not follow that B.S. We have a democracy and statistics show you are clearly a minority, so there is no reason why your beliefs should be forced on the majority.
If you don't want to shop on Sunday and prefer to spend it in an empty church, fine - go ahead, People that want to shop will go to the shops - if they didn't, the shops would shut.

BTW - I do get a day of rest each week - two in fact and it's up to me what I do with them. Shift workers also get days of rest, but they might not be the same days as yours or mine.

brachyura wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I am wondering why on earth the BFP gives him so much time... I expect it is purely to get the hits on the page up.

That's crazy talk, next you will be telling us they created a fictional blogger to boost page hits!

ha ha mmmmm I wonder who you could be refering to. Evil Igor ha ha

Hi Pete, sorry i missed this one, been away working(on a Sunday) so you'll probably not read this, and wont respond if you do.Far from being courteous, or polite in your missives, you ignore those that present good solid arguments, and keep repeating the same old lies over and over again.
Christians do not have the monopoly on good deeds in this world.That belief of yours insults everyone who carries out good acts but doesn't shout about them.
You often cite the abolition of slavery as an example of their good deeds, but then convieniently forget that most slave owners were god fearing xtians who took the bible at its word and believed it was ok to own slaves.
There's so much more I could pick you up on, but you carry on living in your ( no doubt) comfortable house, driving your comfortable car, in your lovely suit at your well stocked table, admired by your delusional congregation. Whilst the rest of us engage in the real world and help our fellow man rather than blaming him for his condition.
By the way, how do you feel about the followers of Mohammed praying in the street outside sport and ski?Do you fancy going and pointing out their mistakes to them? No? Thought not. See, to be a true xtian campaigner you have to walk the walk, not just talk, and show a bit of true bravery, not just hurl insults at easy targets.
I'I'll wait with interest for your answer, but I doubt you'll have the decency to bother to reply.

sai-diva wrote:
Hi Pete, sorry i missed this one, been away working(on a Sunday) so you'll probably not read this, and wont respond if you do.Far from being courteous, or polite in your missives, you ignore those that present good solid arguments, and keep repeating the same old lies over and over again. Christians do not have the monopoly on good deeds in this world.That belief of yours insults everyone who carries out good acts but doesn't shout about them. You often cite the abolition of slavery as an example of their good deeds, but then convieniently forget that most slave owners were god fearing xtians who took the bible at its word and believed it was ok to own slaves. There's so much more I could pick you up on, but you carry on living in your ( no doubt) comfortable house, driving your comfortable car, in your lovely suit at your well stocked table, admired by your delusional congregation. Whilst the rest of us engage in the real world and help our fellow man rather than blaming him for his condition. By the way, how do you feel about the followers of Mohammed praying in the street outside sport and ski?Do you fancy going and pointing out their mistakes to them? No? Thought not. See, to be a true xtian campaigner you have to walk the walk, not just talk, and show a bit of true bravery, not just hurl insults at easy targets. I'I'll wait with interest for your answer, but I doubt you'll have the decency to bother to reply.

Christians used to be somewhat more proactive in fostering the spirit of taking up their religion as the religion of (only) choice. Those with an interest in history may care to explain what the Christian Crusades meant to those who weren't committed Christians (death usually). The Roman Catholic Church (well, The Vatican) was responsible for many religious inquisitions in the Middle Ages which led to the likes of Gallileo being incarcerated because he was "wrong" about planetary movements. As previously mentioned, whilst those who ended slavery may have been Christians, it was also Christians who started slavery in the first place.

What any of you have failed to realise is the quality of life that the people who work in the shops that you all want to shop in have. If these hours are made perminant, then they will be working longer hours just to please you. How would YOU feel if YOU had to work longer and be away from your families longer? Shop workers are entitled to family life just like anyone else. After all in Europe shops are still closed on a sunday, because people make their needs met the other 6 days of the week.Years ago, shops were closed ALL DAY on sundays, and a half day on Thursday with only newsagents and small food shops open for the odd emergency, and we managed. I DONT shop on a Sunday out of princible. I suggest you have a think and start to do the same.

