Why does King James deserve his name on your Bible?

[Bismarck]

I understand that Scripture is by no means ambiguous in its condemnation of homosexuality. (See Leviticus 20:13, for example.)

King James was a rampant sodomite, especially with his Catholic advisor Geroge Villiers (who thereby successfully outcompeted Anne of Denmark, James' estranged Protestant wife, for the King's attentions).

Therefore, why do we call our favorite version the "King James [the Sodomite]" version?


For the record, it was the PURITANS -- the very same as those onboard the Arabella and Mayflower, and likewise the same as Oliver Cromwell -- who had petitioned James for the right to publish an English bible. Interestingly, according to a Bible Radio program I heard in Oregon by Dr. Burke (? -- his last name began with "B"), when the Puritans arrived in New England, they carried not the KJV, but the 1599 GENEVA Bible with its valuable 'Geneva Bible Commentaries'. You see, the Puritans made numerous demands of James. James, the son of Mary Queen of Scots who was Queen Elizabeth of England's Catholic arch-rival, came from the staunchly Catholic, and Catholic French allied, Stuart family. (In fact, Stuart is the French spelling of the older Scottish Stewart, which shows the French influence.) And James, as afore-said, was heavily influenced by his Catholic advisors. As such, his reign began the rolling back of the Reformation in England that would eventually lead the Puritans to arms under Cromwell in 1645.

So, James was averse to the Puritans, and refused all their demands save one -- he AUTHORIZED the 'Authorized Version' of 1611. But even this single "pound of flesh" he stripped of its COMMENTARIES, and his translators further tweaked the text here and there for the same reason, namely to eliminate texts and commentaries that contradicted his "Divine Right" doctrine of kingship.

So, hailing the KJV as if it were in honor of KING JAMES, when in fact he was, in all but overt name, a CATHOLIC who REFUSED the Puritans ALL their demands, and even trimmed down the one scrap he deigned to throw them, is a travesty to history.

For sake of historical fidelity, the terms AUTHORIZED VERSION or PURITAN VERSION would be far more appropriate than KING SODOMITE VERSION.

FYI.

 

[robycop3]

Bismarck:

I am perhaps the most anti-KJVOism person on this board, but let's be honest about KJ himself.

The homosexual thingie was started some 20 years after KJ's death. He had 7 children by Anne; that's hardly a homosexual act.

It was the ANGLICAN LEADERSHIP who petitioned KJ for permission to make a new Bible. Why? because Henry VIII had made himself, and all successive English monarchs head of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II holds that office today, but, same as many of her predecessors, she allows the Archbishop of Canterbury to run the affairs of the COE.

The translator team was being assembled while QE I was still alive. When KJ took the throne, the clerics waited only to see what KJ's religious affiliation was, before petitioning him to allow them to make a new version. The Archbishop of canterbury at the time was Richard Bancroft, who quickly became a toadie to KJ, heaping ridiculous praise upon him.

KJ did NOT name the AV after himself. This was started by Bancroft, picked up by other clerics. (Bancroft died in 1610.) And the name wasn't used all that much during KJ's lifetime.

And KJ had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the actual translation of the AV!

Please, let's be FAIR when dissing the KJVO myth.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Welcome to the BB Bismarck.

I am going to have to close this thread. We have huge problems in the past with rancour and personal attacks in this particular section of the BB.

This post will be seen as inflammatory by many of our posters and the discussion will not be efifying to anyone.

Roger
C4K
Moderator