Good ole' King James -- the man

And David who in today's court would be guilty of pre-meditated murder was used by God to actually pen the Scriptures.

HankD

 

It shows that just as appealing to the gayness of King James is an irrelevant argument, so is appealing to the gayness of an English style consultant.

 

I reckon if KJ were indeed gay, he did more "switch-hitting" than Pete Rose. He fathered nine children.

But it doesn't really have anything at all to do with the versions issue, except that he and the AV translators were by & large Anglicans.

 

It doesn't matter at all in a versions debate.

I just hope he read his book before he died to see that Christ died for his sins.

The same way that I hope the lesbian reads the NIV before she dies, and gives her heart to the Lord.

It's so easy to get in these debates and *talk* about these people without ever stopping and thinking about their eternal lives.

 

*SIGHS* the slander from the mv "defenders" just never stops does it?

From http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/king_james_queer_.0

"Here is some excellent information from a book by Stephen Coston, "King James Unjustly Accused?" This is the best stuff I've ever read defending the character of King James.

It turns out that the younger man (George Villiers) that James is accused of having a homosexual relationship with, was taken as a "son" by James, after his father died at an early age. Not only that, but James' oldest son died young, and Villiers filled the void. Not only that, but James' own father died in his infancy (James ascended to the throne of Scotland at only One year of age) and he knew the hardships of growing up without a father. The terms of endearment toward Villiers were as from a father to a son. The terms were common speech of the day, and Coston gives countless examples of that. He also gave many quotes of thankfulness to James from Villiers' mother for helping raise him, and from Villiers' wife for remaining a close friend. They would've not been likely to commend a queer. Three generations of the Villiers family lived in the palace with the ruling Stuart family. The families remained close long after James was dead and gone.

King James condemned homosexuality numerous times, he advised his own son to "Guard against corrupt leide ... and last of all, mignard and EFFEMINATE ones."

He also penned the advice, "But especially eschew to be EFFEMINATE in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like, and make not a FOOL of yourself in disguising or wearing LONG your hair or nails, which are but EXCRETEMENTS of nature."

I've never heard a homosexual castigate homosexuality like that!

James had many enemies. The Catholics hated him passionately. Many Brits disliked him because he was the first King of England of Scottish descent. The United Kingdom was first united under James' reign. He was the first to call the kingdom "Great Britain". His enemies are the ones who made the accusations. Enemies of God's word perpetuate the attacks. Nobody then thought James was a homo, the first accusations were not leveled until 25 years after he was dead.

James also was a saved man with a desire to spread the Gospel. Due to having the aforementioned enemies, there were many attempts to assault and assassinate James. He told one attacker, "Are you after my life? You can get it, but you will not get my soul". King James authorized the first charters establishing settlements that would become States in America, as well as the Mayflower Compact. All of these had evangelism of the heathen as their primary purpose. James also wrote against the masculinization of women in their apparel, and against the dangers of smoking.

He may have had faults like anyone, he may have made mistakes as King, but in general, we don't have to apologize for King James' character.

Follow up information:

Here is the promised documentation of defenders of King James' character. Some of them are from people of his own day.

First, evidences of James' salvation (and security):

James' comment to a sword-armed assailant (James had several attempts on his life. Four conspiratorial plots were uncovered, several individual attempts, and a number of James' associates were captured or murdered.) "Are you after my life? You can get it, but you will NOT get my SOUL." (Letters of King James by G.P.V. Akrigg)

Sanderson (referenced below) gives another account of James' similar response to a knife-wielding attacker, "Sir if you want my life you may have it, but you will NOT have my SOUL."

In his own work "Basilicon Doron" James wrote "I am no papist, as I have said before...", "Now FAITH is the free gift of God (as Paul sayeth)." "...white garments washen the blood of the Lamb (as St. John sayeth)...". "All that is necessary for salvation is contained in the scripture."

Maurice Lee said in "Great Britain's Solomon - James VI & I" , "Historians can and should, ignore the VENOMOUS charicature of the King's person and behavior drawn by Anthony Weldon..."

Robert Ashton in "James I, By His Contemporaries" said, "the treatises of writers such as Sir Anthony Weldon and Francis Osborne are characterized chiefly by their author's SPITEFUL and indiscriminate ANIMUS against the king. They are represented here not because of their value as accurate accounts of events which is negligible..."

