The NIV

I found this quotation by doing a Google search. It pretty much sums up certain of the issues relating to Virginia Mollenkott:

 

An interviewer asked Dr. Mollenkott, "why was it important to both you to come out as lesbians?" Mollenkott answered, "My lesbianism has always been a part of me." If you get the NIV, support her?

 

King James was NOT homosexual when he was alive on the Earth. After he died, many said he was a homosexual. No evidence! The reason is because King James had many enemies.

 

Askjo:An interviewer asked Dr. Mollenkott, "why was it important to both you to come out as lesbians?" Mollenkott answered, "My lesbianism has always been a part of me." If you get the NIV, support her?[/i]

Mollenkott made very little money from the NIV publishers, and was never part of the translation committee. And it doesn't matter what she is, no more than it matters what some of the AV translators were. That whole argument is silly from either side of the fence.

King James was NOT homosexual when he was alive on the Earth. After he died, many said he was a homosexual. No evidence! The reason is because King James had many enemies.

And KJ had nothing to do with the actual translation of the AV. His rules of translation were actually made by Bancroft, who showed them to KJ, who approved them. Again, KJ's personal life had nothing to do with the AV.

 

Sorry, Askjo, but Good ole James was known to have the occaisional party at the palace that included him having casual flings with persons of the same gender as he.

But technically, you're right. He wasn't homosexual. He would actually have been bisexual. Argue it as much as you like, but history records it as such, and it's not speculation.

That being said, I don't think that has any bearing on the translation work of the KJV.

 

Actually, history does not record James engaging in homosexual behavior. Speculation in that respect started over 25 years after his death, and can be traced to a disgruntled office seeker. Every such charge against James can be traced to that one very biased source. It would behoove us to stick to the facts and not engage in idle and often untrue speculation. It is the sodomite community which has picked up the "homo" ball regarding James, and is running with it. They have done the same with many major persons of the past in an attempt to make their own perversion seem less depraved and more mainstream. We should avoid contributing to their revisionist history and thus lending credibility to their perverted life style.

 

I'm sure that the AV1611 translators were not saints.

Even if King James was a tinkerbell then it really does not matter at all to me. I don't see where King James took out the references about Homos! Like wise I don't see the NIV taking it out either.

This KJVO lie about the NIV has been answered time and time again, but yet the KJVO Camp still runs with it.

Think about it. King James had enemies that slandered him. I have yet to see any evidence to support his sexual preferences or lack there of. If King James was 100% found to be queer would you put down your KJV and pick up a Geneva Bible?

In Christ,
David J. Horn

 

I remember in all this that God once used the lines in a goat's liver to convince Nebuchadnezzar to attack Jerusalem instead of Rabbah.(Ezekiel 21:21) God can use anything or anyone to accomplish His will, as well as simply causing it to be.

 

Interesting point robycop3. It is interesting that humans (including myself) keep trying to limit God's capabilities based on the sins and weaknesses of man. He created this universe and I think preserving His Word will not be limited to any human or their relationship with God.

We are ALL sinners. Some of us have accepted the gift of Grace from Jesus Christ. Some have not. Either way, we are God's creation and to think that we, as humans, can limit the capabilities of God is arrogance, to say the least.

By pointing to individuals who may or may not be right with God is simply putting a limit on our Father's power.

Is there anybody on this board who will say that they are right with the Lord to the point that they feel they could translate the Word of God based on "perfection" required by God according to the KJVo crowd?

I wouldn't want to say that I am that righteous. If the Lord can use me, for any service of his, it will have to be with my human weaknesses, too.

 

Yeah? What planet WAS he on when he was queer?

After he died, many said he was a homosexual.

And no one thinks he was one before he died?

No evidence!

other than a witness.

The reason is because King James had many enemies.

Rightfully so. I would gladly have been one.

 

What kind of spirit of ugliness could possess you to slander a man who has been dead for 350 years?

No. The first mention of his sexuality was made by Sir Anthony Weldon who had been dismissed from court by James I. After the insurrection which resulted in the death of King Charles I (James' son), Weldon accepted a position in the Protectorate. He was a bigot who had such a hatred of Scotland and all Scots that he would go to any lengths to disparage them. In 1659 he wrote a pamphlet, "A Perfect Description of the People and Country of Scotland" in which he made preposterous claims regarding the Scots people.

