King James a homosexual?

Post by **_Tim** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:31 am

Steve:

Friday on your radio program someone called in asking if King James was a homosexual. He was actually quite open about his sexual proclivities. We still have the letters he wrote back and forth with his lover, George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham. James used to call him "Steenie" because he said his face shone like an angel, a refernce to a dying Stephen.

It is believed that their first sexual union took place in August 1615 while they were spending a few days together at Farnham Castle. Many years later, George wrote to James asking "whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog."

There are many more references, letters, and lovers, but I shant bore you with the details. The KJV only people never like this kind of information, but this does seem to be the case.

Suffice it to say, I'm not even remotely anti-KJV. I love the KJV for its many wonderful qualities. I am anti-KJV only, which seems to be both silly and narrow. Like most, I use many different translations and examine the languages as well. The men who translated the KJV were of noble character and good scholars as well. Knowing what they had to work with makes their accomplishment even more impressive.

In His Love,

Tim

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:26 am

Tim,

Thanks for the info. I now know more than I did before. I share your opinion about the King James Version and about the King-James-only's.

Blessings!

Post by **_mattrose** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:08 pm

I once had a 'guest speaker' tell me after the service that in heaven there will be:

"God the Father...God the Son...and God the King James Version"

Very scary

Post by **_Anonymous** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:47 am

The nature of the king's sexual preferences (perversions) has no bearing on the suitability of the AV/KJV as a suitable Bible for today.

The king was not one of the translators. The suitability of the AV/KJV should be based on the manuscript evidence for the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, the 'accuracy' of the translation, and the relevance of the target language to us today.

Personally I reject the AV/KJV based on

1 I don't speak/read/inderstand 17th century English
2 I understand there are now better manuscripts available for the Greek and Hebrew that were not available in the past
3 There is a better understanding of the Gk and Heb today especially from the study of related language such as Ugaritic, etc
4 Today's scholars have a broader and deeper knowledge of the Scripture, theology, history, biblical languages, theories and practices of translation

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:52 pm

Have'nt there been at least 50,000 corrections in the KJV. Until recently i think it said "you look to strain a gnat" and in one spot it called Jesus , Joshua. It's a great bible but not itself inspired as some believe.