Sir Edmund Coke wrote that, "Buggery (homosexuality) is a detestable and abominable sin amongst Christians...". He also wrote directly to Viscount Villiers, "And I, knowing the sincerity of his Majesty's justice, (for the which he is the most renowned King in the Christian world)..." (cited by Roger Magnuson in "Are Gay Rights Right? Multnomah, 1990 p. 111)

Peter Heylyn (1600-1662) was a historian and contemporary of James. He wrote "Examen Historicum A Discovery and Examination of the Mistakes, Falsities, and Defects in Some Modern Histories (1659). In it he denounced Weldon's book as an infamous libel.

The "Dictionary of National Biography" states that James was "decidedly pure" and did not "come into conflict with the Presbyterian clergy" in the field of "morality".

Anthony Wood (1632-1695) was a contemporary historian of James' era. He wrote "Athenas Oxonienses". he called Peyton's accusations "a most desperate and LIBELOUS book." "full of LIES, mistakes, and nonsense."

Sir William Sanderson (1586-1676) was another historian of the era who defended King James against his accusers. He penned "A Complete History of the Lives and Reigns of Mary ... and ... James. Reconciling Several Opinions ... in Vindication of Him, against two Scandalous Authors:" (Weldon and Wilson) He commented, "Their but infection hath poisoned others, who wilfully and maliciously, have now, very lately SPIT their VENOM in print as if the world had been more than since half hundred years last past abused, with a FALSE and FEIGNED story." he calls Weldon's work "his traitorous intention" and him a "pamphleteer of fables". Sanderson further defended James in "Aulicus Coquinariae", calling Weldon's diatribe a "FALSE story".

Other sources to look into for defense of King James include "The Literary Character" and an "Inquiry into the Character of James I" by Isaac Disraeli [also later works of his son, Benjamin] (1859) and "Curiosities of Literature" (1863). "The Life of King James the First" by Robert Chambers (1830). "Monarchs of Scotland" by Stewart Ross. The "Stuart Tracts" (1603-1693) put out by Cooper Square Publishers, NY.

One last quote, from F.A. Inderwick's "Side-Lights on the Stuarts", "James...language, however, both written and oral, partook too much of the grossness and RUDENESS of the age." Oh, no, King James was a "RUCKMANITE"!

Teno Groppi"


There are some facts for you all to ignore as usual.


Jim

 

I'd hope the lesbian reads the KJB and gets saved, and a new heart!!

 

Thanks Brother Jim, I had always heard the "homo" was just unfounded slander.

 

Welcome Precepts, but the thanks really should go to Teno Groppi and Stephen Coston for the research they did for both Teno's article and Stephen's book. We do have this book in out Church bookstore, after reading this article again, I do believe I will be purchasing it.

This reminds me, it is those who are opposed to having a final authority other then themselves who continue to spread these malicious lies about King James. With Virginia Mollenkott(sp?) we have documented information from her that she is a lesbian, and that this was known at the time the NIV committee had her working with them in whatever capacity it was.

Another tidbit that the mv "defenders" always seem to try to ignore is that King James didn't do any of the work on the Bible that years later came to carry his name, but was for many years, until the late 1800's I believe, just simply called "The Holy Bible".


Jim

 

What does it matter apart from his personal salvation? After all he had nothing to do with translating. He ordered, and translators translated.
And Precepts, are you insinuating that she can't be saved using a NIV? I could be wrong.
It doesn't matter what she uses to read Gods word from, I just hope she gets saved before it's too late. If that is the KJV, praise God. If it is the NIV, praise God.

Saved is saved.

 

True Tim "Saved is saved" I fully agree.


I would have to dig through my files (which may be packed away since I am expecting to be moving soon), but Miss Mollenkott does claim, I believe, to be a Christian. If she is claiming such, then why would yoou hope that she gives her heart to the Lord? I mean, isn't your denomination pretty friendly and accepting of the homosexual lifestyle? Or does that depend upon the region or individual Church? I can explain more about this question if you want me to. If not, it can die in your reply.

Salvation, thankfully, is found only in Jesus. I can, and have used, a nwt to lead lost members of the wtbts cult to salvation. But even though the true Gospel is in there, it's not a version I would suggest anyone read.

Anyways, I've been up late the last few nights along with getting up early each morning... doing lot's of study and for articles and Bibles studies that I have coming up. So I'm going to close off and head off to


G'night all.


Jim

 

Jim you said --"If she is claiming such, then why would yoou hope that she gives her heart to the Lord? I mean, isn't your denomination pretty friendly and accepting of the homosexual lifestyle?"

I was'nt aware she claimed to be a Christian. But just because she claims it doesn't make it so.

