So I missed service yesterday morning, by the Grace of God

[BrotherJon]

Yes, I missed service yesterday morning, and lucky for me, it appears the pastor started railing on King James and who he was and what he did, and how mean he was, and how he had the Bible written with changes he approved. I was told he mentioned a scripture in Corinthians in which the translators purposely mistranslated a verse because they feared King James, BUT the NIV and other modern versions had it correct.
The message was on what love is and what love isn't.
I wish I had the exact scripture passage he was refering to, but I dont.

[John81]

It sounds like pastor has a serious problem with the King James Bible.

I recall a group of witches (but they liked to call themselves Wiccans) who claimed the only reason the KJB said anything against witches was because King James hated witches and demanded the Bible agree with him. :roll Of course, they were convinced they were right and that being a witch is just fine and dandy. :sad

[IM4given]

I would be missing a lot more than one Sunday Service if my preacher ever started preaching anything agains King James or the King James Bible!!!

King James was the King of Scotland before he became the King of England you know! - I hope your preacher was not preaching anything like that there in the hills of Kentucky or Tennessee those Scottish Highlanders/Hillbillies don't take to kindly to such as that!

[John81]

I hear ya Janet!

It's a shame, but there are a lot of preachers out there today who preach that King James was a homosexual, how he was evil in this way and that, how he authorized the King James Bible only so he could have a version of the Bible that said what he wanted it to say so he could use it against his enemies, etc.

I couldn't attend a church with a preacher who preached such.

[BlessedChristianlady8]

Yea I read online that some people thought that King James was a Homosexual. If he was then we aren't really reading the Inspired word of God. However, I don't believe everything I read on the web now.

[5dumplings@home]

Ah, James DID make himself the final authority, but you have to understand that he was a scholar. He wrote poems and books in greek and hebrew. He knew what he was talking about. He did not make changes to fit his beliefs. He just chose not to believe what he didn't want to. So, that pastor, while "correct" was very incorrect. After reading a biography about King James, I came away with great respect for his intellect and learning.

He was not the nicest person. As a matter of fact, he was a wretch. But, the translation of the Holy Scriptures was an incredible feat. He didn't have to be a saint to do that job. We have to remember that the heart of the king is in God's hand. James was more than qualified to take on that task, and look what he left us!

As to the homesexuality, whether that was or was not the case is just something that people seem to want to prove in order to say that it's okay. He had himself surrounded by the lovliest of men (usually young) and they were his dear friends. (Kings do that sort of thing and always have through the ages.) I would almost liken those relationships to that of David and Jonathan. (And, I have seen homesexuals use that one to prove that their lifestyle is okay.)

[5dumplings@home]

I would like to add that, if any of the rulers in those early days twisted Scripture to fit what they believed, it would have to have been Oliver Cromwell. He had a bad habit of taking passages woefully out of context.

[Bakershalfdozen]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying there but King James himself did not translate the Bible. He authorized that a new version for all English-speaking people be translated. Other Greek and Hebrew scholars did the actual translating.

[IM4given]

Here is a pretty good website about King James and how he came to commission the translation of the Holy Bible...

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm

[John81]

The "goodness" or "badness" of King James himself is actually a moot point since it wasn't he who actually did the work that gave us the KJB. Of course, opponents of the KJB will use anything and everything they can in order to try and discredit the KJB; even if what they use is irrelevent or not even factual.

And yes, there are many Sodomites out there who proclaim that David and Jonathan were homosexuals. In their attempt to validate their perversity, they make false claims that many historical (and biblical) persons were homosexual. These lies only add sin upon sin.

[5dumplings@home]

No, he didn't translate it, but he did check it over. He verified that the translators were correct. He had the knowledge to be able to translate it, but he did not. I am not saying that he did the translation.

What I am saying is that the original poster's pastor was correct in saying that James checked it and was a mean guy. What I am not saying is that it matters how mean he was because the heart of the king is in God's hand. He is the One who turned James' heart to do this. He is the One who chose James to do this. I am not disputing the fact the KJV is the best around. It's the only one that matters.

God uses us in spite of ourselves many times. In all the times that we fail Him, He still allows us to be used. So it was with King James. God did use him. What sins he was guilty of is immaterial. If those sins are the measure of a man's worthiness to do some work for God (for those who would argue that since James was bad, his authorization of the translations was bad), then we are all undone. Nothing we do can be counted worthy for God would have to hold all of our sins over us and render us useless.

I guess that logic would lead us to believe that no traslation of the Scripture is profitable for anything because all have sinned. :Green

But we know better. (My logic is very tired today due to stuff, but I know what I'm trying to say! Now I need a translator! Are there any that speak Jennifer-ese?)

[John81]

Jennifer-ese and all, I think I understand your point. :tum

[suitman]

I really dislike KJB haters. I can understand why they do not like being told that their versions are wrong (cause I do). but to start to discredit the KJB in return is childish and silly. If it really is about what love is then it will most likely be 1 cor 13.

SOOOO I propose a little experiment. If someone can type up and post the KJB translation of chapter 13. and when I have time I will post the NIV translation of it. and either I or someone else could post a interlinear translation then we could compare and see if what he is saying as any truth behind It at all(of which I doubt).

Any takers?

[Jerry]

In all the times that we fail Him, He still allows us to be used. So it was with King James. God did use him. What sins he was guilty of is immaterial. If those sins are the measure of a man's worthiness to do some work for God (for those who would argue that since James was bad, his authorization of the translations was bad), then we are all undone. Nothing we do can be counted worthy for God would have to hold all of our sins over us and render us useless.

I guess that logic would lead us to believe that no traslation of the Scripture is profitable for anything because all have sinned.

There is a big difference between sins we have repented from and sins that we are currently living in. The argument behind the accusation of King James being a homosexual (which has clearly been refuted publicly) was that if he was living that way, God could not have used him. God cannot use ANY Christian (or unbeliever) while they are walking in sin.

[John81]

Didn't God use Joseph's brothers while they were in sin?