Dear Sai-diva,

I do not own a car and my salary is 58% below the national average. I nevertheless regard myself, in God’s providence, to be very blessed materially.

When I meet Moslems in High Wycombe and in open air preaching elsewhere, including London, out of love for my neighbour, I point them to the necessity of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and as He who is able to save from sin.

You raised the matter of slavery. Attempts are often made to undermine the Bible’s authority by arguing that it condones slavery.

This line of argument stems from the unwarranted assumption that all forms of slavery are synonymous with the evil race-based American slavery of the 17th to 19th centuries. It also ignores the fact that the Israelites were themselves slaves in Egypt, and that their release from slavery is a picture in the New Testament of Christian salvation.

In the time of the New Testament in the Roman Empire slavery (i.e. bond-service) was the basis of most forms of labour. Slaves worked as teachers, musicians, doctors, librarians and accountants, as well as houshold servants. Whilst being far from a perfect social system, the practice of bond-service was a very effective form of social security. Some slaves were actually better off materially than free men, and the master-slave relationship was often one of close attachment and friendship. This is not to condone the system, simply to state some facts.

The Old Testament civil law required the death penalty for kidnapping men and then selling them (Exodus 21:16), and slave-traders are described as guilty under God’s law in 1 Timothy 1:10, where they are referred to as ‘menstealers’. These verses prove that it is impossible, as Christianity’s enemies try to do, to equate American slavery with the type of slavery described in the New Testament epistle of Philemon.

The New Testament also teaches that slaves and masters are perfectly equal in the sight of God (Galatians 3:28), and masters are commanded to treat their servants with absolute fairness and justice (Colossians 4:1).
And, may I please repeat, it was evangelical Christians who brought the British slave trade to an end, not Enlightenment humanists (the forerunners of today’s secularists). William Wilberforce would also have advocated most strongly the need for Britain to honour the Lord’s Day.

Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.

Dear FRENCH44T.

What you have failed to understand is, no one, not one single person, is forced to work longer hours. The hours they work will be the same. They will still get the same number of days off. The only thing that may change is the times of day they work, plus Sunday working.

A positive side of this would be, that those stores that do decide to open on Sundays may well decide to employ even more people. Therefore, this would benefit society by creation of many new jobs, all over the UK.

A VOTER wrote:
Dear FRENCH44T.

What you have failed to understand is, no one, not one single person, is forced to work longer hours. The hours they work will be the same. They will still get the same number of days off. The only thing that may change is the times of day they work, plus Sunday working.

A positive side of this would be, that those stores that do decide to open on Sundays may well decide to employ even more people. Therefore, this would benefit society by creation of many new jobs, all over the UK.

I dont agree with you. It is easier to get current employees to work longer than go to the trouble of employing new people and having to train them. Hence my case stands.

Dear Mr Peter Simpson,

Within this, and most other articles that you have written, you have made many quotes from the new testament. However, could you explain why you put so much belief and faith into a book that was so obviously not written by your god.

I re-quote from above:
The King James Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by eight members of the Church of England.

There were, and still are, no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have, were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these manuscripts, with no two alike.

The King James translators used none of these anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version that their king and parliament would approve.

So, 21st Century Christians believe the ‘Word of God’ is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.

gpn01 wrote:

sai-diva wrote:
Hi Pete, sorry i missed this one, been away working(on a Sunday) so you'll probably not read this, and wont respond if you do.Far from being courteous, or polite in your missives, you ignore those that present good solid arguments, and keep repeating the same old lies over and over again. Christians do not have the monopoly on good deeds in this world.That belief of yours insults everyone who carries out good acts but doesn't shout about them. You often cite the abolition of slavery as an example of their good deeds, but then convieniently forget that most slave owners were god fearing xtians who took the bible at its word and believed it was ok to own slaves. There's so much more I could pick you up on, but you carry on living in your ( no doubt) comfortable house, driving your comfortable car, in your lovely suit at your well stocked table, admired by your delusional congregation. Whilst the rest of us engage in the real world and help our fellow man rather than blaming him for his condition. By the way, how do you feel about the followers of Mohammed praying in the street outside sport and ski?Do you fancy going and pointing out their mistakes to them? No? Thought not. See, to be a true xtian campaigner you have to walk the walk, not just talk, and show a bit of true bravery, not just hurl insults at easy targets. I'I'll wait with interest for your answer, but I doubt you'll have the decency to bother to reply.

