Why did God used a evil king to make a great Bible, King James

[TheGloryLand]

God used this evil king, King James,  to make a great Bible, along with great men. scholars of the days, and those men that fear God, they also feared the king.

Don’t mess up, or off with your head.

 

[BrotherTony]

4 minutes ago, TheGloryLand said:

God used this evil king, King James,  to make a great Bible, along with great men. scholars of the days, and those men that fear God, they also feared the king.

Don’t mess up, or off with your head.

 

God uses whoever and whatever he will to accomplish his purpose. King James may have, by your estimation, been "evil". But, isn't all of mankind? Without Christ, every man is "evil." 

[TheGloryLand]

23 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

God uses whoever and whatever he will to accomplish his purpose. King James may have, by your estimation, been "evil". But, isn't all of mankind? Without Christ, every man is "evil." 

True, but he could have used Kings, prior or kings after him. I’m pretty sure when they got to the parts about homosexuality and lifestyles, they were fearful while doing the translations, not to get him upset. But I’m glad they stood firm.

[BrotherTony]

52 minutes ago, TheGloryLand said:

True, but he could have used Kings, prior or kings after him. I’m pretty sure when they got to the parts about homosexuality and lifestyles, they were fearful while doing the translations, not to get him upset. But I’m glad they stood firm.

There is no 100% proof that King James WAS homosexual...common attack...I'm not saying he wasn't, nor am I saying he was. We don't know for certain. 

[robycop3]

KJ didn't make the KJV. As titular head of the Anglican Church, he merely gave the Anglican clerics permission to make their new Bible version. It was called the KJV because his toadie, Archbishop Bancroft,  heaped lavish praise on KJ & credited him with things he didn't do with the new version.

[Jerry]

King James was not evil. You might not have liked his typical kingly authority, but that is an entirely different issue. He was not a homosexual - that is a lie created by modern version supporters to attempt to discredit that translation. He was also not involved in the occult, as some try to push as well - he wrote several books and articles against/exposing the occult.

But as Robycop said above, he was the one who "authorized" a version for his realm - he did not translate it.

[TheGloryLand]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

King James was not evil. You might not have liked his typical kingly authority, but that is an entirely different issue. He was not a homosexual - that is a lie created by modern version supporters to attempt to discredit that translation. He was also not involved in the occult, as some try to push as well - he wrote several books and articles against/exposing the occult.

But as Robycop said above, he was the one who "authorized" a version for his realm - he did not translate it.

I thought all kinds were evil, during the Mid Evil times.

[BrotherTony]

22 minutes ago, TheGloryLand said:

I thought all kinds were evil, during the Mid Evil times.

King James was no '"pure spirit," but, I wouldn't classify him as one of the purely evil people. 

[Jerry]

Apparently not. I can think of several that weren't. Obviously, in this case you were wrong.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Jerry

[SureWord]

James I biggest problem was he liked having witches burned at the stake but this what belief in Covenant Theology led to at the time. "Suffer not a witch to live". Just like Replacement Theology led to the slaughter of many Jews at one time.

King James behavior among the male members of the court may be normal from men in power at the time. Apparently, showing outward affection towards a wife was a sign of weakness and would make the king or any court official look hen-pecked and "cuckold". Wives were viewed at just as breeding machines to keep house. In some cultures, like among the Samurai, this led to pederasty (not pedophilia) among those in power. This behavior was almost exclusively practice in high society not among the vast majority of common people.

That being said, King James only gave his stamp of approval to the translation and where there is the word of the king there is power (Ecclesiastes 8:4).

[TheGloryLand]

On 5/23/2022 at 6:36 PM, SureWord said:

James I biggest problem was he liked having witches burned at the stake but this what belief in Covenant Theology led to at the time. "Suffer not a witch to live". Just like Replacement Theology led to the slaughter of many Jews at one time.

King James behavior among the male members of the court may be normal from men in power at the time. Apparently, showing outward affection towards a wife was a sign of weakness and would make the king or any court official look hen-pecked and "cuckold". Wives were viewed at just as breeding machines to keep house. In some cultures, like among the Samurai, this led to pederasty (not pedophilia) among those in power. This behavior was almost exclusively practice in high society not among the vast majority of common people.

That being said, King James only gave his stamp of approval to the translation and where there is the word of the king there is power (Ecclesiastes 8:4).

Did the king fear God, before the stamp of approval. Did he do it for popularity.

[BrotherTony]

Some historians give evidence that he made this translation in the English because the previous English language translations didn't lean heavily towards the King being all powerful, which is something that James I wanted his subjects to hold him as. So, in one respect, he did it to bolster his position. As to whether James feared God or not, nobody can truly be sure. I do believe he believed in God and his authority over all on earth, including kings.

[1Timothy115]

God uses who He chooses to complete the task (His will). Abram, Moses, Saul, David, Nebuchadnezzar, examine their lives and you'll find they were imperfect too. James must have demonstrated a characteristic which God decided would fit His purpose. It worked! we have the preserved Word of God for English speaking people.

[MikeWatson1]

King James did order to keep congregation and assembly out of the Bible and favored 'church' to support the church of England.  

He didn't want the puritans words for church.

 

 

[Jerry]

The word church perfectly relays the meaning of ekklesia (obviously the contexts of the passages need to be taken in consideration), so it does not matter if they used "church" instead of "assembly" or "congregation."