Homosexuality, reglion and contradiction

[dacontinent]

The translation reflects the fact that the man wanted people to be loyal to the king and government. The translation reflects the fact that the man hated women, even to the point of having his own mother killed.
Look at how the bible treats it's women and allows for them to be treated in both the Old and New Testament. Women were treated as third class citizens. Paul commanded them not to speak in church and TO KEEP SILENT. That's some equality isn't it?

Why is this particular version called "The Authorized Version"? Who authorized it before it was allowed to go into print? A known homosexual and hater of women named King James, so yes, the translation does reflect who he was as a person.

Though this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, you have shown that you are ignorant of the King James translation, who did it, how and why it was done.

To prove my assertion I ask that you answer these simple questions:

1. How many groups of translators were there?
2. Where did these groups do their research?
3. What was their background: academic or religious?

 

[JayRob]

Though this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, you have shown that you are ignorant of the King James translation, who did it, how and why it was done.

Post your evidence showing that what I stated about King James is incorrect.

To prove my assertion I ask that you answer these simple questions:
[*]How many groups of translators were there?
[*]Where did these groups do their research?
[*]What was their background: academic or religious?

To prove your assertion, don't ask questions. Post your evidence that I'm ignorant of the King James translation.

 

[dacontinent]

The translation reflects the fact that the man wanted people to be loyal to the king and government. The translation reflects the fact that the man hated women, even to the point of having his own mother killed.
Look at how the bible treats it's women and allows for them to be treated in both the Old and New Testament. Women were treated as third class citizens. Paul commanded them not to speak in church and TO KEEP SILENT. That's some equality isn't it?

Why is this particular version called "The Authorized Version"? Who authorized it before it was allowed to go into print? A known homosexual and hater of women named King James, so yes, the translation does reflect who he was as a person.

If the KJV reflects those things then those elements should be different in the translations that preceded it. Is that correct?

 

[dacontinent]

To prove your assertion, don't ask questions. Post your evidence that I'm ignorant of the King James translation.

You will have to post the answers to those questions in order for me to do that. We must first see what you don't know in order to establish ignorance.

 

[JayRob]

If the KJV reflects those things then those elements should be different in the translations that preceded it. Is that correct?

No it wouldn't need to be. This just shows that King James put his extra spin on the treatment of women and how subjects should be loyal to their king and government.

 

[JayRob]

You will have to post the answers to those questions in order for me to do that. We must first see what you don't know in order to establish ignorance.

In post 76, you obviously already have the evidence you need, seeing that you called me ignorant of the King James translation, so I'll ask again, post where I'm ignorant of the King James translation.

 

[dacontinent]

No it wouldn't need to be. This just shows that King James put his extra spin on the treatment of women and how subjects should be loyal to their king and government.

You should be able to show this by posting parallel passages of the Geneva and King James where it was done.

 

[dacontinent]

In post 76, you obviously already have the evidence you need, seeing that you called me ignorant of the King James translation, so I'll ask again, post where I'm ignorant of the King James translation.

Well...I could be wrong. I said ignorant based on what you posted.

At the time, other English Bibles existed, but King James did not like the most popular translation, the Geneva Bible, because he felt that some of the marginal notes encouraged disobedience to kings. So when a Puritan scholar, Dr. John Reynolds, suggested a new English translation of the Bible at a 1604 conference of bishops and theologians at Hampton Court Palace, King James readily agreed.

Since you didn't post what happened, I called you ignorant. So, I should have given you a chance to post what the agreement was and how it was implemented. Please accept my apology for getting ahead of myself. It would be great of you to post what happened at this point.

 

[JayRob]

You should be able to show this by posting parallel passages of the Geneva and King James where it was done.

Since you put the label on me, it's you who needs to post the parallels.

 

[dacontinent]

Since you put the label on me, it's you who needs to post the parallels.

From what I have found, the text regarding women and submission to kings and authorities is the same. If you know somewhere that it is different, the post the differences. Otherwise, my conclusion is that they are the same.

 

[JayRob]

So you agree that a homosexual wrote the King James version? Eventhough you have no problem condemning the lifestyle of homosexuals, you have one to thank for translating the most popular version of the Christian bible. How ironic is that?

 

[96lioness]

So you agree that a homosexual wrote the King James version? Eventhough you have no problem condemning the lifestyle of homosexuals, you have one to thank for translating the most popular version of the Christian bible. How ironic is that?

What's the difference in an alleged homosexual having the Holy Bible translated into English than a former persecutor going out and spreading the Gospel? Saul persecuted Christians but God still used him to spread His word. Moses killed a man but God still used Him to do His work. David committed adultery and then had an innocent man killed to cover it up, but God still used Him. God is no respecter of persons. He wants our praise and our worship. And if it will bring souls to Him, He will use anyone, even homosexuals.