Christians used to be somewhat more proactive in fostering the spirit of taking up their religion as the religion of (only) choice. Those with an interest in history may care to explain what the Christian Crusades meant to those who weren't committed Christians (death usually). The Roman Catholic Church (well, The Vatican) was responsible for many religious inquisitions in the Middle Ages which led to the likes of Gallileo being incarcerated because he was "wrong" about planetary movements. As previously mentioned, whilst those who ended slavery may have been Christians, it was also Christians who started slavery in the first place.

I am afraid you are totally wrong about Christians starting slavery -
.
Unless The Greek or Roman empires don't count. Go back to prehistoric times - about 10,000 years possibly. Or are those times to be ignored
.
Also ignore the Sumerians (Iraq) , Egyptians , Persians , Chinese , Indians , and areas of Africa etc etc which had slave economies in the 'Old Days'. Slavery is even referred to in The Old Testament.
.
So don't blame the Christians for starting slavery - it was all over the place before 1AD. It was the human race that started slavery - and it still goes on in various places even nowadays.

FRENCH44T wrote:

A VOTER wrote: Dear FRENCH44T. What you have failed to understand is, no one, not one single person, is forced to work longer hours. The hours they work will be the same. They will still get the same number of days off. The only thing that may change is the times of day they work, plus Sunday working. A positive side of this would be, that those stores that do decide to open on Sundays may well decide to employ even more people. Therefore, this would benefit society by creation of many new jobs, all over the UK.

I dont agree with you. It is easier to get current employees to work longer than go to the trouble of employing new people and having to train them. Hence my case stands.

Dear FRENCHTWAAT: If you ask (yes, ask) people to work longer hours then they have to be paid more, so they get a pay rise and what's wrong with that? If they work on Sundays this normally results in a slightly increased rate of pay over weekdays, so more pay increase. Sounds good to me.
A VOTER is right though - it will result in a slight increase in the number of people employed. Again, that's a good thing.
People that work on Sundays have days off in the week. Having worked shifts for many years, it's quite nice to be able to go to the shops when they are quieter - another bonus for the Sunday workers!

Open the shops I say. Look on it as a test of faith if you've run out of milk for your tea on a Sunday.

A VOTER wrote:
Dear Mr Peter Simpson,

Within this, and most other articles that you have written, you have made many quotes from the new testament. However, could you explain why you put so much belief and faith into a book that was so obviously not written by your god.

I re-quote from above:
The King James Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by eight members of the Church of England.

There were, and still are, no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have, were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these manuscripts, with no two alike.

The King James translators used none of these anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version that their king and parliament would approve.

So, 21st Century Christians believe the ‘Word of God’ is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.

I'd like to hear an answer to this too.

Dear A Voter,

You wrote, “Could you explain why you put so much belief and faith into a book that was so obviously not written by your god”.

Respectfully, there is nothing obvious about the Bible not being inspired. Please remember that the media generally have no sympathy with Biblical Christianity, and nor does the academic world. Journalists and academics have God-rejecting paradigms which influence their thinking. So one is quite likely to hear a ‘scholarly’ programme on TV denying the accuracy of the Scriptures. There is a spiritual battle going on, and men have always been attacking the accuracy of God’s word down the ages.

