Acceptable reasoning concerning the KJV

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,176
Reaction score
188
Points
63
You commented as if you believed it.
Today's episode of "Inept Mind Reading" brought to you by moonbat_undivided.

When James said the Geneva Bible was the worst, and I said It was actually the best, did some part of that confuse you?
 
Last edited:

treasure_unseen

Active member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
941
Reaction score
48
Points
28
Today's episode of "Inept Mind Reading" brought to you by moonbat_undivided.

When James said the Geneva Bible was the worst, and I said It was actually the best, did some part of that confuse you?
This is what you said...

it was actually the best translation available at the time; what James objected to was not the text, but the notes, which were highly political and anti-monarchy.
There is no indication that you disagreed.
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,176
Reaction score
188
Points
63
There is no indication that you disagreed.
There's no indication that you understood, which is why you're being ignored by me now on this thread as having nothing worthwhile to say.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
153
Points
63
There's no indication that you understood, which is why you're being ignored by me now on this thread as having nothing worthwhile to say.
I must disagree with you. It's not just on this thread that he has nothing worthwhile to say.
 

robycop3

Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Points
6
And you ridiculously believe what he said? He was a chronic liar and enemy of God. The proof is the notes found in the KJV that largely matched what the Geneva had already done.

Despot King James hated that the Geneva translated the Scripture in a manner that countered the narrative that he was the ruler of every man under God.
Actually, what KJ hated were the Geneva's marginal notes, especially those that basically stated it was OK to rebel against a tyrant. When he gave the Anglican clerix permission to make a new Bible version, he instructed them to not include too many extratextual notes. (Remember, from the time of Henry VIII onward, the British monarch was head of the Anglican Church.)
 

treasure_unseen

Active member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
941
Reaction score
48
Points
28
Actually, what KJ hated were the Geneva's marginal notes, especially those that basically stated it was OK to rebel against a tyrant. When he gave the Anglican clerix permission to make a new Bible version, he instructed them to not include too many extratextual notes. (Remember, from the time of Henry VIII onward, the British monarch was head of the Anglican Church.)
He hated the God represented in the Geneva Bible. You know God's Word produced by exiles from the English monarchy.

You're buying the false political narrative. "King" James was plotting and plotting people try to hide their motives behind the best intentions. He was a liar, a murder and a thief. His desire to rule all men under His authority that he said was given to him "by God" came from Satan.

It amazed me that some of you will talk of how Tyndale and others gave their lives to authorities to bring the Scriptures to English and you turn right around and readily accept this despot kings actions at "face value".
 

robycop3

Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Points
6
He hated the God represented in the Geneva Bible. You know God's Word produced by exiles from the English monarchy.

You're buying the false political narrative. "King" James was plotting and plotting people try to hide their motives behind the best intentions. He was a liar, a murder and a thief. His desire to rule all men under His authority that he said was given to him "by God" came from Satan.

It amazed me that some of you will talk of how Tyndale and others gave their lives to authorities to bring the Scriptures to English and you turn right around and readily accept this despot kings actions at "face value".
No one who's seen my posts over the years will mistake me for a KJVO. But, as a Christian, I must stick to the TRUTH as I know it.
The makers of the GB fled from Britain under "Bloody Mary" before KJ was born. And KJ had little to do with making the version that bears his name, except give the Anglican clerix permission to make it. (It came to be called the "King James" version because of his toadie, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who heaped praise on KJ ad nauseam.)
Bancroft made the rules for the translators in accordance for what he believed were KJ's wishes. He took his rules to KJ, who approved them without hardly looking at them.
Bancroft died in 1610, but his name for the new BV stuck, & naturally, KJ didn't mind.
Religion-wise, KJ was a despot only against certain Catholics, & a few sects. After all, some Catholix, led by Guy Fawkes, had tried to kill KJ, so, naturally, he wanted to prevent another such attempt on his life.

BTW, KJ was an expert fox hunter when hunting to hounds. He gave strict orders to anyone who hunted with him to never show deference to him, but to allow him to use his own skill at taking a fox. And he was also an excellent golfer; he caused the Old Course at St. Andrews to be refurbished. And he once drove a golf ball for what was measured at 461 yards, with downhill roll. This was witnesses by several courtiers. What was amazing about that were several things: the golf balls of that time were hides stuffed with feathers, & KJ was not a large man. But , same as he did for fox-hunting, he ordered anyone playing golf with him to do his best, but he still managed to win over half the matches he played.

His main claim to fame is keeping Britain outta the awful Thirty Years' War, which ruined most of Europe as much as WW2 did. His main claim to infamy was his spending, which almost bankrupted Britain.
 
Top