Kings James burns Baptist Preacher at Stake n 1611

Yes, the Church of England greatly persecuted many seperatists in the 16th and 17th centuries. King James had low tolerance for extremes from either end of the religious spectrum, he preferred a wide, middle road with the Anglican church right in the middle. Catholics on one side and Puritans on the other were generally not tolerated, and vocal ones who spoke against the Church of England were severely dealt with.

Chief translators and committee members of the KJV, such as Lancelot Andrewes and Richard Bancroft, were instrumental in such persecution. As "religion" and "state" were largely intertwined, and these men held high-up positions in both, it was their job (sometimes their zeal) to carry out such persecution. There are many many examples of putting people in prison for years at a time (without trial), carrying out executions (without trial), etc, for such things as starting a "local", house church separate from the state church, denying the authority of the Anglican bishops, promoting Calvinism, interpreting the Bible on their own (apart from Anglican tradition), etc.

It was this persecution that largely fueled the Puritans and early Baptists to flee England, and come to America a few years later. And bring the Geneva Bible with them.

What is quite amazing is that the KJV Bible itself is basically free of these sorts of issues and biases that swirled around its creation.

This book is a very interesting account of the religious and political issues surrounding the making of the KJV. I'm half-way through reading it, and I recommend it to anyone that would like to know more:

God's Secretaries : The Making of the King James Bible

 

The written order issued by the King for the death of Edward Wightman:

From this website: homepages.rootsweb.com/~sam/edw.html

 

It is interesting that some of the heresies charged against Wightman seem to be in contradiction to one another. I wonder if he actually held to any of them other than anabaptism?

Sad none the less that someone would have killed him in the name of Christ. Where is that authority given to a church?

 

Ive done some extensive study on King James and his history. I know two things concerning 90% of histories written about him: 1)Modern 'scholars' have an inherent disdain for him b/c of how the Lord used him--envy. 2)He is an enemy of Rome, and therefore hated among most historians. All attempts to tarnish his character are basic attempts to downplay the Bible he authorized. Concerning capital punishment at his time, it was NOT used as a sword against others beliefs. It WAS used to put to death criminals such as the Jesuits in the Gunpowder Plot. The case is made often that he must've been intolerant since Roman Catholic Jesuits were put to death, however the reason is that they were the ones who had made several attempts to kill him. He did the Vatican no service and they hated him for it.

 

In history class, the lecture noted that King James' fondness for very young men was expressed by having his favorite boyfriend of any given time sit on his lap during meetings at court. I know the Puritans despised and distrusted him because he insisted on retaining so many Catholic vestiges in the Church of England.

 

King James wasn't a queer. What a common accusation that began with Anthony Weldon, the disgruntled employee whose racism toward the English was equal to the "N" word for black folks. Anthony Weldon wrote a pamphlet indicting King James years after his death, so James had no defense against it. And it is only the accusations of a racist, ex-employee that all historians use as proof that King Jimmy was a queer. The fact is that King James was married to a woman, had many children that he loved. Stephen Coston's book "Was King James a Homosexual" is excellent. He doesn't regurgitate material.

 

bryan1276 said:

2)He is an enemy of Rome, and therefore hated among most historians.

His being an "enemy of Rome" must also explain why he kept trying to arrange marriages between his son Charles and the Catholic princesses of Spain and France.

All attempts to tarnish his character are basic attempts to downplay the Bible he authorized.



Concerning capital punishment at his time, it was NOT used as a sword against others beliefs. It WAS used to put to death criminals such as the Jesuits in the Gunpowder Plot.

What crime did Edward Wightman commit again?

King James wasn't a queer.

 

Ah yes,here we go again!! More rhetoric from those who do not "hate" the KJB;but rather,"prefer" and "use" the KJB.Did you not realize that a man can love another man in a way that is not perverted? Have you not read about Paul and Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:2? Are you going to falsley slander them too? Only perverts think like that!

No he was not a fruit loop;I leave you with this quote from King James' own pen:" They quarrel me not for any evil or vice in me but because I was King,which they thought the highest evil,and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions,and I warrant you a mote in my eye,yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon. Keep one ear for me not withstanding of many malicious tongues that do now boldly speak. "


Why dont you quit slandering people and deal with the PRODUCT they produced;after all that is the root of your problem anyway!!