One of the best proofs of the Bible’s inspiration is the way that it has changed, and continues to change, many people’s lives. Millions love it as God’s word. It speaks to their heart. It has changed my heart. Each Christian believer is living proof that the Bible is the word of God and has this power to transform. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ frequently referred to the Old Testament as God’s Spirit-breathed word and as having all authority, and the New Testament is likewise inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Was Jesus Christ a liar?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

You wrote, “The King James Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by eight members of the Church of England.

Again, respectfully, this is not the case. The KJV was translated by six committees, two meeting at Oxford, two in Cambridge and two at Westminster. These committees comprised 47 men, being the finest Greek and Hebrew scholars of their day. I have their names in front of me.

You wrote, “There were, and still are, no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have, were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died”.

The non-existence of original manuscripts is because the originals were written to be used. Paul’s letters, for example, were read out in differing churches all around the Mediterranean region. The manuscripts were read, passed on, wore out, and were then copied and replaced. The existence and continual copying of manuscripts is itself proof of the high value placed upon them as God’s word.

God has providentially preserved His word to keep it from error, and the accuracy of our later manuscripts is proven by extant quotations from the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Ottoman empire, causing scholars to flee west and bring with them many Greek manuscripts which had been held in Byzantine libraries. These were used by the Dutch scholar Erasmus who produced the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516. This formed the basis for the text used by the KJV translators.

You wrote, “The King James translators used none of these (manuscripts) anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version that their king and parliament would approve”.

The inside front page of any KJV refutes the above statement. I read from the one in front of me : “The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues”. So the KJV was a new translation using for the NT the Greek manuscripts known as ‘the Received Text’. The king was not involved in the translation process. Other translations were referred to by the six committees to aid accuracy, mainly that of William Tyndale, who had produced the first English New Testament translated from the original Greek in 1536. He was executed by Henry 8th for doing so, but he considered God’s word so precious as worth giving up his life for.

So may I politely appeal to you not to reject the Bible’s authority. People here in Bucks once risked their lives to read its precious soul-saving truths. They are called the Lollards and there is a monument to them in Amersham. In the 15th century they met in the beech woods to read handwritten copies of Wycliffe’s Bible in English (a translation from the Latin), it then being a crime to read the Bible in English. These Lollards were burnt at the stake for reading and believing God’s word.

It is tragic that today’s fashionable and all-pervasive liberal secularism so despises the glorious Christian heritage which we have in this country, of which the observing of the Lord’s Day is an important part. We should be honouring the memory of those who literally gave their lives that we might have God’s word in our own language and the freedom to read it.

The Lord Jesus Christ once told His enemies, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matthew 22:29).

Yours in amicable discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

What a waste of time, you all seem to react to comments with substance and wind up anyone who makes a sensible remark. What is the point of saying anything on here??? Its ok, you need not bother to reply to this. I am speaking out loud.

Peter Simpson wrote:
Dear Sai-diva,

I do not own a car and my salary is 58% below the national average. I nevertheless regard myself, in God’s providence, to be very blessed materially.

When I meet Moslems in High Wycombe and in open air preaching elsewhere, including London, out of love for my neighbour, I point them to the necessity of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and as He who is able to save from sin.

You raised the matter of slavery. Attempts are often made to undermine the Bible’s authority by arguing that it condones slavery.

This line of argument stems from the unwarranted assumption that all forms of slavery are synonymous with the evil race-based American slavery of the 17th to 19th centuries. It also ignores the fact that the Israelites were themselves slaves in Egypt, and that their release from slavery is a picture in the New Testament of Christian salvation.

In the time of the New Testament in the Roman Empire slavery (i.e. bond-service) was the basis of most forms of labour. Slaves worked as teachers, musicians, doctors, librarians and accountants, as well as houshold servants. Whilst being far from a perfect social system, the practice of bond-service was a very effective form of social security. Some slaves were actually better off materially than free men, and the master-slave relationship was often one of close attachment and friendship. This is not to condone the system, simply to state some facts.

