Featured Any one else think I slandered the Niv here?

I've always wondered who wrote the NIV from the 1960's. The farthest I got was 100 scholars from various places.

 

What do you think, personally?

 

He sounds like a horrible person. Do you believe this is true?

 

Then maybe it should not be presented as if there is.

 

To begin with: It matters not ONE WHIT whether he WERE a flaming homosexual or not. That's a genetic fallacy.....

(I no more fault the lesbian on the NIV translation issue than I think your "gay-baiting" here is valid)
BOTH of those arguments are equally stupid.

Secondly...I think you have some Extremely limited understanding of how to objectively study history. Your sources are particularly questionable. Norton has an OBVIOUS agenda....You were asked for real sources ...not the those of a public homosexual and gay activist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rictor_Norton :laugh::laugh:
I do congratulate your man for finally tying the knot with his gay lover in 2005! :thumbs:

Here's the long and short of it...There's as much objective evidence of James' homosexuality as there is for Alexander the Greats....which is to say, spurious and incredibly inconclusive at best. You've been duped my friend.

 

WASHINGTON D.C. (AP) - In a somewhat surprising announcement three right wing Christian groups - the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition and Americans For Truth About Homosexuality - have announced that they were urging their members to cease using the King James Version of the Bible, known as the KJV.

The King James Version was commissioned by King James I of England (also known as James VI of Scotland) and produced in 1611. Scholars are now fairly certain that James was a homosexual. Biographer David Harris Willson who authored "King James VI and I" is in no doubt. "Oh, yes. James had a number of 'favorites' such as the Earl of Somerset, and the Duke of Buckingham with whom he undoubtedly had sexual relationships."

 

Do you have a link for that? I searched 2 of those sites and couldn't find anything.

 

Nevermind. I found it. It's some whacko obscure website. Not a reliable source.

 

And....again, for every source you quote which claims he was knowably a homosexual....I promise you, I could raise you 1 source which claims that that is not provable. I do credit you for finding an actual legitimate historian this time though.
Fundamental fact....he was a married man whose wife bore him 7 children.........SEVEN....how many children did your wife bear you hetero-sexual super-stud???
He was admired for his "chastity" in his youth according to real sources Like (and I quote) Will Durant<----that guy is an actual historian too.

However....if James were alternatively a simple man-whore in his younger years, than I have ZILCH doubt that you would detract from the real argument by lambasting him for his lack of hetero-sexual scrupples. That man couldn't win in your head no matter WHAT his sexual proclivities were. But we can certainly waste copious amounts of time yacking about un-provables like this.

The thing is this....it wouldn't matter if James commissioned the KJV or if Mickey Mouse did. It wouldn't matter if it was Ru frikkin Paul, it's utterly immaterial either way. He didn't translate the thing any more than that lesbian on the NIV task force did....It simply doesn't matter.

 

The Encyclopedia of the Renaissance observed that the "English mocked his [King James] personal habits and his liking for handsome young courtiers" (p. 224). British Authors Before 1800 reported that James "created scandal by his subservience to handsome masculine favorites" (p. 290). The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor & Stuart Britain noted that King James's "capriciousness and sexual infatuations with attractive young men were forces for instability" (p. 247). The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain also referred to King James's "homosexuality" (p. 307) as do William Seymour's Sovereign Legacy: A Historical Guide to the British Monarchy (p. 192), C. P. Hill's Who's Who in History (p. 3), The New Cambridge Modern History (Vol. IV, p. 533), The Illustrated Dictionary of British History (p. 157), Gilbert's The Norton History of Modern Europe (p. 322), Fry's History of Scotland (pp. 166-167), MacCulloch’s The Reformation (p. 496), and Boyce's Shakespeare A to Z (p. 315). Historian Will Durant also wrote of this problem in the character of King James (The Age of Reason Begins, p. 136).


The reference work entitled Historic World Leaders noted that James referred to George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, as "his sweet child and wife" (Vol. 2, p. 673). Roger Lockyer pointed out that "Buckingham himself provides the evidence that at Farnham he at last gave in to the king's importunity" (Buckingham, p. 22). Lockyer cited that Buckingham later wrote to James about pondering the question "whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog" (Ibid.). Lockyer also cited where James wrote to Buckingham the following: "I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow's life without you" (Ibid., p. 233). David Riggs also affirmed that Buckingham himself alluded to his questionable relationship to King James I in his letters (Ben Jonson, p. 270). Riggs noted that "Sir Henry Yelverton had stunned the House of Lords by comparing him [Buckingham] to Hugh Spencer, the homosexual favorite of Edward II (p. 270). In a biography about this king, Fraser also dealt with his problems with his homosexual favorites (King James, pp. 36-37, 123-126, 168). Sir Walter Scott referred to the lack of "manly firmness in James VI" (Scotland, p. 130). Michael Young claimed that minister Thomas Scott in 1622 preached that James should "flee from Sodom" and eschew the company of "Sodomites" (King James, p. 53). Cole stated: "Certainly his behavior was not usual and bordered on the abnormal, but how gross his perversions were it is impossible to determine after three hundred years" (Human History, Vol. 1, p. 319).

