Featured The NIV Is In Good Company

I have read them. Understood in the cultural context of the late 16th early 17th century they are quite common, using the language of the British Court.

Perhaps if you would study a little more history, and read some of the writings from that day, you would be able to understand.

Are you one of those people who think David and Jonathan were gay lovers?

1 Samuel 16:21 And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armour bearer.

1 Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

Context, context, context.

But, of course, it is impossible to read what I posted in context simply because you refuse to read it. Read James' book Basilicon Doron. It will open your eyes (if you lay aside your preconceived notions and let it).

 

Yes, such a baseless accusation is usually a diversion from the actual topic at hand by those less than able to offer factual discussion.

 

And as it has been noted above, James I & IV didn't sit on any of the translation committees.

 

Yes, of course. A man writing in the 21st century is privy to secrets nobody in the 16th or 17th century were privy to. And using such devastating words as "widely regarded" and "prepared to believe." And who was it at court who had an ax to grind against King James? Oh yes! Anthony Weldon. You remember old Anthony, right? Dismissed from the court for his pathological xenophobia as evidenced in his book "A Description of Scotland?" You remember, the same guy who supported Parliament during the English Civil War and approved of the Regicide of Charles I, but did not live to see it. A man described as "kind to his friends but a bitter enemy to those who crossed him." Like James I and his son Charles I.

 

More nonsense. Failing to understand the flowery court language common in England over 400 years ago, taking it completely out of context and ascribing to it that which is only in the hearts of those who have fallen for the "gay agenda:" To claim most people of history to have been sodomites so they can point out how great and wonderful such sin is.

Virginia Mollenkott is a red herring being used by ignorant haters of the NIV to avoid discussing the actual merits of the NIV, just as the false charges against James I are used by ignorant haters of the KJV to avoid discussing the actual merits of the KJV.