Featured Any one else think I slandered the Niv here?

This is the sum total of your argument...to which I will give two rejoinders:

1.) Provided that everything quoted is actually true....you apparently have read quite little of personal letters men wrote in that era.

NEWSFLASH:

These were NOT 19th century American Males.....men were MUCH more "poetic" and "intimate" in a way in that culture as they are now. Verbiage was more intimate by nature....

What we might consider to be very "gay"...was not seen as such in that era....think about David stating that the "love" he had for Jonathan was greater than the love of WOMEN!!! Only blaspemous God-haters like John Shelby Spong claim that that makes David "gay". They did not speak the way we Modern Americans do....so take anything written with a grain of discernment. How often would you call the "God-father" who kisses his male friends on the cheek (twice) of being gay?.....Go ahead...YOU SAY IT!!!! I won't.

2.) More importantly....these letters of yours simply DO NOT EXIST!!!! You cannot produce that letter. No-where on planet Earth....can those letters by James be produced by his own hand....All you have is statements of others (often political enemies) who CLAIM that that is what he wrote...

Produce James's letters and you have a documented case....you can't. That's a fact.

This is why no conclusive evidence can be produced. I'm sorry for you, but facts are obstinate things.

 

Does your "gayness" effect how you view this discussion?

 

No,the fact that he was a hom_se_ual did not affect the 1611 Royal Bible named after him.

 

I have reserved this book from my local library. It will take up to four weeks to have it pulled from central off-site storage. It may contain some of the letters you say don't exist.

The Wisest Fool in Christendom by William Lloyd McElwee

The fact is that there was a thread on this topic on BB a couple of years ago that had links to the actual text of the letters that King James had written. Now, you can say these letters do not exist until you are blue in the face or until your fingers start on fire from typing the same words on your keyboard but I have seen excerpts from the letters. They are quite explicit and believe me, they are not innocent terms of endearment in common usage in the 17th century.

They have been reproduced in a book "King James and the Letter of Homoerotic Desire"

What can we know of the private lives of early British sovereigns? Through the unusually large number of letters that survive from King James VI of Scotland/James I of England (1566-1625), we can know a great deal. Using original letters, primarily from the British Library and the National Library of Scotland, David Bergeron creatively argues that James' correspondence with certain men in his court constitutes a gospel of homoerotic desire.

Book details can be seen here:

http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9781587292729

I'm pretty sure the excerpts I saw had been pulled from this book and posted online. I've tried searching BB to find this previous thread but the search engine isn't very robust so I haven't been able to find it (yet). Maybe someone else can remember reading that thread and find it.

 

I may be mistaken.....Perhaps I should look into it more. It's been my understanding that many of those letters are re-constructs. Perhaps I need more info.

That being said....It doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway.

 

Then presumably, it didn't effect James' wife and 7 kids either.

 

Your statements regarding King James changing the homosexual items in the Bible are without warrant. Gays still tried to remain in the closet and it was best to leave that well enough alone. History is repleat with information on King Jame's gay activities and his "boy" friends. Go to Amazon and read some good unbiased history.

God preserved his Word but not only in the KJV it can be found in many translations. Only the original manuscripts which do not exist were word for word without error. This doesn't make our modern translation inerrant as to the Word of God.. Plus we know the KJV is a weak translation and quite outdated.:thumbsup:

 

Y-man,you are not off the hook from the very point of this thread. You have made at least two significan't lies about the 2011 NIV and have yet to support your lies even an iota. You better get moving.

 

A Question For You....

I just plain old disagree with ALL of what you just said....sorry...I suggest you re-read the following post by Bro.Heir in regard to the "gay" thing:

Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
This is the sum total of your argument...to which I will give two rejoinders:

1.) Provided that everything quoted is actually true....you apparently have read quite little of personal letters men wrote in that era.

NEWSFLASH:

These were NOT 19th century American Males.....men were MUCH more "poetic" and "intimate" in a way in that culture as they are now. Verbiage was more intimate by nature....

What we might consider to be very "gay"...was not seen as such in that era....think about David stating that the "love" he had for Jonathan was greater than the love of WOMEN!!! Only blaspemous God-haters like John Shelby Spong claim that that makes David "gay". They did not speak the way we Modern Americans do....so take anything written with a grain of discernment. How often would you call the "God-father" who kisses his male friends on the cheek (twice) of being gay?.....Go ahead...YOU SAY IT!!!! I won't.

2.) More importantly....these letters of yours simply DO NOT EXIST!!!! You cannot produce that letter. No-where on planet Earth....can those letters by James be produced by his own hand....All you have is statements of others (often political enemies) who CLAIM that that is what he wrote...

Produce James's letters and you have a documented case....you can't. That's a fact.