And no, no, no the ABC-USA does not support homosexuality. We are not affirming and friendly, or whatever.

What happened about 4 years ago involved 5 churches in the denomination that wanted to support it. The way the ABC is set up is:

1 Church has all authority (autonomous)
2 Church can opt to belong to local assoc.
3 local assoc. belongs to state, or reginonal convention.
4 convention belongs to ABC-USA

Because the 5 churches were thrown out of their local assoc. That broke all ties with the ABC-USA.
But... under ABC-USA's provisions a church may appeal the decision to ABC. In which a hearing is set up and a lot of red tape has to be cut through.

The ABC-USA can not, and does not dictate what local churches believe. That would go againstthe autonomy factor.

Therefore ABC-USA passed a resolution calling Homosexuality a sin, and incompatable with the Christian lifestyle. And then threw the decision back down to the local Assoc.

All of this took about two yrs to get accomplished. But because it took so long (red tape) we (ABC) now have a false image of accepting gays. If I can find it I'll post the actual resolution.

 

Here it is It is off the ABC-USA website. Under the resolutions link.

"8200:10/92
AMERICAN BAPTIST RESOLUTION ON
HOMOSEXUALITY

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted by the General Board of the American Baptist Churches by Mail Vote - October 1992

110 Yes, 64 No, 5 Abstentions"


I see my dates in the previous post were wrong..
Remember there is no doctrine that comes from the top down in ABC-USA. The churches have the ultimate voice in what goes on in their own congregation. But if a church errs, then the local association of churches can disfellowship that church.

 

Ok, I posted this, and the grand wizard froze it and closed my browser, so I am trying it again

I have always heard in WKU history classes that KJ was gay. He was never seen in public with ladies, and always with effeminate young men. Whether this is true or not I do not know.

I have also always heard that KJ was a mason. And that although the predominance of church going folks despise that secret society they are reading a Bible whose translation resulted from their efforts. And reading just what the lodge wants them to read.

(OOOH, more conspiracy theory)

Ok, My dad is a mason and is a staunch defender of the KJB and he is my source on the masonic influence through KJ.

The lodge has two paths a member can take by profession:

</font>

• York Rites</font>
• Scottish Rites</font>

The Scottish Rites (the best I remember) has in its ritual a recognition of Jesus Christ, as to the extent I do not know.

Of the founding fathers of our nation who are/were masons, it is along the way of the Scottish Rites they traversed. This includes George Washington, Jefferson, and practically all the Continental Congress (Don't forget ol' Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty---ya know the Boston Tea Party---they really weren't Indians ).

Any way, as to the eternal condition of ol James, I can't say. I can say I have always figured the 'gay' argument was fabricated (everybody knows political public figures are of a sound moral character). But, of his affiliation with the lodge, there is one I would really like to uncover.

Why? Because it would affirm the absurdness of the church(es) of opposing the lodge while reading in the Word of God exactly what the lodge wanted them to read. (paraphrase of my dad's words, of which I heard on several occassions in the last 34 yrs.) Both at home and since starting my own home.

I don't know. Just thought I would add this. While I recognize historically James sired children, this does not disprove his gaiety. In fact, it only proves his understanding of biology and the need for descendants to secure his throne

Just the ribbiting of a poor hill-billy frog.

Bro. Dallas

 

Thanks Tim for posting that resolution.


Jim

 

Saved is SAVED! and giving your heart to the Lord is not salvation. I've never said anyone couldn't be saved from the niv, or any other version that has a clear rendering of how one is saved. I know many who have "given" their whole heart to Jesus, for a little while anyway, then the Wind blew, they dried up and soon disappeared, then others seemed just about ready to burst with fruit, then suddenly get choked and die. (Parable of the Sower and the Seed) Nothing wrong with the (RIGHT) Seed, but the problem is with the soil.

Your bias energized by your mv ego (not onliest, too many mv's to be an onliest), is what helped you reach that possibility of a conclusion, sorry.

 

You know it's funny how "church" society is so quick to form a conclusion about anyone by what is spread through gossip, i.e., "I heard". I haven't done much study on the character of King James. I have realized The Holy Bible was eventually called the KJB due to the influence of those promoting mv's. What I have read about King James I/IV is all about a kind and gentle king, but the gossipping is all to be expected about any public figure.

What I see here is "milk and saucer" session, not a BV/T debate, but that is to be expected from the mv crowd in their efforts to attack the KJB by attacking one's person.

Just click your ruby red slippers together and repeat,"There's no place like home. There's no place like home." Should've at least listened to Toto.