Do Christians realize who wrote the King James version of the Bible?

Question

Hey, Christians buddies out there who use the King James version of the Bible:

Do you realize that King James I of England (James VI of Scotland), who authorized the King James Bible that bears his name, was a homosexual? That he had at least three documented male lovers?

So guess what?

You're reading a Bible that was authorized by a homosexual! Ha! Hahaha!

He also had a tongue that was too big for his mouth. And a mother who was accused of killing her husband (James' dad). Good solid Christian background, huh?

I'm a history major that loves the Tudor and Stuart monarchs of England, so I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. It's historical fact.

So? So Christians who sit around quoting from that version of the Bible against homosexuals are being hypocrits (in a way) since King James was gay. They're trying to bash gays with a book translated and authorized by a gay. Kinda dumb IMO.

Well Sammie, it's true. Ask any historian.

Answer 1

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, KJV HOLY BIBLE

1co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. KJV HOLY BIBLE

1co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? KJV HOLY BIBLE

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. KJV HOLY BIBLE

I'm not you, you're not me, so live your live, and let me live mine. I read this once from someone like you. They must not do as they say.

Answer 2

The KJV was the NIV of its day. It isn't "more literal" than modern translations, and there are some problems with it since some of the Greek text wasn't available when it was put together so it used later latin texts which had very small errors. If you like the language, that's fine, and most people wouldn't want to watch Shakespeare without using the King's Enlish either, but words have changed, and English isn't the same as it was. Some words now are opposite in meaning, and God didn't speak with "thees" and "thous." I like the NIV because it strikes a balance with it's translation so that the meaning comes through. It is also the best selleng translation of our time, so it is nearly a standard. That's my opinion, and it's what I use to preach and teach from. But I usually look at a variety of translations when particular words need to be especially clarified. Usually I quote from the NIV, but occasionally I use other versions because I think some individual passage or other said it more clearly. I think of the KJV as the Model T of Bibles. It's nice, and looks good in some circumstances, but I'd rather be driving a contemporary car that does a better job of getting me where I need to go.

Answer 3

Yes. Just think of..it!
One of their own spirit paid for every word that stands to accuse such activity to this very day.

So guess what?

The Bible that homosexuals ignore and criticize was authorized by a homosexual and maybe worse! He hired about 70 scholars who did the work, which the hand of God oversaw, while making use of tainted money. Oh my! How horrible. I am so appalled, and even as the English might say -- scandalized. Heavens to Betsy!

Perhaps in your emotional non-logic we might argue that the book is just no good because it wasn't funded by Mary Poppins.

Answer 4

For a history major you are quite ignorant of the facts... Old James had nothing to do with the transaltion or any other work involved. It was a political necessity at the time to put his name on it..and it stuck...that is the sum of Jamies involvment... There were seventy some biblical types and many more assistants who did all the work... And The KJV of today is more than a bit different than what was originaly released in King James name.

Answer 5

The things you say about King James are true, but his a translation, he did not write the Bible. History has been recorded by many who are lacking morally and ethically. So I guess you don't read or believe anything. That's not reasonable. I don't read the King James version, so what about the other translations.

Answer 6

King James didn't write anything. He authorized it only to pull the people back to the Anglican church of England. The Geneva bible was the Bible of Christians and had become very popular and many people were becoming protestants so King James had to come up with something to offer them to bring them back. the KJV version was only a revision of the 'Bishops Bible' which was a modification of the 'Great Bible' which was a copy of Tyndales Bible. So all king James did is approve its printing as many other kings and queens had previous to him. king James never claimed to be a Christian nor was he accepted as one in that day.

Answer 7

aww no you don't out do me here! haaaa! Hay here is more information about that "FREAK" King James which you failed to mention to the members his club! (Christians)
I love talking about king James did you know he feared either drowning or suffocation not sure which one but hay you know he was a drunk too! and demanded that the book be translated so that Jesus would be him and be called God's son now imagine that i be cracking up and i must share this with all the fools whom go with this mess! and you know we must be fair him having a swollen tongue could be how he messed the book up so bad because no one what so ever could understand what the man was talking about so could you imagine trying to interpret this smelly paronoid mans english version of the bible now this is so very funny but you just imagine trying to write what a drunken slurring babling man is telling you to scribe! Man that had to be funny! ahhhhhhhh
when read by others when first printed they used it as a joke and laugh and know that the man was sick and wierd and also that all would die granted stupid james! he smelled also you see he would not bathe!this was never meant never to be taken seriously and the translators hated him and know he was wrong for TAMPERING WITH THE TRUE ORIGIN OR JESUS!
he was a sick puppy wasn't he- ha! ha!
and now you done started something look they don't know nothing about "KING JAMES"IF THEY DID THEY WOULD RUN - FAST!!!

Answer 8

So what? Anyway, he didn't write it, it is a translation of the earlier bible and was written by commissioned scholars. Pantherempress - whilst I totally agree with what you're saying, James VI was a Stuart not a Tudor.

Answer 9

My wife was a English and history major too. I about crapped when she told me these things.

Its OK to help people understand the truth about this stuff but do you really need to be so mean about it. Most of these people were told this stuff when they were small children. They were threatened with eternal hellfire and damnation if they did not believe it. Making fun of them is mean spirited and nasty.

If you actually are a history major you should be old enough to know better than to act like that.

Please try to be more considerate of the feelings of others in the future.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 10

He hired a bunch of people to make a translation he could understand and they did a fantastic job of it. He personally contributed nothing but the funding. Maybe he was disappointed when he read it but it was still the best version in my view. It is the truest to the original manuscripts. That is like saying a non christian lesbian woman singing carols can't touch people with a wonderful voice - God will use anybody to achieve a purpose and that Bible has blessed millions.

Answer 11

King James claimed he TRANSLATED it, but the fact is that he hired some scholars to do this.

It isn't very easy on homosexuals: it is every bit as homophobic as the original version in Hebrew, Greek and Latin