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

[Will]

Wrong Jerry, the Law expressly forbids kings having multiple wives.

Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
Deu 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

[Madeline]

Then let's all live like the Devil because it obviously doesn't matter how we live as God will use us anyway' date=' according to some here. (Though 2 Timothy 2:21 indicates otherwise...)[/quote']

Jerry, nobody insisted that we live like the devil - where do you come up with this? I simply made a point which stated that God can use whomever He chooses to accomplish His purpose. Again, were those who crucified Christ believers? A simple yes or no would suffice. :smile

[5dumplings@home]

Exactly, Madeline. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? The fact that God uses whom He chooses is not a license to sin.

However, the way God works through a faithful believer versus the way God works through a carnal believer, or unbeliever will be different.

God still moves on the unregenerate heart.

Does anyone here really think the maiden who accused Peter of being one of the followers of Christ was a believer? But God used her to really put the pressure on Peter.

[falin115]

A quick little thought of mine on the homosexual allications on king james. if he was homosexual and had things changed in the bible would he have not changed 1 Cor chapters 5-7 which defines what marriage should be and states that fornication is a sin.

[IM4given]

To be fair, I don't think I would have published such claims during the reign of a monarch either. King James could have had him executed.

Even during the time that King James I lived, there circulated a popular joke among the nobles in Latin which read thus: Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus. Loosely translated, it means "We had King Elizabeth, now we have Queen James," or "King Elizabeth is dead, now Queen James reigns."

That doesn't of course, mean that this was accurate that James was gay, only that it was a rumor.

That is quite enough of THAT Will !!!! Continuing to spread lies and rumors about King James is equal to attempting to discredit the work he comisssioned as well. Are you trying to provoke your brothers (and sister) to wrath?
:annoyed: :annoyed: :annoyed: :annoyed: :annoyed:

[John81]

Janet, is that a Kentucky squirrel gun leanin' next to ya? :tum

[IM4given]

Janet' date=' is that a Kentucky squirrel gun leanin' next to ya? :tum[/quote']

Looks like I am going to have to lay in a fresh supply of rock salt and bacon grease loads! :lol:

[joyfulpraise93]

To be fair, I don't think I would have published such claims during the reign of a monarch either. King James could have had him executed.

Even during the time that King James I lived, there circulated a popular joke among the nobles in Latin which read thus: Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus. Loosely translated, it means "We had King Elizabeth, now we have Queen James," or "King Elizabeth is dead, now Queen James reigns."

That doesn't of course, mean that this was accurate that James was gay, only that it was a rumor.

What I was saying was that the man had them published after his OWN death...apparently because everyone who had known King James personally would know they were blatantly untrue. The man who published all the stuff about King James had a personal vendetta against him. I believe it was just Satan's way of trying to discredit the King James Bible in a round about way. Wish I had more time to post stuff about this...but I don't. Look up the source of the accusations for yourself...doesn't seem like the man doing all the accusing was a very upright person after all.

[Samer]

Not really a smokescreen there. David and Solomon were both polygynists, and broke the Law in doing so. God used them in spite of this. David likely wrote many of his Psalms AFTER becoming a Polygynist, and Ecclesiastes can certainly be said to have been after Solomon's polygyny. God used Peter in the early church in spite of Peter being a hypocrite who would eat with Gentiles unless his Jewish buddies came around.

Is there a passage in the Law you believe condemns polygany?

[Kubel]

I don't know about his homosexuality (that honestly can't be proven so I think it's unfair to call him one)- but he was very strict regarding the religion of the Church of England. That's why so many people fled to Switzerland, the Colonies, etc... History records that believers that did not follow the Church were fined, imprisoned, and even executed (Edward Wightman was a 'Baptist' preacher executed under King James for writing a letter to him delcaring how infant baptism was wrong, etc...). We have to remember that King James was not just the leader of a nation, but also a religion- the Anglican Church. It was essentially English Catholicism. Infant baptism, salvation by good deeds, worship of mary, etc... And this heretical religion was enforced using English law. If you were against the nation, you could be executed for treason. If you were against the religion, you could be executed for heresy. Even if it were true heresy, is it not murder to burn someone at the stake? WWJD?

If it weren't for King James (and others) reign of terror on believers, we probably wouldn't have so many believers come to the colonies. The three big reasons to come to the Colonies were to make money, to avoid taxes, and to practice your faith freely and openly. If we didn't have believers here, there's no telling how things would have developed for the United States.