Besides, King James had the Holy Bible translated; he took nothing nor added anything to the Holy Bible.

 

[JayRob]

What's the difference in an alleged homosexual having the Holy Bible translated into English than a former persecutor going out and spreading the Gospel? Saul persecuted Christians but God still used him to spread His word. Moses killed a man but God still used Him to do His work. David committed adultery and then had an innocent man killed to cover it up, but God still used Him. God is no respecter of persons. He wants our praise and our worship. And if it will bring souls to Him, He will use anyone, even homosexuals.

Besides, King James had the Holy Bible translated; he took nothing nor added anything to the Holy Bible.

Just wanted to make a point that a homosexual is responsible for the King James versions, that's all. It is kind of funny though. (no pun intended).

 

[dacontinent]

So you agree that a homosexual wrote the King James version? Eventhough you have no problem condemning the lifestyle of homosexuals, you have one to thank for translating the most popular version of the Christian bible. How ironic is that?

No, I do not agree. Even if King James was a homosexual, he did not write nor translate the most popular version of the Christian Bible. What he did was to authorize and FUND the project of the translation of the Bishop's Bible to English. Ironic? Maybe.

 

[JayRob]

No, I do not agree. Even if King James was a homosexual, he did not write nor translate the most popular version of the Christian Bible. What he did was to authorize and FUND the project of the translation of the Bishop's Bible to English. Ironic? Maybe.

So in essence, a known homosexual was responsible for the King James version? I'll accept that admission on your part. The average person has no idea that a known homosexual had the power to authorize a book they hold so dearly to their heart. If it wasn't for this homosexual, perhaps such a version would've never seen the light of day.

 

[dacontinent]

So in essence, a known homosexual was responsible for the King James version? I'll accept that admission on your part. The average person has no idea that a known homosexual had the power to authorize a book they hold so dearly to their heart. If it wasn't for this homosexual, perhaps such a version would've never seen the light of day.

You hold that King James was a homosexual. I disagree. James did not authorize the Book. He authorized a scholarly English translation of a version of the Book. We have the same text in the Geneva Bible. So, the point is really moot.

 

[JayRob]

You hold that King James was a homosexual. I disagree. James did not authorize the Book. He authorized a scholarly English translation of a version of the Book. We have the same text in the Geneva Bible. So, the point is really moot.

Say what? He didn't authorize A, but he authorized A? Enough with the semantics and denials.
If the Geneva bible is so popular, why aren't you and many others reading it then?

Dacon, it's time to get over your prejudices and admit that ole King James, regardless of his sexual preference, was the main person responsible for the King James version. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Why don't you do a Sunday school lesson on the subject and enlighten some of your students? They'd find it very interesting I'm sure. And if you want to, you can use my sources since they're more honest and objective than yours.

 

[dacontinent]

Say what? He didn't authorize A, but he authorized A? Enough with the semantics and denials.
If the Geneva bible is so popular, why aren't you and many others reading it then?

Dacon, it's time to get over your prejudices and admit that ole King James, regardless of his sexual preference, was the main person responsible for the King James version. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Why don't you do a Sunday school lesson on the subject and enlighten some of your students? They'd find it very interesting I'm sure. And if you want to, you can use my sources since they're more honest and objective than yours.

Let me say it again: King James did not authorize the Bible; he authorized a translation of The Bishop's Bible to English.

We cover the history of the Bible in History of the Bible Class instead of Sunday School. As I alleged before, your lack of knowledge of the history behind the King James version of the Bible is showing once again. If you knew better, then you would be better able to articulate his involvement with the translation.

 

[JayRob]

Let me say it again: King James did not authorize the Bible; he authorized a translation of The Bishop's Bible to English.

We cover the history of the Bible in History of the Bible Class instead of Sunday School. As I alleged before, your lack of knowledge of the history behind the King James version of the Bible is showing once again. If you knew better, then you would be better able to articulate his involvement with the translation.

You forgot to mention one thing....a known homosexual was responsible for the most popular bible translation of all time. Don't forget to mention this to your bible class.
Here are notable sources:

--King James' favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham.
- Ben Edward Akerly, The X-rated Bible

--James's sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying "King Elizabeth" had been succeeded by "Queen James."
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne

King James 1 was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his "divine right" of kings.
- Otto J. Scott, James the First

 

[96lioness]

You forgot to mention one thing....a known homosexual was responsible for the most popular bible translation of all time. Don't forget to mention this to your bible class.
Here are notable sources:

--King James' favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham.
- Ben Edward Akerly, The X-rated Bible

--James's sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying "King Elizabeth" had been succeeded by "Queen James."
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne

King James 1 was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his "divine right" of kings.
- Otto J. Scott, James the First

I'm confused...........what is the point you're trying to raise Jayrob? No one seems to care that an alleged homosexual, who was King of England authorized for the translation of the Holy Bible to English. It still doesn't disprove that the Holy Bible is still the top selling book of all time.