The Old Testament civil law required the death penalty for kidnapping men and then selling them (Exodus 21:16), and slave-traders are described as guilty under God’s law in 1 Timothy 1:10, where they are referred to as ‘menstealers’. These verses prove that it is impossible, as Christianity’s enemies try to do, to equate American slavery with the type of slavery described in the New Testament epistle of Philemon.

The New Testament also teaches that slaves and masters are perfectly equal in the sight of God (Galatians 3:28), and masters are commanded to treat their servants with absolute fairness and justice (Colossians 4:1).
And, may I please repeat, it was evangelical Christians who brought the British slave trade to an end, not Enlightenment humanists (the forerunners of today’s secularists). William Wilberforce would also have advocated most strongly the need for Britain to honour the Lord’s Day.

Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.

Hi Pete, me again,Please, please answer the questions asked, don't just keep repeating the same quotes
When I refer to slave ownership, I am not refering to the times of the o.t. I am refering to the times of wilberforce, when, I am certain many slave owners would have been bible fearing xtians using their interpretation of the bible to justify their actions, I'll search the web if you wish, to find examples,Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. The practice continued in England, Canada and the rest of the English Empire until the early 19th century; it continued in the U.S. until later in the 19th century, all lovely 'god fearing countries, not subject to 'modern secular liberalism'..
You may be right that the bible teaches that all are equal in the sight of god, but I don't think that will be of much comfort to a slave being wipped by a man who professes to be christian. The fact that the bible says that slaves are equal to their masters rather than just just condemming the practice, speaks volumes.
May I draw your attention to a quote from wikki on the subject of xtians owning slaves.

In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed, with 9 of the 12 founder members being Quakers. During the same year, William Wilberforce was persuaded to take up their cause;

So the original abolutionists were quakers,who are not 'evangelical christians' not methodists, watch that ego!
Do you really believe that you have to be a christian to carry out good deeds, or that the good deeds of an atheist are worth less that the deeds of an christian?
I know that you don't own your car because when you were questioned about it you claimed that it was owned by 'the company'. Is that what your church is, a company? Yet still you seem to have a good life, a sound career, you are well fed and comfortable, a secure position to tell people of the shortcomings of their lives,have you ever had to know what it is like to want?
When you state that your income is 58% below average are you including the costs of running your car? Housing costs, heating? How does this equate to your prophet's lifestyle?
I am not a hater of christians, I try hard not to hate anyone, but your version of christianity allows, even encourages, if not hate, at least a feeling of being different, if not better than your fellow man.As you have said we are all equal in the sight of your god, what gives you the right to tell people, your equals, how to lead their lives? You profess to be a sinner yourself, why should I believe what you say?
I look forward to the time when you go to the misguided young men praying outside sport and ski and ''point them to the necessity of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and as He who is able to save from sin.'' I'm sure they may have very strong views to the contrary.
Please keep your preaching to your place of worship.

Just another couple of quotes for you to consider,I'd be interested in how they tie in with your view that the bible didn't condone slavery?

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having bothered to taken it:
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Yours, as always, in courteous discussion.

So, as I understand it, the proof that the bible is gods truth is that:

1: Christians believe it is.
2: The main character in the story says it is.

I couldn't agree more with Elmo...

Also, the constant repetition of 'it's all true' by Peter Simpson, or any other christian, doesn't make it so.

There is zero factual evidence or proof in this world that his god exists. Stories in a book, written by men, do not constitute proof.

Peter Simpson wrote:
One of the best proofs of the Bible’s inspiration is the way that it has changed, and continues to change, many people’s lives. Millions love it as God’s word. It speaks to their heart. It has changed my heart. Each Christian believer is living proof that the Bible is the word of God and has this power to transform. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ frequently referred to the Old Testament as God’s Spirit-breathed word and as having all authority, and the New Testament is likewise inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Was Jesus Christ a liar?

Sure Peter, I would agree whole heartedly that the bible has inspired and changed people’s lives – You yourself are a prime example of this. However, that is not ‘living proof that the bible is the word of god.’. Jesus referring to the old testament as god’s spirit-breathed word, as having all authority, and the new testament inspired by the same holy spirit, is only the word of one influential man of his day. Him saying that is also not proof.

