The Real Story of King James I

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
Years ago when I came on these boards an article like this was received with amen’s and thank-you's. It is obvious that the ratio of liberals has changed since then and many people no longer stand by God's uncompromising word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understand that there are number of people who stand uncompromisingly on God's uncompromising Word who disagree with your position on the text. They are not liberals.

You should take some time to look through the threads here where the issues you bring up in your rather long paragraph have been thoroughly refuted and exposed to be false arguments.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
[qb]2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

qb]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ears itch for whitewashed stories about James to substantiate this KJVO doctrine which is not taught by any translation of scripture, including the KJV. Attempting to search for info about James, one will find the KJVO's have stocked the web with these whitewashed accounts. Fortuantely, there are to be found reasonably objective accounts by reference sources which report history without doctrinal or political motive...

From http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon46.html :

"His personality also caused problems: he was witty and well-read, fiercely believed in the divine right of kingship and his own importance, but found great difficulty in gaining acceptance from an English society that found his rough-hewn manners and natural paranoia quite unbecoming. James saw little use for Parliament. His extravagant spending habits and nonchalant ignoring of the nobility's grievances kept king and Parliament constantly at odds....
. James awarded over 200 peerages (landed titles) as, essentially, bribes designed to win loyalty, the most controversial of which was his creation of George Villiers (his closest advisor and homosexual partner) as Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham was highly influential in foreign policy, which failed miserably. James tried to kindle Spanish relations by seeking a marriage between his son Charles and the Spanish Infanta (who was less than receptive to the clumsy overtures of Charles and Buckingham), and by executing Sir Walter Raleigh at the behest of Spain."

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
Nice Try, but you cannot refute God's Word. Believe what you want, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get the idea I was refuting God's word? I certainly wasn't. I stand unapologetically for God's Word. I do not stand for doctrines that are not found in God's Word.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


If you are a defender of the KJV then you are a textual critic. Everyone who holds any textual position (Majority, TR, Eclectic) or even a non-textual position (KJVOnly) is a textual critic. It is impossible to hold a Bible in your hand without, at least tacitly, endorsing textual criticism.

BTW, who King James was and what he stood for is a non-issue. It doesn't matter. King James is not under scrutiny. It is a translation that is the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my goodness! A completely sensible, truthful and well-thought-out post. Doesn't that get you censured on this thread? (Answer: No, but it does get you attacked).

 

By the way, showing that Ruckman said one thing or another proves nothing. He has the veracity and consistency of Bill Clinton.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
I am terribly sorry that I was drawn into this debate. I was just hoping to post a good article about King James, which I thought was interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one can be drawn into a debate without their willing participation. You could have posted the article link, sans comment. It quickly became obvious that you do not even know what textual criticism is. Perhaps you should ask more questions than make dogmatic assertions and then attack with ad hominems?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
I was not aware of a different style. I have only ran into a style that caused doubt to the inerrancy of my Bible.

Perhaps there is a different descriptor I could use? As you have defined it here I have no problems with textual criticism. However I have always perceived a textual critic as someone that critiques. And by that definition we do not have the right to critique God's Word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry for taking so long to respond, but I have been having a very busy couple of days!

I can't say it any better than Dyson Hague did in his monograph entitled "The History of the Higher Criticism" which is the first chapter of "The Fundamentals" published by BIOLA in 1917.

"One of the most important branches of theology is called the science of Biblical Criticism, which has for its object the study of the history and contents, and origins and purposes, of the various books of the Bible. In the early stages of the science Biblical criticism was devoted to two great branches, the Lower, and the Higher. The Lower Criticism was employed to designate the study of the text of the Scripture, and included the investigation of the manuscripts, and the different readings in the various versions and codices and manuscripts in order that we may be sure we have the original words as they were written by the Divinely inspired writers. The term generally used now-a-days is Textual Criticism."

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barnabas:
Articles about King James, Ruckman, KJVOnlyism, and much more! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehehe. Thanks for the link.