UK Visitor

[Potatochip]

The trouble with European royalty is that they have had centuries of inbreeding.  The British Royal Family are German.  George 1 and George 2 didn't speak English. The Norman Kings spoke French, sort of.  Until Cromwell in the 1640s English Law was conducted in French and Latin.

I don't know why but I really like them.  I don't know about the rest of that.  I'm not much for rumors.  They seem like really dignified but amiable people.  It must be interesting living where you have Royalty and fairly uncomplicated. 

[Salyan]

If I was visiting Canada, I'd expect my host to take me to see:

• Moose
• Wolf
• Beaver
• Brown bear
• Polar bear
• Mountie
• Eskimo
• Quebec
• Top of Toronto Tower
• Top of Mount Logan
• Ice hockey game
• Northwest passage
• Niagara Falls
• Northern Lights
• Rocky Mountains

Possibly in that order.

Haha!! Now that's a list! Well, we ought to be able to find at least two of those animals in the wild, and the rest are at the zoo (but you forgot buffalo!). But your list is out of order. The Rocky Mountains are definitely more interesting than the Toronto Tower.  

[Invicta]

I don't know why but I really like them.  I don't know about the rest of that.  I'm not much for rumors.  They seem like really dignified but amiable people.  It must be interesting living where you have Royalty and fairly uncomplicated. 

Trouble is, they are treated like demigods.  I am not anti royalty, I just think we make too much of them.

[Potatochip]

Trouble is, they are treated like demigods.  I am not anti royalty, I just think we make too much of them.

Oh I think it's great and so Biblical.  It's kind of hard to sort out Democracy in the Bible I really like it however.  With Royalty your sure what your talking about with no question.  Beside the Royal's in England are so neat.  Everybody loves them mostly they are always there and people in the UK are proud of them.  You just don't hear the kind of insults that you do with other things.  Not there anyway for the most part.  That bothers me when people insult Government leaders.  

 

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.  I like things like that it's so sure. 

My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change.   I just love that kind of stuff its so definate 

 

I would guess that the people of the UK have a different understanding of government than we do.  It's just so Biblical and the KJV was written there.  

Edited July 21, 2015 by Potatochip

[Salyan]

Are you being facetious, Potatochip? Royalty is mentioned in the Bible because that was the general governing procedure of those times. Israel was given a king because they requested one - but that request was contrary to God's Will and He warned them that they wouldn't like it! Royalty is not 'biblical' in the idea that it is 'how it is to be done' - just saying. The KJV was not written there - it was translated there (being as that was the only English-speaking nation at the time, there's nothing too special about that).

That being said, I'm probably a typical Canadian in that I am proud of our queen and perfectly satisfied to have her. (Charles, on the other hand...) However, if she ever actually tried to change things in a manner we didn't like (i.e. actually rule), I have a feeling that Canada would pull a US stunt and decide we didn't need royalty anymore, either.  

[Ukulelemike]

Just take her to see the United States-that's all she needs to impress her.

No, seriously, I agree that you let her enjoy local foods, local sights, local shopping and local people. She's leaving England for a while, let her leave it all behind and enjoy being somewhere new. When I was in the Navy, I tried to get away from the 'Americanized' areas, and got out to the small, local restaurants, shopped in non-tourist areas, and just enjoyed being in a different culture. In Asia I ate with my hands because that what all the locals were doing. I tried new things and really had a good time. 

[Invicta]

Oh I think it's great and so Biblical.  It's kind of hard to sort out Democracy in the Bible I really like it however.  With Royalty your sure what your talking about with no question.  Beside the Royal's in England are so neat.  Everybody loves them mostly they are always there and people in the UK are proud of them.  You just don't hear the kind of insults that you do with other things.  Not there anyway for the most part.  That bothers me when people insult Government leaders.  

 

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.  I like things like that it's so sure. 

My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change.   I just love that kind of stuff its so definate 

 

I would guess that the people of the UK have a different understanding of government than we do.  It's just so Biblical and the KJV was written there.  

But Kings in the bible were not always what we consider royalty today.  They originally seemed often to be head of a city, perhaps a sort of Mayor.  In the time of Augustine of Canterbury, we had kings of Counties.  Augustine was said to have baptised two of these, the King of Kent and the King of Northumbria.  Augustine was sent to England by the Pope and persecuted indigenous Christians.

 

[Potatochip]

But Kings in the bible were not always what we consider royalty today.  They originally seemed often to be head of a city, perhaps a sort of Mayor.  In the time of Augustine of Canterbury, we had kings of Counties.  Augustine was said to have baptised two of these, the King of Kent and the King of Northumbria.  Augustine was sent to England by the Pope and persecuted indigenous Christians.

 

I dunno its not complicated to me it says King.  I assume they mean King a guy with a title King in front of his name.  I'm not sure what your saying there.  

[John81]

I dunno its not complicated to me it says King.  I assume they mean King a guy with a title King in front of his name.  I'm not sure what your saying there.  

Simply that ancient kings typically were not as we think of kings today ruling over nations or empires. Some kings only ruled a city, for example. Yes, they were a king, but king over a city only.

[Potatochip]

Oh so it say a King is a King in the Bible and defines it as a King only if over a city.  I guess I've never seen it.  I don't see what the difference is. Whats the point? If God considers them a King then I would guess what God would attribute to a King would apply.  I see the Bible making any distinction. 

Edited July 22, 2015 by Potatochip

[John81]

Oh so it say a King is a King in the bible and defines it as a King over a city.  I guess I've never seen it.  I don't see what the difference is. 

The only real difference would mainly be the extent of their kingdom. Such as the difference between the king of Sodom, who ruled over one city, and King Solomon who ruled over all Israel and conquered territory.

[Potatochip]

No he seems to be calling a King a Mayor up there. So ruler I still see a lot of disrespect coming from Christians.

13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

So don't give God any trouble. 

Edited July 22, 2015 by Potatochip

[John81]

No he seems to be calling a King a Mayor up there. 

Likely as a statement of comparison. Today a mayor rules a city such as Dallas, Texas, while in ancient times the one who ruled over a city may have carried the title of king.

For some, this helps them grasp the concept of praying for all kings and those in authority and being subject to the same. I've encountered some Christians who try and claim they don't have to do those things since they don't have someone with the actual title of king over them.

[Alimantado]

That being said, I'm probably a typical Canadian in that I am proud of our queen and perfectly satisfied to have her. (Charles, on the other hand...) However, if she ever actually tried to change things in a manner we didn't like (i.e. actually rule), I have a feeling that Canada would pull a US stunt and decide we didn't need royalty anymore, either.  

Same in UK--in fact, as we all know, it's already happened. A civil war was fought way back when and now the monarchy effectively rules by consent. The house of commons has primacy in parliament and the Queen has no real power to exceed her role. So that's another difference between kings in Bible times and today.

Sometimes I've wondered--if the UK did decide to ditch the monarchy, would the Queen go and live in another one of her realms, like Canada?

[Invicta]

Oh so it say a King is a King in the Bible and defines it as a King only if over a city.  I guess I've never seen it.  I don't see what the difference is. Whats the point? If God considers them a King then I would guess what God would attribute to a King would apply.  I see the Bible making any distinction. 

Ge 14:8  And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;)     

Ge 19:22  Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.