-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
King James The Man
- Thread starter Rufus_1611
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Rufus_1611 said:
He also "tweaked" baptists and forced them to use his modern version of the scriptures, refusing them the right to use the version they loved and cherished.
Rufus_1611
New Member
C4K said:
Do you also whole heartedly believe he's damned in hell?
Where do you find evidence that King James forced anyone to read a Bible or from a certain Bible?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Rufus_1611 said:
Why do you always seem to lump all those who oppose you view into one circle. I have no idea where James is today?
After 1611 the new, modern version was the only authorized and acceptable version in the kingdom. That is part of the reason the Puritans fled to the New World with their trusted Geneva Bibles.
I don't have time to redo the research for you - perhaps someone else has it to hand.
Actually, Henry VIII made himself head of the Anglican Church in 1536. he did NOT found the Anglican Church; it'd been around since the 6th C. AD when the Pope sent St. Augustine to tryta get the Celtic christians more in line with RCC policy.
However, the British retained some independence, which later Popes accepted, rather than to have to face a full rebellion by the English. But Rome still exerted mucho control over the Church of England.
The murder of Thomas a' Becket in 1170 was the beginning of a slow but sure break with Rome by the Church of England. It culminated in 1536 when the RCC challenged the authority of henry VIII. Backed by a very powerful military, Henry severed ties with Rome & decreed that henceforth the British monarch would be head of the Church of England. This is still true today.
Traditionally, the British monarchs have been nominal heads of the Church; even Henry interfered little with its operations; "Bloody Mary" had nothing to do with it at all. Neither did KJ, but the Anglican clergy needed his permission to make the new Bible version. He authorized them to make it; thus it was at first called the "Authorized Version of 1611".
The first authorized version in English was the "Great Bible", named for its physical size, of 1539, authorized to be read in churches by Henry VIII, who ordered his secretary, Sir Thomas Cromwell, to have it made. Myles Coverdale did mosta the translating.
Next was the Bishop's Bible of 1568, which the Anglican clergy persuaded QE I to authorize to be read in churches. Then came the AV 1611.
KJ I also had very little to do with running the Anglican Church. He left that to the Archbishops of Canterbury, who were in KJ's day Richard Bancroft (from 1604, D. 1610) & George Abbot(from 1611, D. 1633) He was a "rubber stamp" king, far as church affairs went, almost automatically approving any request from the Church.
Did KJ have his faults? Of course he did. He emptied the Treasury on useless projects. he spent mucha his time playing golf or hunting foxes. He had more than one Puritan & more than one Baptist burnt at the stake for 'heresy', condemned by his Court of High Commission or his Star Chamber, the Anglican instruments of the British Inquisition.
He was an autocrat who clashed frequently with Parliament; he sought to greatly limit its authority.
During his last years, he was beset by several ailments, which pushed him into early senility. His son Charles did mosta the day-to-day ruling.
The rumor that KJ was gay was begun in his lifetime by his RC enemies tho reminded anyone who'd listen that KJ usually appeared in public in the company of another man, rather than his wife Queen Anne. However, the rumor persisted after his death becausa a paper written by one Anthony Weldon, a courtier banished from the palace by KJ for siding too often with the RCs & Parliament. Note that Weldon wrote his paper in 1650, 25 years after KJ's death.
I think the main reason the AV became known as the KJV was because of the influence of Archbishop Richard Bancroft & several of the translators who were KJ's toadies, who almost worshipped the ground he walked on, and in whose eyes he could do no wrong. Thus, KJ received undue credit for the making of the AV.
However, the British retained some independence, which later Popes accepted, rather than to have to face a full rebellion by the English. But Rome still exerted mucho control over the Church of England.
The murder of Thomas a' Becket in 1170 was the beginning of a slow but sure break with Rome by the Church of England. It culminated in 1536 when the RCC challenged the authority of henry VIII. Backed by a very powerful military, Henry severed ties with Rome & decreed that henceforth the British monarch would be head of the Church of England. This is still true today.
Traditionally, the British monarchs have been nominal heads of the Church; even Henry interfered little with its operations; "Bloody Mary" had nothing to do with it at all. Neither did KJ, but the Anglican clergy needed his permission to make the new Bible version. He authorized them to make it; thus it was at first called the "Authorized Version of 1611".
The first authorized version in English was the "Great Bible", named for its physical size, of 1539, authorized to be read in churches by Henry VIII, who ordered his secretary, Sir Thomas Cromwell, to have it made. Myles Coverdale did mosta the translating.
Next was the Bishop's Bible of 1568, which the Anglican clergy persuaded QE I to authorize to be read in churches. Then came the AV 1611.
KJ I also had very little to do with running the Anglican Church. He left that to the Archbishops of Canterbury, who were in KJ's day Richard Bancroft (from 1604, D. 1610) & George Abbot(from 1611, D. 1633) He was a "rubber stamp" king, far as church affairs went, almost automatically approving any request from the Church.
