Featured Any one else think I slandered the Niv here?

Today seems to be a day for over exaggerated statements.

 

It's true. He has not put forth even a single example;no exaggeration at all.

 

It doesn't matter. Nothing about this subject could be "reckless". That is hyperbole at best. You are taking this deal way to seriously making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

So you think lightly of the truth. The truth doesn't matter to you. Someone can say false things and slander at will and it is no big deal to you. Let me ask you if a genuine Christian is called upon to have this attitude according to Scripture.

 

You do not like his view so you characterize it in the worst possible light in order to tear him down. I do not believe he has any intent to lie or slander. And you have made an accusation about his character that is of yet unproven. So I would say that you are in the same boat as him.

 

What he said was untrue and slanderous. "The worst possible light"? Shall we now extoll lying? Shall we cover up false statements and say it's my problem not his? When do you think he has crossed the line so that he will take responsiblity for what he says?

 

No it isnt. He has got you pegged.

 

King James, commissioner of the Bible translation that bears his name, corresponded with three principal male favorites—Esmé Stuart (Lennox), Robert Carr (Somerset), and George Villiers (Buckingham). Esmé Stuart, James' older French cousin, arrived in Scotland in 1579 and became an intimate adviser and friend to the adolescent king. Though Esmé was eventually forced into exile by Scottish nobles, his letters to James survive, as does James' hauntingly allegorical poem Phoenix. The king's close relationship with Carr began in 1607. James' letters to Carr reveal remarkable outbursts of sexual frustration and passion.

A large collection of letters exchanged between James and Buckingham in the 1620s provides the clearest evidence for James' homoerotic desires. During a protracted separation in 1623, letters between the two raced back and forth. These artful, self-conscious letters explore themes of absence, the pleasure of letters, and a preoccupation with the body.

http://www.uiowapress.org/books/pre-2002/berkinjam.htm

http://rictornorton.co.uk/kingjame.htm

 

And how do we know this is true?

 

We Don't......

Sighhhh...I guess we just have to take ITL's word for it and believe everything that is said in those weblinks. Oh well....I guess their word is as good as anybody's. Sighhhh! It HAS to be true...it's on the Internet!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Thanks....

RSR....thanks for the clarification on that...I had forgotten about Murdock's link to Zondervan as well. Either way...whether it is a publishing license or a copyright...it is ALL about money to them and it puts $$$$ in Rupert's smutty hands which may in turn finance some of his pornographic enterprizes as well. Not a good thing.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Actually the sources are scholarly works; the books are merely referenced on the internet. Like this:



http://books.google.com/books?id=sF...ory of England By James Franck Bright&f=false

Go to page 597 and read:

The first of [his favorites] was Robert Carr, for whom the King acquired a peculiar affection while he was lying wounded from an accident at a tournament. Carr had been his page in Scotland, and the King, feeling a natural interest in him, visited him and fell in love with his beauty. [...] Already before the death of Cecil the presents he received to win the King's favour had made his fortune. His royal lover had made him Earl of Rochester and Knight of the Garter.

 

Doesn't Really Matter...

ITL...I've seen stuff like this before and don't really put much stock in it. Why should we trust such conjecture when the AV 1611 (which King James put his stamp of approval upon ) was clear in its condemnation of such activity or behaviour? If the King was as queer as you and your buddies are trying to suggest (and THAT just for the purpose of dis-crediting and defaming the Bible translation that he commissioned) I think it is likely he would have manipulated his translation committee to alter the text so as not to condemn the "pleasures" you and others attempt to suggest that he engaged in.(Kings do tend to have the power to order such things ...you know?) I also do believe that historians are not exempt from having "agendas" thus we have to weigh their words, ideas and statements carefully. What I do know is that the King James Bible is the ONLY translation of the Original languages from the time it was put into print that hasn't monkeyed around with the text and added to or taken away from the Word...and the very Word(s) of the Holy Scriptures. It is a totally superior Book. I know that there are many here that will object to such a statement and say I don't know what I'm talking about but frankly, I don't care....because I believe God and I do revere His Word for what it is...the inspired, inerrant, infallible, perfect, preserved Word and Word(s) of the living God. I don't know if King James was a saved man or not...but God used him in his time and ordained that one of the things that emerged from his "rule" would be the most significant and blessed translation of His Holy Word that the world would ever see in the Laodicean church age. It has been (and still is) the most loved and hated Book of all time bar none. It is worth fighting and dying for.
IF...and I do say IF King James had any homosexual tendencies then (#1) it had no effect on the text of the Book he "commissioned" and finally (#2) he has long since faced up to his Maker about the sins and works of his life here on earth. We will ALL certainly do exactly the same. The question for each of us is....what is OUR standing and state in the eyes of our Holy God?

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Yes, and he apparently did manipulate the translation committee. Just look at 1 Cor. 6:9b. Homosexuality is rendered "abusers of themselves with mankind." The KJV is the ONLY popular translation that ducks the word and inserts an obtuse phrase.

9 ...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [KJV]

9 Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, [NKJV]

9 Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality [ESV]

9 Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [NIV]

9 Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals [NASB]

9 Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, [HCSB]

Agreed that historians can have agendas. But this information on King James is buried on page 597 of a history book, for example. It's there is you look for it, but historians are not trumpeting it from the rooftops (as you'd suspect if there was an agenda.) Furthermore, I invite you to find historians that dispute the idea that King James I was NOT a homosexual (or bisexual).

There is no IF...

OK, so why is it fair for you to link Rupert Murdoch's ownership of the publication house that holds the copyright to the NIV Bible to his ownership of pornographic material but it's unfair for me to point out a king that decreed a Bible be translated and held the copyright, was a homosexual?

 

So let me get this straight. You are comparing modern translations to a 1611 translation in order to make your case? Really? Is that all you got?

 

Absolutely. It goes directly to the discussion. Try to follow along now.

The question was brought up: Wouldn't King James have manipulated his translation committee to alter the text so as not to condemn the "pleasures" you and others attempt to suggest that he engaged in? I then provided proof that the actual word "homosexual" or the phrase "men having sex with men" does not appear in the KJV at 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead there is a vague phrase, "abusers of themselves with mankind." Which neatly shows that the activity was obscured in the KJV.

 

Ok let me help you out here with something almost everyone else knows. Comparing the 1611 KJV Language with 20th century language to prove a phrase out of the 1611 language is wrong is just ...well there isn't a word for it but maybe absurd.

The way words and phrases were used then can not reasonably be compared to what is done today. Your comparison fails to prove your point.