Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Rufus_1611, Mar 26, 2007.
Would you please define what you mean by calling King James VI and I secular?
I'm not Roger, but this seems pretty simple. Both were monarchs over secular kingdoms. Thus they were secular. The British empire was not a theocracy. Pretty simple.
While awaiting Roger's reply, lemme say "I" also call KJ secular. He was appointed king of England by men.(He inherited the throne of Scotland)
He was a man, same as we.
He ruled by secular law.
He had little to do with the making of the BV that now bears his name, other than approving the plans already made by the Anglicans for a new version.
While all kings & other rulers have their offices by God's will, there's nothing indicating that God took special measures to place KJ on the throne as He did Saul & David.
KJ ruled in a quite-ordinary manner. He skillfully kept GB outta the horrible 30-years' War, & outta war with Spain and/or France, but he nearly bankrupted the Treasury on unneeded projects. He is largely-responsible for the popularity today of golf & soccer in England & Scotland, as he lifted the ban on those 2 sports. He was a fox hunter of legendary skill, and one of the, if not the best, golfer of his day.
The tales that he was both a coward & homosexual are untrue & were started some 25 years after his death by those sympathetic to Guy Fawkes & by a courtier dismissed from the palace by KJ.
He was simply a secular king who did nothing special in God's name.
I think you know that you have gone to far... the AV is an extraordinary achievement!
What do you mean by "both were monarchs over secular kingdoms" and "they were secular"? Who are the "both" and "they" you are speaking of?
LOL--Your english in your OP threw me. I thought you were saying King James VI and (King James) I. If you would have properly said King James the VI and me secular, I would have seen it. LOL... BTW...I don't say that as a criticism, just as an explanation. Because I am the worst at using "I" or "me". :laugh: :wavey:
Roger was not calling "me" secular nor was I asking him that question.
The King James of AV renown was King James the sixth of Scotland and King James the first of England. One person, two crowns.
King James = King James VI & I
Gotcha-it is time for me to get some sleep.
That pretty much sums it up. Although I am grateful for his commissioning of a modern version .
Its important to remember that our nation began because the pilgrims were fleeing the tryanny and oppression of King James. We even have a holiday to remember that.
With all due respect, Franklin, KJ had very little to do with the actual making BV bearing his name. He simply approved its making & approved a set of translation rules made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who was a toadie to the king & placed his name upon the rules. Though Bancroft died in 1610, the translation continued under his rules, and most likely it was his influence that pinned the name "King James Version" upon the new Bible.
Yeah, KJ wasn't too fond of Puritans.
But it was somewhat his desire, his budget, and all under his authority. He should get some credit.
Ah, but in a sense Britain was a theocracy. I won't get into the divine right of kings or any of that stuff, but the Church of England was and is the established or "official" church of the realm, and the King or Queen of England is and was the head of the established church.
But the fact is that all King James had to do with the King James version was to decriminalize its translation. Earlier translators had paid with their lives in many cases. He had nothing whatsoever to do with its content. That was done by the best ancient language scholars they had access to. King James had no control over the process.
Unless I've got my history completely off base, the reason the English monarchy was the head of the Church of England was because they proclaimed themselves to be so. The monarchy didn't want to be chastized by the church for it's less than holy lifestyle. Being head of the church meant the monarchy was beyond reproach - by church officials at any rate.
I'm willing to give King James credit. He authorized the translation. I am grateful for that.
For those of you making mention of the poor old puritans having to escape the tyranny of King James, remember that as the Declaration of Independence was being signed there were Baptists in the USA in prison for being... wait for it... Baptist!
I admire the USA, and I love Americans, I even married one, but let's give not miss out some details.
HA! There you have it! We are ALL sinners, saved by grace regardless of the orginating continent or the tyrant from which we flee. mmmmm fled, are fleeing, having thus fled . . .
No, he is 100% correct. Just because he put his stamp of approval on it does not mean that he had anything other than the "git-r-done" authority to make it happen and then slapped his seal of approval on it to tweak the Catholics.
He was just a man that God used inspite of himself. I whole heartedly believe that he burns in hell at this very moment.
Whole heartedly? Really? This is because he "tweaked" Catholics?
That may be the case, but really it is not for us to judge. I wholeheartedly believe that Jack the Ripper burns in hell at this very moment, but if with his last breath he accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior, then no matter what he did he wasn't cast into darkness.