As for your eagerness for Dacon to pass this on to his Sunday School class, I point out again that the Holy Bible has in it people who were sinners but heard, obeyed, and performed the Will of God:

Noah was a drunk
Jacob lied about his birthright
Rahab was a prostitute
Samson betrayed his secret
David was an adulterer
Jonah disobeyed God and tried to run from Him
Saul used to persecute Christians

All were used to do God's work, and all helped convert souls to Him, and all have been the subject of Sunday School lessons and sermons. All of these people lived lives contradictory to God's Word, and He still used them for His purpose. So, what is the difference in learning about them than learning about an alleged homosexual who authorized the translation of the greatest top-selling book of all time?

 

[JayRob]

I'm confused...........what is the point you're trying to raise Jayrob? No one seems to care that an alleged homosexual, who was King of England authorized for the translation of the Holy Bible to English. It still doesn't disprove that the Holy Bible is still the top selling book of all time.

As for your eagerness for Dacon to pass this on to his Sunday School class, I point out again that the Holy Bible has in it people who were sinners but heard, obeyed, and performed the Will of God:

Noah was a drunk
Jacob lied about his birthright
Rahab was a prostitute
Samson betrayed his secret
David was an adulterer
Jonah disobeyed God and tried to run from Him
Saul used to persecute Christians

All were used to do God's work, and all helped convert souls to Him, and all have been the subject of Sunday School lessons and sermons. All of these people lived lives contradictory to God's Word, and He still used them for His purpose. So, what is the difference in learning about them than learning about an alleged homosexual who authorized the translation of the greatest top-selling book of all time?

There's a vast difference between King James and the people you mentioned above. King James never repented of his homosexuality and his motive for authorizing was selfish. It had nothing to do with doing the work of the biblical god.

 

[96lioness]

There's a vast difference between King James and the people you mentioned above. King James never repented of his homosexuality and his motive for authorizing was selfish. It had nothing to do with doing the work of the biblical god.

When I was in junior high, we of course had to read Shakespeare. When we were on Macbeth (my favorite work by Shakespeare), we had to do a study on King James, since there was a part from Macbeth based upon his authorization to have women tortured and sentenced to death for alleged withcraft. I don't recall anything about him being an alleged homosexual. But maybe I missed something.

If King James was a homosexual, and if he never repented for this (I don't know; wasn't there), it still proves nothing. Millions of people have read the Word of God, many practice Christianity, many worship Him and love Him, and many acknowledge God for who He is: the Creator of Heaven, Earth, and all within the Earth. It still doesn't or didn't stop millions from buying the Bible and believing what's in the Bible. All King James did was authorize for the Bible to be translated to English. So again, what is your point?

And I don't know or won't say this had nothing to do with the will of God. I don't know if God put it on King James' heart to have His word translated, but I do know that millions of people now have the opportunity read, study, and apply the Word to their lives should they choose. And I don't see how that cannot be the work of the most High, the most Holy, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God Almighty.

 

[dacontinent]

96lioness, ease up on ol' JayRob. Remember, his point about King James was merely the irony of who gave the authorization. KJ had nothing to do with the text itself.

 

[96lioness]

96lioness, ease up on ol' JayRob. Remember, his point about King James was merely the irony of who gave the authorization. KJ had nothing to do with the text itself.

~sighs~.....I suppose I better digress now. I was taught that it is unwise to argue over the Word.


It's truly amazing how atheists/agonostics/nonbelievers/non-Christians don't acknowledge God and/or His Son Jesus and/or His Word, but yet they use scripture from His Word to refuse/refute/dispute Him. Ironically enough, they contribute to the Holy Bible being the top selling book of all time, even if it was authorized to be translated to English by an alleged homosexual.

And now Dacon, I will respectfully digress.

 

[JayRob]

96lioness, ease up on ol' JayRob. Remember, his point about King James was merely the irony of who gave the authorization. KJ had nothing to do with the text itself.

Ease up on JayRob for what? She made some valid points, but it still doesn't negate the fact that King James did nothing on behalf of a biblical god. For folks to give anyone credit, the credit should strictly be given to King James himself.

Folks want to attribute ALL good things to the biblical god, but are closed-mouthed when it comes to being honest about his many atrocities.