If KJVonlyers were true to there stated beliefs, and studied what they claim, they would call for a return to the same Bible that our forefathers used. Our country was NOT founded on the AV1611, but on the Geneva Bible. They refused to use the Bible of the Anglican Church(Church of England) which was "authorized" by a homosexual, catholic king.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why We Use The KJV
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Please cite your resources that say that King James was a homos*xual and that the forefathers "refused" to use the KJV.
Are you aware that the call for a new translation (KJV) was done by both Anglicans and Puritans?
Michael is willfully ignorant of many things, Amy. He uses unfounded rumor, vile political attacks, and outright falsehood to attack the bible, and those who use it, that King James actually had nothing at all to do with.
James was never a Catholic. He was raised a Scots Presbyterian. That was one of the main reasons so many of the English noblemen feared him. He, as "Defender of the Faith" as part of his duties as King set the tone for how the Church of England (which broke away from the Church of Rome in 1535, 76 years BEFORE the KJV was published and 31 years before he was born!) was to function, and it was feared he would abandon the Episcopal form of government adopted by the Church of England in favor of the Presbytery of the Church of Scotland.
Oh, and the good king never got around to "authorizing" the KJV. The only thing he ever did was to agree to the desire for a new, unifying, translation (which was part of the Millenary Petition of 1603), appoint Bishop Bancroft to oversee the work, and formulate the rules to be followed.
It would seem that Michael's favorite pass time is wallowing in his own ignorance.
It's an established fact. It has been documented here before. You couldn't have missed it Amy.
I will quote from Alister McGrath's wonderful book :In The Beginning
" Further concerns were expressed over the king's increasingly obvious homosexual tendencies, which led to certain royal favorites being granted favors that were the subject of much comment and envy.Robert Carr,some twenty years younger than James,was one such favorite:he became the earl of Somerset in 1613.Although James fondled and kissed his favorites in what was widely regarded as a lecherous manner in public,the court was prepared to believe that his private behavior was somewhat more restrained. (pps.170,171)
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Get specific.What lies are you referring to? (Aside from the belief that KJV James was Roman Catholic -- he was actually unregenerate).
I doubt if anyone who's read my posts will accuse me of being KJVO, but let's stick to the FACTS when denouncing that doctrine. Doc Cas covered a lotta them, but as for KJ himself, he fathered SEVEN children, hardly something a HS would do.
The HS rumor was started by a man named Anthony Weldon, who'd been kicked outta KJ's court for his constant & consistent criticism of the Scottish people. Weldon had sworn revenge, and he allegedly wrote a paper called The Court and Character of King James 1 in which the HS allegation was made. This paper was not credited to Weldon until 1650, two years after Weldon's death, 25 years after KJ's death. One must remember that in 1649, the second English Civil War ended with the defeat of the Royalists under Charles 1, KJ's son, who was not exactly popular with many people at that time, and, with Oliver Cromwell in power, denunciation of the royal family was common. Thus, the writings citing KJ as a HS are actually of uncertain authorship, even though Weldon is a likely candidate.
At any rate, the accusation is most likely false, given the writings of KJ himself who warned his sons against illicit sex, including homosexuality.
There are more than enough FACTS to show KJVO as wrong, without resorting to smear tactix, which makes us Freedom Readers appear as off-key as the KJVOs are.
Boy are you ever wrong there!
No smear tactics (and of course the charge is itself a smear).
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I agree 100%. There is no real historical evidence of the charges. If they were against anyone but King James they would be discarded.
He is no hero of the faith. I do not defend him as some type of majestic figure worthy of our veneration, but there is no need to use poor history to attack him.
- Status