 

Indeed, let us all apply that rule. So from here on, I would expect you to abandon the use of terms like "modernist" to create bias against non-KJVO's. Likewise, I would expect you to totally drop any references to the character, behavior, or theology of men like Westcott, Hort, Metzger, etc.

I am sure you want to be consistent and "quit slandering people and deal with the PRODUCT they produced". "After all that is the root of your problem anyway!!"

Look, it is the KJVO's the habitually insist on discussing the character and theology of the scholars who contribute(d) to MV's. I actually believe that it is something we should be concerned with and wary of. When we know that someone held certain beliefs or engaged in certain practices, we should look for indications that their work reflects those things.

However, I reject your double standard. When you criticize modern scholars, you feel justified but when the same critical light is turned on the men responsible for the creation of the KJV, you cry foul. You are ready and willing to believe contrived stories about W & H being involved in spiritism but reject out of hand the notion that King James was morally, theologically, or spiritually flawed.

I actually agree with your argument above in part. The only reason for involving the character or beliefs of the people involved in producing a translation is if the work is skewed by those factors. But YOU can't have it both ways. If you want to attack MV's by attacking the scholars behind them then it is perfectly legitimate for us to point out problems with those behind the KJV.

[ September 24, 2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

Did you not realize that a man can love another man in a way that is not perverted?

Sure they can. That being said, can you please explain to us what "way" of love is indicated by the phrase: "the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog"?

Have you not read about Paul and Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:2? Are you going to falsley slander them too? Only perverts think like that!

I'm sure even you can see there is a profound difference between "Timothy, my beloved child" and "the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog."

Why dont you quit slandering people and deal with the PRODUCT they produced;after all that is the root of your problem anyway!!

Personal correspondence between Buckingham and James is a "PRODUCT they produced"; the original of this particular letter is kept at the British Library.

BTW, did James have Baptists put to death, or didn't he? The silence from the KJV-onlyists is deafening.

 

Amen Scott,

We all need to take these Bible verses concerning double-standards to heart:

Deuteronomy 25
13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

 

Thanks Hank,

Just wondering what the KJVO's think the word "perfect" means in these scriptures?

Did all of them have perfectly identical weights and measures without any deviation? Do we even now with all of our technology have any two measuring devices that are in absolute callibration?

Or does 'perfect' mean consistent, reliable, faithful, fair, complete, etc.?

 

Interesting how many Christians these days are so eager to berate a 1611 Bible, while claiming tolerance for 200 versions printed after 1881. Interesting. What's the deal? They slander King James, but don't peep about open fruits on their NIV committees. Anybody have any clues about this devlish hatred for a book?

 

Not me.

Mind naming those 200 versions and telling us how many are in popular usage? I know of less than 10 that are actually used by churches today.

Most of the time we do this to show KJVO's how ridiculous it is to attempt to disparage a version based on the theology and practices of those involved in creating it. Now you want to be the victim... how typical.

I don't even like the NIV but this charge is false. One woman who was briefly an English style consultant several years later "came out of the closet" but she had nothing to do with the translation.

I happen to love "this" book and use it as my primary Bible. However I have disdain for the false doctrine of KJVOnlyism.

 

Scott J: no, i have not interest in rattling off 200+ names of modern versions. Glad you made my point that all character assassination of KJV is and always has been for the purpose of maligning a book. Thank you for admitting the fruit on the NIV committee. Just give equal time to her as you do to King Jimmy But then again, that doesnt play to your point, so you wont. Believing in one book is the trouble. If I said I believe the bible and then said that 200+ versions were "the Bible" I'd be safe and not the "victim". Apparently to mean what you say "I believe the BIble" and point to one sitting on your desk is a heresy for some reason. And then to know why you believe it exclusively and will not go for the W & H ideas that produced all new versions is heresy worse than rejecting Jesus Christ is to reject Westcott and Hort.

 

Actually i spend more
time berating an 1873 Bible, a MV called KJV.
I love the 1611 KJB.
I love the 1769 KJB.

Was your KJB delivered to the book store
by a gay boy? Really, you don't know, do you?

 

Amen, Brother Scott J -- Preach it!