KJV Onlyists are strange. If they truly believe the KJV is inspired then they should belong to the Church of England/Anglican/Episcopalian. The church that conducted the translation. If they truly believe the KJV is inspired then they should be statists. Because it was a government funded venture. Not the free market. If they truly believe the KJV is inspired then they should include the Apocrypha in their Bible which was in the original 1611 version. Instead they to do just the opposite.
I find it interesting most KJV Onlyists are Baptists, like you won't find many high-church or magisterial KJV Onlyists. Besides the Free Presbyterians.
>like you won't find many high-church
That feel when you a KJV Onlyist Latin-Mass Feeneyite.
The bible is a fiction, sure there is some metaphorical truths in the bible, but it is not literally true, Jesus never existed but is merely a religious icon, al religions are merely a cultural phenomenon
evolution disproved the creation story in the bible
which means Adam & Eve NEVER existed
which means NO original sin
which means jesus NEVER existed
every museum of natural history in the world is a warehouse of evidence
proving evolution to be a true fact, what do religious nuts have?
a dusty old bible written by goat molesters
All gods are mythology
All holy books are fiction
All religions are bullshit
when did evolution stopped being a theory?
the news didn't say anything about this
theory means true fact in science
King James was literally gay, and this is not even propaganda, it's just an amazing coincidence.
Ok every monarch had guards in his bed to protect from assassins. So did Henry VIII and do you really think he was a homosexual? The guy who kept divorcing and executing women so he could remarry?
>The two became extremely close and it was said by an English observer that "from the time [James] was 14 years old and no more, that is, when the Lord Stuart came into Scotland [...] even then he began [...] to clasp some one in the embraces of his great love, above all others" and that James became "in such love with him as in the open sight of the people often he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him".
>The Scottish ministry was also warned that the duke sought to "draw the King to carnal lust".
>n 1607, at a royal jousting contest, the 20-year-old Carr, the son of Sir Thomas Carr or Kerr of Ferniehirst, was knocked from a horse and broke his leg. According to Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk, James fell in love with the young man, and as the years progressed showered Carr with gifts.[48] Carr was made a gentleman of the bedchamber and he was noted for his handsome appearance as well as his limited intelligence
I'm sorry bro he's gay
Sounds like he was groomed by this duke. As for the second thing, it should be noted that Lord Suffolk apparently became an opponent of his.
>Suffolk accepted a gift from the Spanish ambassador negotiating the peace treaty of 1604, but his countess proved a more valuable informant and Catholic sympathiser. Avaricious, she accepted an annual pension of £1000 from the Spanish. While Suffolk was less pro-Spanish and pro-Catholic than his wife, she was felt to dominate her husband in matters of politics, a circumstance which would later bring him to grief.
>Sounds like he was groomed by this duke.
No evidence for that, and even if that were so, he would still be gay. That's what you believe all gay people are anyway.
>Lord Suffolk apparently became an opponent of his
Ok
Point is, such allegations coming from an opponent like Lord Suffolk are harder to believe.
>The last of James's favourites was George Villiers, the son of a Leicestershire knight. They had met in 1614, around the same time that the situation with Somerset was deteriorating. Buckingham, 22 years old to James' 48,[1]:541 was described as exceptionally handsome, intelligent and honest. In 1615 James knighted him and 8 years later he was the first commoner in more than a century to be elevated to a dukedom – as Duke of Buckingham – although he had first been raised in sequence as a Knight of the Garter and Viscount Villiers, as Earl of Buckingham then Marquess of Buckingham. Restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken 2004–2008, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers.[50]
>The King was blunt and unashamed in his avowal of love for Buckingham and compared it to Jesus' love of John:
>I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here, assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.
It is clearly just the actual pattern of his relationships and life, even calling it an "allegation" is banal cope.
Also sharing beds back then wasn't necessarily sexual, romantic friendships were a thing. Which is what the more verifiable one seems to have been.
The (You) got deleted because I deleted a miscopypaste in my post, apologies, not intending to be rude
Pretty much all KJV Onlyist are conspiracy theory morons who think newer translations are Vatican/Satanic conspiracies.
Being a sinner doesnt stop him being saves by Jesus
>hidden passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers.
You're coping, sorry man. In any case "romantic friendship" suits me well enough.
*By "Verifiable" I mean that we have clear evidence that he's admitting to himself and that is obviously not things his opponents could have stretched as with Sir Carr. Heck, even that could have been a romantic friendship, what we might call a "bromance" today.
>"bromance"
Openly declaring your love for someone is clearly beyond the pale of anything like this as understood in our modern culture. Obviously he's asserting a meme interpretation of Jesus being gay with John(which likewise reflects horrendously on KJV-Onlyists) to defend himself. The previous two are not vague allegations as though they are 2000 year old accounts of Roman emperors from a single source either; this is Early Modern England, these were public and well-documented figures, not slander by one obsessed individual. A neutral observer clearly sees the picture here.
This I think is a function of what the word "love" has come to mean in our culture, you wouldn't hear the word "love" used in the context of a bromance, romantic friendship, or whatever you want to call it today because of the connotations it has taken on.
Frankly even this term "romantic friendship" is so gay that I have little reason to argue against it.
>The previous two are not vague allegations as though they are 2000 year old accounts of Roman emperors from a single source either; this is Early Modern England, these were public and well-documented figures, not slander by one obsessed individual
This is the thing. It's not that modern historians have reappraised him as being gay based on a couple of flimsy pieces of evidence to fit some woke narrative, there is an enormous number of contemporary sources calling him a sodomite. Clearly there was something extraordinary about the way he treated his male favourites in public and in private that triggered this sort of speculation among a large number of his contemporaries.
>his bible is unillustrated
I like the language used in KJV as it is closer to the original in intent. BUT, the biggest flaw is that it uses the Masoretic. If there was a KJV that uses the modern Septuagint, I would be happy.
kino
The original 1611 version had maps and genealogies and stuff in it, but that wasn't inspired. The Apocrypha is the same, it was just extra content that wasn't considered inspired by God.
>it was a government funded venture.
This is true, but the Geneva Bible of 1560 was an English translation that was very similar to the King James Version. Most of the work had been done, and more often than not the 1611 translation followed suit with earlier English translations like the Geneva Bible. It would be hard to go back to those older translations today because it didn't receive updates to the spelling and so forth that the KJV did in 1769.
>If they truly believe the KJV is inspired then they should be statists.
What does this mean exactly? That they believe in having a state?
>If they truly believe the KJV is inspired then they should belong to the Church of England/Anglican/Episcopalian
Many of the people on the 1611 committee were puritans and opposed to high Anglicanism. Prominent examples include John Harmar and Thomas Harrison.
For background, under the reign of Charles I in the 1630s, the differences between Puritans and High Anglicans got to the point that many Puritans became independent and separated from the national church altogether rather than go along with Archbishop Laud. One prominent example of separation of this kind is Hanserd Knollys, a credobaptist who became an independent in 1636, and whose signature is on both London Baptist Confessions of 1646 and 1689.
It was only after the English Civil War, when the KJV had the chance to be edited and improved by Cambridge university (which occurred in 1629 and 1638), that the 1611 Authorized translation (KJV) gained wide acceptance among puritans, who had continued to use the Geneva Bible up until that point. Notably, the KJV editions pre-1629 were riddled with typographical errors and often hard to read, and before 1628 only the royal printer had a monopoly, which he ran for profit.
As an atheist, I like the KJV because its written like an actual story with an attempt at poetic prose and not just a big list of verses, but I understand if you care more for the Bible as a religious scholar that the linguistic and translational baggage might get in the way