[Will]

Is there a passage in the Law you believe condemns polygany?

For kings, yes. Honestly, I'm surprised more people don't know about that passage. Deuteronomy 17, specifically the 17th verse. My pastor I had growing up was very big on going through the Pentateuch. He even hand wrote his own copy of the Pentateuch and encouraged us to do so as well. I'm thinking of working on that one of these days.

[Will]

I don't know about his homosexuality (that honestly can't be proven so I think it's unfair to call him one)- but he was very strict regarding the religion of the Church of England. That's why so many people fled to Switzerland' date=' the Colonies, etc... History records that believers that did not follow the Church were fined, imprisoned, and even executed (Edward Wightman was a 'Baptist' preacher executed under King James for writing a letter to him delcaring how infant baptism was wrong, etc...). We have to remember that King James was not just the leader of a nation, but also a religion- the Anglican Church. It was essentially English Catholicism. Infant baptism, salvation by good deeds, worship of mary, etc... And this heretical religion was enforced using English law. If you were against the nation, you could be executed for treason. If you were against the religion, you could be executed for heresy. Even if it were true heresy, is it not murder to burn someone at the stake? WWJD?

If it weren't for King James (and others) reign of terror on believers, we probably wouldn't have so many believers come to the colonies. The three big reasons to come to the Colonies were to make money, to avoid taxes, and to practice your faith freely and openly. If we didn't have believers here, there's no telling how things would have developed for the United States.

Quite right. King James was used of God, but was not a "godly" man.

[IM4given]

Is this the kind of stuff that they teach y'all at the Bible Colleges? If it is, then I am glad I have never been!

(me sitting here in my rocking chair on the front porch tonight with my shotgun across my lap and my Bible in my hands, faithful hound dog at my feet)

I feel as if every slur and slanderous remark made against King James is just a purposeful attempt to discredit him and thus discredit my Bible. I will defend them both until the day I die. No, I do not think that King James was a saint - none of us are. Neither do I believe that he was some sort of homosexual ogre either and nothing you can say or do is going to make me change my mind about that!

(gentle rocking continues - flop eared hound dog ears up and alert, low growling - just like he always does when strangers are at my door)

Now I have here a nice little article that discusses King James and the Puritans as a rebuttal by someone who took a class at Bob Jones University - I wasn't there when this class was taught, but had I been there, I would have demanded a full refund for that class in particular.

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

Another article that is also relvant includes "Did King James I burn Baptists?"

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

(It's a warm summer night, the moon is shining bright, crickets are chirping, hound dog went back to snoozing, I am speaking soft and slow, trying to figure out where all of your thoughts are originating from?)

Sometimes I wonder what on earth these institutions of Higher Learning are teaching our young people today? Is this where they get the idea that there is no hell? Is this where they get the idea that all they have to do is go "One two three, repeat after me" in order to get sinners saved? Are they the ones teaching our young men and women that any old Bible will do? Are they the ones who have taught our young people that King James was some sort of scurrilous villain? Are they the ones who have perpetuated the centuries old slander and rumor, and innuendo as truth, so that nothing written in the Holy Bible that he commissioned can be accepted as the Final Authority?

(All of that has to be coming from somewhere and that seems to be the only common denominator I can ascertain - if it isn't, well then you can tell me where you think it is coming from? I wish I could see your faces out here in the dark, to see what kind of reaction you are having, but since this is sort of "blind media" I just have to wing it.)

[5dumplings@home]

Anything wrong with King James as a person really has nothing to do with what he commissioned. (Keep rocking.)

I never learned anything about King James in Bible college. I only learned of him recently after reading a biography. (Get your hands off that shotgun!)

I will still maintain that he was not homosexual. He was, as any other king, fond of beauty. (Courtiers)

Keep rocking in your creaky chair and put the gun down now. :Bleh

[Will]

Anything wrong with King James as a person really has nothing to do with what he commissioned. (Keep rocking.)

I never learned anything about King James in Bible college. I only learned of him recently after reading a biography. (Get your hands off that shotgun!)

I will still maintain that he was not homosexual. He was, as any other king, fond of beauty. (Courtiers)

Keep rocking in your creaky chair and put the gun down now. :Bleh

Who said he was a homosexual?