The bible has been taken too literally for too many years, by too many very gullible people. The fact that people in Bucks risked and lost their lives to read that book is very sad, and obviously misguided.

Peter, I have absolutely no objection to you believing that your bible is the word of your god. However, I do object to you trying to enforce the effects of your minority views on the majority of this nation. If we want to go shopping on Sundays, you and your buddies should not be able to stop this. What would your reaction be if the majority of this population suddenly decided that you and other christians, were no longer allowed to worship your god? I’m sure that you would have something to say about that.

We live in what is supposed to be a free society (It’s not there yet, but hopefully…) A free society should be able shop whenever they wish to. They should also be able to choose which day of the week they wish to rest from work.

I've never agreed with Peter Simpson and am very definitely not religious. I find many of his views bizarre to say the least.

However, I find myself shocked that I do agree with him that Sunday shop opening rules ought not to be altered from the current situation. Forget the religious aspects.

Trade unions and social groups (not necessarily socialist: WI, for example) objected to Sunday trading when it was introduced on the basis of protection of workers, vulnerable because of economic conditions and lack of job security, and also from the need to work also on a day which should be devoted to cultural or familial activities.

It is this last aspect that I think is so important for society as a whole. There ought to be at least one day when the whole family can have a day off together and that day ought to be the same for everyone so that we can be involved in communal activities if we so choose: watching the kids play football or going for a walk and a pub lunch. Simple things like this are important and knowing that everyone can do it on a given day is a mark of a civilised society, I believe. It is the Humanist view.

Others argue that Sunday is like any other day and that people who work Sundays get other days off miss the point – it doesn't allow for family days/social days, and Britain is the worse for it. When can the grandchildren and their parents visit granny and have a picnic?

Having said that, it must be accepted that small and medium businesses need protection, but that it is very useful to nip out for some plaster to fill that hole you made when trying to fix up new shelves. The current, limited, rules (pre-Olympics) are more than adequate. Running out of milk or bread on a Sunday must be as rare as hens teeth, and therefore longer opening hours are completely unnecessary with the tinniest bit of foresight and, if it happens, there are many alternatives to expecting a shop to be open.

Emergency Services always have been and always will be excluded from the argument.

Dear A Voter, You wrote, “I have absolutely no objection to you believing that your bible is the word of your god. However, I do object to you trying to enforce the effects of your minority views on the majority of this nation. If we want to go shopping on Sundays, you and your buddies should not be able to stop this”.

I thank you for your comments. I politely respond as follows : Are you saying then that this is just a minority/majority issue, and that the majority view should of necessity prevail? If that is so, then we are left with the extremely dubious position that the majority always gets things right.

I am not arguing for a blanket shutdown on Sundays, just a return to the reasonable pre-1994 position. I really think that the supermarkets being open on the Lord’s Day is a craven submission to the idol of consumerism. Nor I am primarily arguing that the statute book is the best solution. I ideally would want people to observe the Sabbath out of the conviction of their hearts, not because of any laws.

Nevertheless, I submit that for the laws of the land broadly to reflect Christian teaching is good for this nation, and that there is plenty of historical data to support that.

The turning of Sundays into a day like any other will certainly end up as an imposition upon Christians, making it harder for them to find work and be true to their consciences. It will also be a statement that the Christian religion is no longer of any national significance, other than for a small minority to practice it in private.

That dismissal of Christianity, however, represents an overturning of our history, which surely needs more than just the health of supermarket balance sheets to justify it.

Are those who want complete Sunday deregulation arguing that those in previous generations who saw tha value of the Christian sabbath were just poor unsophisticated and deluded folk who are now best forgotten in our 21st century enlightenment? A society that thinks it is so much wiser than all those who have gone before tends to terrify me.

