I just discovered that King James was GAY! And to top it off, he was NOT A CHRISTIAN!
Why are we reading this man's trash novel? There has to be a better non-gay, totally Christian version of the Bible that we can all agree to and authorize as our new Bible.
What version would you recommend if we are successful in boycotting King James?
2007-10-20 03:04:51 · 34 answers · asked by Ask Donna 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html
2007-10-20 03:05:14 · update #1
To Batgirl2..."let yee who are without sin cast the first stone".
2007-10-20 03:16:36 · update #2
I won't join you in anything at all.
You're not a Christian. Your questions are not genuine; this is all a joke to you.
You've asked about wearing sexy clothes to church, etc.
You've said that you do drugs and "struggle with sexual sins."
Matthew 7:6
God loves you.
2007-10-20 03:10:22 · answer #1 · answered by batgirl2good 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
First of all, those 2 claims haven't been proven as absolute fact.
Secondly, King James didn't translate 1 word of the KJV. It wasn't even King James' idea to translate the Bible in the first place. The Puritans convinced King James to authorize the translation. When King James found that the people had a desire for an Authorized Bible, He simply found about 50 extremely intelligent men, and simply told them to translate, other than that, King James had nothing to do with the translation. Therefore even though King James COULD have been gay, and COULD have not been a Christian, The KJV isn't of his work, therefore the KJV shouldn't be put down because King James COULD have been gay.
2007-10-20 03:13:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, because the bible is full of murder, rape, & conflicts to the point of lunacy. Most Christians just read what they want to believe, not the whole bible. See "EvilBible.com". Jesus means pig,never existed, the real person's name was Jmmanuel. Look up the -"Talmud Jmmanuel"- to realize this ancient writting actually makes good common sense, no conflicts, with reincarnation that was written out of the corrupted bible in 553 AD in Constantinople. Bible scholors have anylized this in comparson (see below) and found it fills in the gaping holes the King James and other bibles leave. I challenge you Christians to read the Talmud Jmmanuel to find the real writtings instead of only the 70 things you'll read Jesus saying in the bible. My wife can say 100 things in an hour and that's all you got??? See the comparisons from Matthew to Talmud Jmmanuel and decide for yourself.
2007-10-20 05:01:43 · answer #3 · answered by one sojourner 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Others have answered you on the KJV and did a good job. Specifically the authority of the King behind the making of the Bible. His orientation is a mute point. Why do I say this? Simple. God has used the deviants throughout time to preserve and punish his people. Read the book you are bashing and you will see. If you need examples read the stories of Joseph, David, Elijah and Elisha. Heck, even Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod.
2007-10-20 03:19:19 · answer #4 · answered by crimthann69 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey, I'm not a fan of the 'King James Only' thing but boycotting it won't help. It may not be the most accurate translation but it has a certain beauty and eloquence missing from many modern translations.
And if he was gay, so what? Everyone has moral problems to overcome, why should he be singled out? King David was an adulterer and arguably a murderer, his son Solomon turned to rampant polygamy and idolatry, etc.... personally I think what the latter two did was far worse, considering their positions of spiritual responsiblity; even greater than being the head of the Church of England....
Peace
LB
2007-10-20 03:17:11 · answer #5 · answered by Jerusalem Delivered 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The "errors" you cite on your letter with regard to the unique King James version have been typographical no longer having any subject to do with content fabric.The printing press became new then and definite typesetters did misspell words. This became hence corrected. get your info straight away... The Apocrypha books weren't seen to be divinely stimulated so weren't in any respect coated. i've got examine them and that i agree. Christians who've rather researched "different variations" would be unable to help yet come to the top that the King James version is the main actual and good version.Now there's a"new kjv bible NKJV out" that's a wolf in sheep's clothing, i do no longer have confidence it. I persist with the 1611 Kjv.i might inspire anybody to in my opinion examine the quite a few bibles to be sure for themselves why we ought to be very discerning on which version we pick.once you spot the transformations you would be as very much stunned as i became. the internet has many good web content that might actually assist you on your adventure. could your eyes be opened too;
2016-10-13 07:55:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear friend,
Whether King J. was not a Christan or gay I don't know.
I only know he did not write the Bible but he authorized a very good translation although the language of 1610 is kind of ancient.I read the Bible in 3 languages and they say the same thing.I recommend we change some of the old words to the words we use now and nothing else.
2007-10-20 03:15:39 · answer #7 · answered by Don Verto 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your point being?
My knowledge of history isn't great but I don't think King James sat there and wrote it. And are you saying that the KJV was the word of God but suddenly isn't because the guy who commissioned it turns out to be gay?
Please stop trolling, get a life and leave all religions alone. Let those who have a faith believe in what they want, and those who don't let them no believe. Either way it doesn't matter, everyone to their own.
2007-10-20 03:17:28 · answer #8 · answered by Dragon Prince 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope. It's the only one I have. My mother gave it to me in 1981, as part of her never-ending attempt to convert me from witchcraft. Didn't work, but it is a useful reference book.
And the fact that King James was gay cannot possibly be relevant to the book he commissioned others to write. I will, however, list below a few books I consider more worthy.
2007-10-20 03:33:04 · answer #9 · answered by auntb93 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I will not join you. The 1611 Bible is known as the King James Version in the United States. In the United Kingdom, it is commonly known as the Authorized Version. Neither name is superior. King James did not literally translate the Bible but it was his advance authorization that was legally necessary for the Church of England to translate, publish and distribute the Bible in England.
Silly you.
2007-10-20 03:09:57 · answer #10 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
No, because King James did not write the Bible. It is one the most beautiful translations of the Bible. Also, the Bible is not his novel, it is God's Word.
2007-10-20 03:17:11 · answer #11 · answered by Apostle Jeff 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