What most so-called "historians" fail to realize is that Weldon made his accusations of homosexuality against Charles I, in his pamphlet "Court and Character of James," after his "trial" and execution in an attempt to deflect the growing antipathy to regicide.

It was Francis Osborne, again, long after James' death, who first raised the allegations that James' interest in men was unusual in his pamphlet "Traditional Memoirs of the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I."

Really? Who?

So, are you admitting your accusations against King James are based in your animosity toward the man rather than in verifiable historical fact?

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way about James' sexual orientation, but I think that the argument that we shouldn't pay any heed to allegations of homosexuality simply because they weren't made until years after his death is not exactly compelling.

Who knew that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser until some time after his death? Would anyone have believed it while he was living? Those who did know didn't dare let it be known until after his death, due to the man's power & influence.

I remember Jack Kennedy. While he was President, who would have believed that he carried on numerous affairs while married to Jackie? Those who did know (and many did know) didn't make it public until years after his death.

How many other examples could be mentioned where some aspect of a person's life wasn't public knowledge until years/decades after their deaths? So I don't think it's proper to just dismiss something simply because the allegation wasn't made during their lifetime.

Once again, I'm just stating this in principle: I have no strong opinions regarding James I.

 

A couple more examples come to mind:

Thomas Jefferson fathering children with his slave Sally Hemmings: proven through DNA evidence 200 years later.

Strom Thurmond fathering an illegitimate child with his family's black maid. A few people knew this for decades, but it wasn't known by the public-at-large until after the one-time segregationist Senator's death.

 

Through David came many of the Psalms. Not a translation of the Psalms but the God-breathed inspired text itself in spite of his sins.

HankD

 

Well, actually, we don't know that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemmings. What we know is that a Jefferson did so. Remember, Thomas Jefferson had a brother, Randolph, who lived on the plantation, and was known for his frequent trysts with female slaves. All the DNA tells us is that the descendants of Sally Hemmings are related to Thomas Jefferson, possible through his brother Randolph. But this is another excellent example of something that "everybody knows" but, in fact, they don't really know at all.

And he acknowledged that youthful indiscretion and provided for that child. We are not talking about something such as you illustrate above. We are talking about unprovable and unproven allegations made against a man by those with obvious ulterior motives.

 

Skan,

O.K., of the four examples I provided, one is questionable.

Like I already said, I don't promote any claim whatsoever about King James. I don't know whether he was a homosexual or not, and I really don't care.

Question: Why is it so important to you that King James wasn't homosexual? To you, the matter seems to matter a great deal. Would it make a difference in your regard for the KJV if it were somehow established beyond a reasonable doubt that he was?

I just wanted to make the point that not every aspect of a person's life is always public knowledge during their lifetime, so I won't automatically dismiss something said about a person simply because it was said after their death.

 

Skanwmatos, you forget some important points.

First, there's never been speculation of Randolph having relations with Hemmings. However, Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings was a "worst kept secret" (mind you, his wife Martha was deceased, so infidelity was not at issue). James Callendar threatened to write publicaly about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings if Jefferson did not appointed him postmaster of Richmond (Jefferson ignored him). Callender printed his first story about the Jefferson - Hemings affair in the Richmond Recorder in 1802, and it was rerun in newspapers across the country. Jefferson refused to answer the charges publicly. (again, mind yo, this was not a case of infidelity, which would have been scandalous, but a case of a slavemaster having sex with a slave, which, well, was titilating and embarrassing, but not necessarily scandalous for an unmarried male slaveowner).

Consider also that Sally's child Eston (a Jefferson DNA match) was concieved while Jefferson was on a one week long vacation at Monticello (his duties as Sec of State, VP, and then POTUS kept him from montecello for long stretches of time).

Upon Jefferson's death, Sally's last two children, Madison and Eston, were freed in Jefferson's will.

In 1873, Madison Hemings told the story of his parents, Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, to a reporter from the Pike County (Ohio) Republican newspaper. The story was published on March 13.