In his book defending King James, Stephen A. Coston, Sr. contended that the majority of historians are wrong in their view that James was a homosexual and that there is not a preponderance of evidence to support their claim (King James, pp. 134, 288-289). One premise of Coston's book seemed to be that James was a godly ruler; therefore, he was not a homosexual (Ibid., p. 341). Stringer also claimed: "The character and record of King James clearly refutes the charges of homosexuality against King James" (Real Story of King James I, p. 11). However, the overall available evidence may not confirm these KJV-only claims and the evidence clearly does not show that James had a godly character.

KJV-only advocates seem to accuse many historians of having a strong bias against King James, but they do not prove their accusation with a preponderance of evidence.

The fact that King James wrote some statements against sodomy in his book Basilicon Doron does not prove that he could not have committed any such acts. James also condemned willful murder in his book, but yet he persecuted believers and had some professed believers, who had committed no acts worthy of capital punishment, put to death (in effect murdered). Paine noted that James "had promised no bloodshed over religion," but he did not keep his promise (Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). He also severely condemned swearing in his writings, and yet his conversation was filled with oaths and swearing. In his writings, James also denounced marriages between persons of different religions, and yet he arranged the marriage of his "Protestant" son to a Roman Catholic wife. Perhaps because of his divine right of kings view, King James I considered himself above the laws and rules that those under him should follow.

 

It's a news release. How can it be a wacko website?

 

Yet you have not done so.

Kings are expected to produce heirs. Being married and/or having children does not preclude someone from having same sex relations.

Wow. Just wow. I'm failing to see the relevance of your question to the topic.

Not only are you super-smart but you can read minds as well...

So far the only rebuttal to the allegations are:

--Certain historians have agendas
--Historians that allege these things are not credible.
--The allegations are un-provable.

without any supporting evidence.

I agree. So you would also agree that Rupert Murdoch owning the publishing house of the NIV and also owning pornography businesses had nothing to do with the quality of the NIV translation? (This is where this thread diverted.)

 

Logos1560, thank you for doing the research. Of course, the rebuttal must be that all those historians have an agenda!

 

Uh...you need to reread this thread. There in fact has been supporting evidence. But then it doesn't matter with you, you will push a bad position regardless.

 

Amy, I currently don't think King James was a homo- , but I have not done exhaustive research into this particular question (since it is not important to me personally). This is the minority position.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_1AlBZ5eho

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_king_james_a_homosexual.htm

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/kjv/notqueer.html

http://www.psalm118.org/story_of_king_james.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm43ZQ9kMJg

 

Bump for ITL.

 

In The Beginning by Alister E. McGrath

"Futher concerns were expressed over the king's increasingly obviosly ho_os_xual tendencies...Although James fondled and kissed his favorites in what was widely regarded as a lecherous manner in public,the court wa sprepared to believe that his private behavior was somewhat more restrained." (170,171)

 

Of course!!! I don't care if Murdoch DOES own said publishing house....it's immaterial.

But gay-baiting is equally as stupid....why would you follow suit?

Here's a quick note on how to read those histories....what you will find is that the so-called "evidence" of James' homosexual trysts...is that they are:

1.) INVARIABLY written by Englishmen.....(this is signifigant because he was a SCOT)! James was the first king of BOTH Scotland and England and many Englishmen resented him for it.

2.) The first allegations came from a sworn political enemy of his (an Englishman) whom he had imprisoned 50 years after he had died; who had sworn to ruin him.

3.) Every implicating letter is from a secondary source which "quotes" what James wrote....NOT an original letter. NO original letter exists from his own hand. An original is what historians call a "Primary" source, and they are authoritative.

Mind you: This doesn't mean that there is NO truth to the rumors.....there might have been, but it isn't conclusive.....If someone wanted to print mere lies about James, they would find something that they thought was somewhat believeable. I have no doubt that if one wanted to merely slander say....Ghenghis Khan....whatever they did, they wouldn't pretend he was a homosexual.

 

A cartoon character adamantly declares the King James was not gay! Certainly not! No way! Sorry, not very convincing. No discussion and/or rebuttal of his love letters to other men.

Article alleges that King James' physical deformities (he slobbered, walked with a limp requiring him to lean on people) are misinterpreted as his being gay. Anti-Scottish bias and being snubbed by the King is the reason that false accusations about him were spread about him being gay.

No discussion and/or rebuttal of his love letters to other men.

Asserts that King James was saved and postulates that his relationship with George Villiers was likened to a father/son relationship and the terms of endearment between the two were innocent. Then lists a bunch of people that condemn Anthony Weldon's assertions that James was gay.

No discussion and/or rebuttal of his love letters to other men.

Gives a history of James along with some testimonies to his upstanding character. Cites the book by historian Steven Coston. So we have one historian that has written a book defending King James and a half dozen others historians alleging he was gay.

No discussion and/or rebuttal of his love letters to other men.

Video claims the two journalists that recently accused James of being gay don't have any proof. Contains a link to a written article that goes over James' upstanding moral character, the fact he was married, and brings up the Anthony Weldon incident again.

No discussion and/or rebuttal of his love letters to other men.