This is why no conclusive evidence can be produced. I'm sorry for you, but facts are obstinate things.



Now...as to your post above (see the portion I embolded and underlined)...are you REALLY certain that it was the Holy Spirit that actually led you to say such a thing about a translation of God's Word that He has blessed and used so mightily for so many years?

Plus...one other thing...I don't think..even for a "nano-second" that the KJV is a weak translation OR outdated....in any way,shape or form! I am only a high school grad (1973) with a few semesters of Bible college and by no means an english expert. Matter of fact...english was one of my worst subjects in public HS...barely passed...but I have no problem with the KJV and never have had. Just saying....!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Brother Greg,
You are correct. The implication in modern society of hair dressers, poets, fashion designers, etc as being gay occupations do not relate to the culture in that era. Also, whether or not King James was "gay" is immaterial, as his name was attached because he was king at the time. He contributed nothing to the translation other than the authorization.

There have been many posts about historical figures being gay or not based on documents. The fact is, we do not know. We were not there.

Also, regardless of all that, although I do not personally care for the KJV as a Bible to study day to day, I do not think it is a weak translation. I just see no purpose in the verily , verily and behold stuff when trying to understand Scripture. I use NKJV when in church to read along better, and the NIV when studying. I know it is probably not so, but when reading some of the threads on this subject, one gets the feeling that some think Christ actually said the KJV words as he spoke. It is the same mindset that thinks the Baptist hymnal with songs from 1700-1970 or so are sacred songs that the Lord authorized, and the new contemporary music is not appropriate. The fact is, if these folks listend to the Psalms as performed back then they would not like them either.

Many, many threads have been started on various versions, and the KJVO movement. If we could leave out the emotion, it would be fascinating if possible, to see the original Inspired documents, know what happened to them, and be able to compare the various versions in contention today for accuracy. If we knew the exact truth on the matter, many of us would probably be left eating crow.

 

Another sensible thread from Saturneptune. Props.

 

King James I authorized the making of the KJV, but there is no known historical evidence that he actually authorized its use after it was made.

King James I had a big influence on the making of the KJV. King James I made or approved the rules that were to be followed for the making of the KJV. That alone gave him a great deal of influence on it or control over it.

In addition, James I, as king and as head of the Church of England, appointed his archbishop Richard Bancroft to oversee the making of the KJV.

One evidence of the influence of King James I on the making of the KJV involves his divine right of kings view.

Edwin Bissell commented: “Whatever else James I might tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English Bible betrayed such definite leanings toward that tenet as the one made under his own direction” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Donald Brake commented: “James was particularly concerned about keeping the Puritans from gaining any direct influence on his favorite kingship doctrines” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 120). Adam Nicolson referred to the KJV as a “monarchist Bible” (God’s Secretaries, p. 60). In an article entitled “Whose ‘majesty’ were the KJV translators exalting?“ by Ken Camp, Laura Knoppers maintained that the KJV translators “had an agenda--to provide scriptural support for the divine right of kings” (Baptist Standard, April 21, 2011). Knoppers asserted that “the translation blurred distinctions between the attributes of God and attributes of the earthly king” (Ibid.). The 1611 KJV’s contents chapter heading at Ecclesiastes 10 for verse 20 is “Men’s thoughts of kings ought to be reverend.“ That comment was still found in a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 although it has one spelling change of “reverend” to “reverent.“ The same form of this comment as found in the 1769 Cambridge was still found in editions of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1872 and 1887 and at Oxford in 1868, 1876, and 1885.

 

Kudos...!

Like InTheLight I will say kudos to you as well SN. I don't have to agree with your position 100% to be able to say that it was a thoughtful and well-written post. Your comments on the music thing are interesting as well. I wish we had a music forum up here closer to the "Baptist Only" part of the board. Maybe we ought to start a thread in General Discussion on that topic. I don't have a "problem" with music that is "contemporary" (age-wise)...but rather in style and even more importantly the "substance" of what the words of the music actually say.

As to the Versions debate....I believe what I believe because it has been proven to me...to my own personal satisfaction...that the KJV is an accurate and perfect representation and translation of the Inspired Original Greek and Hebrew writings. For me...the "debate" on these matters has LONG been over. I am currently ONLY engaged in a declaration of the truths that I believe. I do believe though that none of US are infallible and that you are correct in one respect....that we may all be eating AT LEAST some amount of "crow" if the exact and perfect truth of all these matters was known.
Good Post Brother!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

You already provided the link about a week ago and I commented on it. Mr. Marlowe said nothing to the effect of your two wild,and unsubstantiated remarks. And as I said,Mr. Marlowe is not exactly an impartial figure as his closing statement of his "review" reveals.

 

The above is a bold-faced lie which you still have not come clean upon.

Many believe that. It has nothing to do with your two lies.