The abolition of the Christian sabbath is in the end a statement that nothing much matters in this world other than the material. What about, however, all those who have to work in the retail industry? We are making it far harder for them ever to find time to enter into a church and worship. Do we just assume that they have no spiritual needs, and no need to engage in corporate worship? Yes, they can have other days off, but which day in the week it is does in fact matter. The first day of the week is the day when God created light and it is the day when He who is the Light of the world rose from the dead.

Finally, and this of course is the crunch, if God is who He says He is, then all people are under an obligation to believe in Him. We are talking here about one of the Ten Commandments, which are an obligation on all men to obey. Are not all, for example, under obligation not to steal, not to lie and not to commit adultery? Then they are by the same token under a universal obligation before God to honour the sabbath.

So the bottom line is, Does God exist and do His commandments have universal force? My answer of course is yes, and I support this statement by the fact that God has manifested Himself to the world in the Person of Jesus Christ, who has authenticated all that He said by His resurrection from the dead.

Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.

"I ideally would want people to observe the Sabbath out of the conviction of their hearts, not because of any laws. "

I agree completely with this. If you're a Christian who believes that Sunday should be treated as a day of rest then so be it. Don't work, and don't expect others to work, on that day.

Meanwhile everybody else who doesn't subscribe to this particular religion should be allowed to do as their religion or princples dictate. They should not, however, be forced to adopt the practices of anyone else's religion. Nor should the law mandate or enforce adherence to ANY religious restraints of trade.

Dear Sai-diva,

You asked, “What gives you the right to tell people, your equals, how to lead their lives?”

In courteous response, the fourth commandment is delivered, not by me, but by Almighty God who created us. He has every right to tell us what to do.

Re the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which you very interestingly mentioned, the Quakers involved in this were Bible-believing Christians. Those carrying out the main battle in Parliament and the country were the evangelical grouping known as the Clapham Sect, of which Wilberforce was a member. Evangelical Gospel preaching throughout the country also played an important part in the success of the parliamentary campaign. John Wesley’s very last letter in 1791 was to Wilberforce, encouraging him in his task of abolishing the evil of American slavery.

You referred to Luke 12:42-48. This is a parable, which is an illustrative story, not an account of real events. The beating of the unfaithful servant is a picture of God’s judgement upon the wicked. This parable is all about Christ’s second coming, into whose service all are called (but many refuse to come). The parable teaches the need to be found faithful, when Christ returns to this earth as Judge. It is not saying anything about the institution of slavery at all, just as the preceding parable in Luke 12, verses 39-40, which uses the imagery of a house being burgled, is not making any statement about the crime of burglary or about how thieves should be treated, but is again a warning to all to be prepared for Christ’s return.

May I also repeat (without condoning it) that slaves in the Roman Empire in New Testament times were often better off materially than their free counterparts, and slavery acted as a form of social security. Any parallel, therefore, with American slavery is totally unjustified. Slaves included those whom we would today call professional people. The New Testament states, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1). So the word of God warns masters that they will be answerable to God for any mistreatment of their servants.

The ignoring of the Lord's Day in contemporary Britain is nothing less than the rejection of the Trinitarian God and of the authority of His word. It is a rejection which is impoverishing our national life, and will lead to national judgements.

Yours politely, Rev. Peter Simpson.

^ So be it.

the fourth commandment is delivered, not by me, but by Almighty God who created us. He has every right to tell us what to do.

The day your lord god steps out and tells me not to work on the Sabbath, I may pay attention, but all I see is a well dressed man in a comfortable job, telling people how to lead their lives, by quoting from a book that was translated by a king who wanted to use the bible for his own ends. Again I ask the question, if you are a sinner, why should I believe what you say?


