Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
This slander, that King James I was a sodomite, has been raised before, and the body of evidence to support it is seriously lacking. The evidence against it is monumental. It is also a straw man argument similar to the straw man argument against the NIV because one of the advisors regarding English style was a lesbian.
King James had nothing to do with the translation of the version which bears his name, and Virginia Mollenkott had nothing to do with the translation of the NIV.
Let's keep this discussion on an intelligent, factual, level.
That's fine with me, Thomas, Here are the FACTS and supported assertions I found. Where are yours? Btw, no one said he was a sodomite...any more than you are a phillistine. The claim is that he was a homosexual, and there are facts to support this.
But it may all boil down to what you "choose" to believe regardless of the facts and support (ie; like believeing the Bible, Koran, Boof of Mormon, etc.). And I apologize if the following history offends you, but I didn't write it.
"King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.
The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations. The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying. James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court
on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.
History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear." In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King James was we can easily discern his motives. James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the
common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated February 10, 1604, he ordained:
That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:
(references to text within the URL)
1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication, let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as little as possible.
3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation," etc. That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church — exclusively.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
All excerpts from Global Insights.
***For verification of King James homosexuality, I got my info from Global Insights. You can also find more info at Otto Scott's "James I: The Fool As King" (Ross House: 1976), pp. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382; King James-VI of Scotland/I of England by Antonia Fraser (Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1975)pp. 36, 37, 38; King James VI and I by David
Harris Willson, pp.36, 99; James I by his Contemporaries by Robert Ashton, p114; and A History of England by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Vol. 4, p.112. Check also A LITERARY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Geddes MacGregor who has devoted a whole chapter entitled "QUEEN" JAMES.
In the Beginning, by Alister McGrath, pp. 170-71
The Mammoth Book of Private Lives by Jon E. Lewis, pp. 62,65,66
James White also makes mention of it in his book, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY.
See also King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young
and King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Moore Bergeron, both available on amazon.com
For those people who feel that the above is a result of the attack on King James by the 17th century tobacco industry are ignorant of the fact that his behavior and personal life were quite well known to his contemporaries. " He disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his
favorite men." ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA-pp. 674,675 "
The URL for this can be found here;
queen james
Okay Thomas......your rebuttal with support please.
[ May 15, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Barnabus Collins ]
Where was the REAL words of God before 1611, when there were many versions? Why is the KJV different from all of them, if the word of God already existed? (You do believe the word of God existed before 1611, don't you?)