Did KJ have his faults? Of course he did. He emptied the Treasury on useless projects. he spent mucha his time playing golf or hunting foxes. He had more than one Puritan & more than one Baptist burnt at the stake for 'heresy', condemned by his Court of High Commission or his Star Chamber, the Anglican instruments of the British Inquisition.
He was an autocrat who clashed frequently with Parliament; he sought to greatly limit its authority.
During his last years, he was beset by several ailments, which pushed him into early senility. His son Charles did mosta the day-to-day ruling.
The rumor that KJ was gay was begun in his lifetime by his RC enemies tho reminded anyone who'd listen that KJ usually appeared in public in the company of another man, rather than his wife Queen Anne. However, the rumor persisted after his death becausa a paper written by one Anthony Weldon, a courtier banished from the palace by KJ for siding too often with the RCs & Parliament. Note that Weldon wrote his paper in 1650, 25 years after KJ's death.
I think the main reason the AV became known as the KJV was because of the influence of Archbishop Richard Bancroft & several of the translators who were KJ's toadies, who almost worshipped the ground he walked on, and in whose eyes he could do no wrong. Thus, KJ received undue credit for the making of the AV.
Rufus_1611
New Member
C4K said:
You responded to a post by an alleged Baptist, obvious ecumenicist and a possible Roman Catholic, suggesting that King James is damned to hell because he 'tweaked' Catholics and you say he also 'tweaked' Baptists. I was endeavoring to understand whether or not you agreed with the whole post you responded to or just a portion. I now understand and I apologize if I offended you.
Rufus_1611
New Member
robycop3 said:
...but it was nothing special.
Robycop3 said:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I always thought the main reason it became known as the King James Version was that it is merely inscribed as The Holy Bible on it's Title Page, and since there were other English versions available (such as The Bishop's, Matthew's, Geneva Bible, Rheim-Douay, etc.) it became necessary to ascribe to it an identity to distinguish it from other texts. The designation is obviously derived from the translator's dedication to "the Most High and Mightie Prince, Iames" (which followed the Title Page in the early editions). The rebellious American colonists may have denied to recognize any official status by avoiding the term Authorized Version.robycop3 said:
Does any one know the earliest documented recording of the AV being actually referred to as the "King James Version"?
Last edited by a moderator:
jshurley04
New Member
King James
No, simply because he was a scuzball like most of the other kings and queens of the day. I have found that no where in history does it point to KJ as being the saint that you assume him to be. Just because he wanted to thumb his nose at the RCC and the Pope does not mean that he was a great saint of God. I truely doubt that he knew God, to some degree he may have seen himself as above God because he was king.
The KJV was not an original work then nor is it an original work now. They simply wanted and official translation that was not tied to Rome, in the language of the day, and made an effort to revise the other good works that had already been produced.
It is just a work of presevation authorized by a scuzball king that is not any more inspired then, today or at any other time than any other work of preservation. Only the completed, accepted originals could be called inspired, the rest are just works of preservation. That is what God has promised in His Word!
Rufus_1611 said:
No, simply because he was a scuzball like most of the other kings and queens of the day. I have found that no where in history does it point to KJ as being the saint that you assume him to be. Just because he wanted to thumb his nose at the RCC and the Pope does not mean that he was a great saint of God. I truely doubt that he knew God, to some degree he may have seen himself as above God because he was king.
The KJV was not an original work then nor is it an original work now. They simply wanted and official translation that was not tied to Rome, in the language of the day, and made an effort to revise the other good works that had already been produced.
It is just a work of presevation authorized by a scuzball king that is not any more inspired then, today or at any other time than any other work of preservation. Only the completed, accepted originals could be called inspired, the rest are just works of preservation. That is what God has promised in His Word!
jshurley04
New Member
Stop the TRASH!
I will trash your position all day long and you may do the same to mine, you may even call my position heretical. I will take as a man, but please sir, tell me once where I have trashed you personally as you have just done to me? If you are still a teenager that has yet to learn how to be civil to others then please say so, so that I may respond accordingly. If, however, you have an inability to separate the conversation from the person and feel that you must trash me personally, then be man enough to do so in private.
Being called an alleged Baptist I can deal with. Some of my methods may not work in other places, and others will certainly have their opinion of them. Close friends of mine will even go as far as calling me a liberal based only on my methodology and not my doctrine.
However, calling me an ecumenist and a Catholic is simply out of line and out of place. I believe that as a Baptist there are certain groups that we can fellowship with, those of like faith and order. I also believe that we have no relationship past, present or future with the Catholic church and its cultic heresy. I have taken great offense with these remarks.
Also, one act of spirituality that benifits many millions of people does not a saved man make. Read his history, there is pleanty of activities that would lead most anyone to question his eternal state. He was not "damned" to hell by the RCC, but rather by, as it seems to me, his life that seems to reject any fruit and very probably since he was the head of his church, his arrogance that he could save himself. If you want to trash something, trash that.