Re the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which you very interestingly mentioned, the Quakers involved in this were Bible-believing Christians. Those carrying out the main battle in Parliament and the country were the evangelical grouping known as the Clapham Sect, of which Wilberforce was a member. Evangelical Gospel preaching throughout the country also played an important part in the success of the parliamentary campaign. John Wesley’s very last letter in 1791 was to Wilberforce, encouraging him in his task of abolishing the evil of American slavery
Thank you for the lesson. Of the founding 12 men, 9 were Quakers and the other three Anglicans. Wilberforce joined up nearly ten years later, and was one of a very privileged group of men, we're not talking sack cloth and ashes here. Whilst I acknowledge that only a group of men in a position of power would have been able to influence policy, it still took many attempts to get slavery abolished in our 'god fearing land'. Much money had already been made by slave owners who purported to be Christians.

I understand that my quote from Luke is a parable. The point I am making is that there is a commandment stating 'thou shalt not steal'. However, there is not one stating 'thou shalt not own slaves' of course it could be said that slave ownership is the theft of freedom. There is nothing in your bible that says Jesus ever spoke out against slavery, despite many opportunities to do so. Therefore, the movement to abolish slavery could be said to come from a sense of humanity rather than from a religious standpoint. Nowadays there is a huge anti slavery movement, involving people of all religions with a strong moral compass. You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person.

May I also repeat (without condoning it) that slaves in the Roman Empire in New Testament times were often better off materially than their free counterparts, and slavery acted as a form of social security. Any parallel, therefore, with American slavery is totally unjustified. Slaves included those whom we would today call professional people. The New Testament states, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1). So the word of God warns masters that they will be answerable to God for any mistreatment of their servants.

I feel that the fact that you even use the example that slaves were better off than their free counterparts show a huge lack of understanding of the condition of slavery. Although coming from one who sees the position of servitude to his god as a positive thing, probably not very surprising. To be taken, sold, turned into a possession, no control over your life is the reason why many, many people would rather be dead than a slave. I notice you turn the word 'slave' in 'servant' Not the same thing at all, I wonder if Wilberforce had servants, as was the norm at the time? Gotta love those Victorian values!
The first Africans imported to the English colonies were also called “indentured servants” or “apprentices for life”. Interesting considering your use of the same phraseology.
You see the rejection of the church as a bad thing, all that guilt, all that hypocrisy, all that getting up early on Sundays to listen to a minister who knows no better than you, on uncomfortable chairs to make sure you say awake.
I see it as liberation, humankind finally taking responsibility for their destiny, no one to blame, no one to expect favours from.

Did you know that Jesus drove a Honda, but tended to keep that aspect of his life quiet? It says so in the Bible:

'For I did not speak of my own accord'
John 12:49

Dear Peter,
If God made me, and millions of others, athiests, who are you to question his wisdom?

Not sure whether this debate is still running but have only just picked it up as my email account got corrupted and I had to re-activate my BFP account which caused problems as emails were sent and not received! Sorry about the boring introduction!

My new account name is Francis Harris but some may remember me as Mick Harris.

I have trawled through most of the 'discussion' about Mr. Simpson's article and am sorry (but not surprised) to see a great deal of ignorance displayed concerning the Bible.

Some one wrote that they hoped Mr. Simpson didn't have need of emergency services on a Sunday. The activity of such services does not break the 4th commandment as the Old Testament made provision for acts of mercy in necessary circumstance (which provision was repeated by the Lord Jesus Christ to refute those who denied that even acts of mercy could be carried out on the Sabbath.)

I agree with another who wrote about slaves being whipped by those who 'profess to be Christians' and someone else wrote on a similar theme. There is a world of difference between those who 'profess' to be Christians, but who have a merely nominal Christianity, and those who have a living faith. (It was respectable to make a profession of Christianity in the 19th century) but there was much hypocrisy. Sadly, a great deal of wickedness has been wrought in this world by those who had nothing more than an empty profession of the Christian faith.

This is not a 'cop-out' as some may immediately think, but is like the media statements that Islamic terrorists are extremists who do not represent basic Islam. Let Christianity be treated
equally.

Mr. Simpson has answered those who wrote so inacurately about 'the king, or 8 clergymen' - translating the AV.
bible.

Mr. Simpson does not possess a car.

Mick