Sir,Rufus_1611 said:
I will trash your position all day long and you may do the same to mine, you may even call my position heretical. I will take as a man, but please sir, tell me once where I have trashed you personally as you have just done to me? If you are still a teenager that has yet to learn how to be civil to others then please say so, so that I may respond accordingly. If, however, you have an inability to separate the conversation from the person and feel that you must trash me personally, then be man enough to do so in private.
Being called an alleged Baptist I can deal with. Some of my methods may not work in other places, and others will certainly have their opinion of them. Close friends of mine will even go as far as calling me a liberal based only on my methodology and not my doctrine.
However, calling me an ecumenist and a Catholic is simply out of line and out of place. I believe that as a Baptist there are certain groups that we can fellowship with, those of like faith and order. I also believe that we have no relationship past, present or future with the Catholic church and its cultic heresy. I have taken great offense with these remarks.
Also, one act of spirituality that benifits many millions of people does not a saved man make. Read his history, there is pleanty of activities that would lead most anyone to question his eternal state. He was not "damned" to hell by the RCC, but rather by, as it seems to me, his life that seems to reject any fruit and very probably since he was the head of his church, his arrogance that he could save himself. If you want to trash something, trash that.
Rufus_1611
New Member
What are your thoughts on Basilicon Doron? Was it a devil that wrote that treatise in the guise of a Christian?jshurley04 said:
I see nothing in his writings that would indicate this belief. Perhaps you could substantiate your allegations with data?
What is it that he did to you exactly that causes you to believe him to be a "scuzball" and damned to hell? What are your thoughts on Guy Fawkes? Friend or foe of Christ?
Rufus_1611
New Member
I'm being lectured about civility by a guy who calls a dead Christian a scuzball and wholeheartedly believes he's damned to hell. If I misrepresented you, then I extend my apologies, if you are misrepresenting King James, I pray you will offer yours.jshurley04 said:
jshurley04
New Member
Disagree
However, that does not make him a saved man. Show me his personal testimony of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone and I will reconsider my position. But I doubt that it is out there.
I cannot agree that King James was any more than a savy monarch that used his position as King to his own advantage. After reading one of the things that you posted concerning his writings I would also add that he had a form of spirituality. I in no way would agree that he was a righteous man in relation to Jesus Christ. He used the Church of England the same way as the Pope used the RCC, to further his personal wealth and fortune. Do I believe that KJ is a scuzball? Yes I do, just like good old Abe Lincoln was a scuzball. Do I believe that KJ is in Hell? Yes I do, just like the vast majority of Popes of the RCC. Did KJ do some good spiritual things, eventually, yes. But it took time for it to be seen as a good thing. Even had to correct a few things several times so that it could be a good thing.Rufus_1611 said:
However, that does not make him a saved man. Show me his personal testimony of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone and I will reconsider my position. But I doubt that it is out there.
Mongol Servant
New Member
The latest
Read "King James, His Bible, and It's Translators," by Dr Lawrence M. Vance. Published by Vance Publications. This will clear up many misconceptions about his character, his position, and The Man.
raying:
Read "King James, His Bible, and It's Translators," by Dr Lawrence M. Vance. Published by Vance Publications. This will clear up many misconceptions about his character, his position, and The Man.
raying:Rufus_1611 said:
==Last night I was re-reading the opening chapter of William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation" and once again I was amazed at the rather harsh language he reserved for the heads of the Church of England. I rather imagine that he would have agreed that King James I was "damned to hell" because Bradford would have considered him to be the head of a false church (full of popery as Bradford put it). It seems that Bradford would have thought nearly the same thing about Edward VI, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I. He viewed what he considered their compromise as a very serious matter.
I think this is a very interesting subject (separatists, puritans, Church of England, coming to America, King Philip's War, etc).
Mongol Servant said:
==Looks like a very interesting book. However after reading some excerpts from it on amazon I have to wonder about the author's neutrality. It "seems" as if he starts with the premise of King James Onlyism and works from there. That is just the impression I get from the excerpts on amazon. Still it looks like a very interesting book.
Rufus_1611
New Member
Martin said:
He does have a KJVo bias. If you'd like to get a greater feel for his positions and writing style, you can find many articles here -->http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance-arch.html.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I'd listen to
But they use RealPlayer (name is copyrighted, I don't dispute
the copyright, only the evil results) and I won't be feeding
a third computer to RealPlayer (name is copyrighted, I don't dispute
the copyright, only the evil results).
I can't get RealPlayer to play something from S/W Radio
but it will play spam. Sorry, I've been fighting for control of
my own computer - I don't need ReatPlayer (name is
copyrighted, I don't dispute the copyright, only the evil results).
But they use RealPlayer (name is copyrighted, I don't dispute
the copyright, only the evil results) and I won't be feeding
a third computer to RealPlayer (name is copyrighted, I don't dispute
the copyright, only the evil results).
I can't get RealPlayer to play something from S/W Radio
but it will play spam. Sorry, I've been fighting for control of
my own computer - I don't need ReatPlayer (name is
copyrighted, I don't dispute the copyright, only the evil results).
Last edited by a moderator: