Black Spirituality Religion : Did King James Lie?

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by river, Mar 29, 2004.

  1. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Exactly what did King James say that is a lie? To my knowledge he is not quoted once in the Bible as having said anything, not even "Hi, Mom!"

    I have been told that the Christian God is the white man's God. Sheer nonsense. The moon has been circling the Earth for eons, yet when the white man finally got somebody up there what was the first thing he did? He put his flag on it. Is it now the white man's moon? The red man came here and established themselves as a presence on this continent long before Columbus' great granpappy was born, but when he finally got here what did he do? He put a European name (America) on the land. Does this land belong to him just because he acts like it does? It stands to reason that when the scriptures were brought to the white man (he did not write them) he would put his name on them. Name one good thing he has not claimed as his own? God does not belong to the white man any more than the moon does.
     
  2. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    BTW, the above statements should be viewed as an invitation to discussion and thought, not a "my religion is better than your religion" contest

    flo wid da river
    splach in the waterfall
     
  3. tUFFY

    tUFFY Active Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    I am retired
    Location:
    Rocklin California (HIgh Sierras)
    Ratings:
    +0
    I do not believe that King James so much lied as he misrepresentated what was already written. My belief is and excuse me for putting this in really simple generic terms, one day old King James was contemplating how he could get all the people to obey him and see him as the great Lord and Master that he was. Most of the people followed Catholicism, and the bible was written or rather had already been translated from the old language(Hebrew) to Latin so the people who were not learned did not understand it anyway. They trusted in the priests who translated the Latin to English. THe Protestants were the same way.

    Well the King decided that the best way would be to retranslate the bible to English. I believe that it is in the nuances that the understanding was changed. King James did not need to say Hi MOm he was the KIng and therefore everything that was put in the bible was with his approval.

    I believe that it was written to keep the people in check. I believe it was written with an ulterior motive in mind. i think that there are some truths in fact many truths and that if you pray to God directly he will give you the guidance that you need to understand what you need to understand.

    Does that make sense to you. Like an eye for an eye now does that go along with the rest of the bible in context or does it go along with the days and times back then. In the old days men could have more than one wife but then the bible eliminated that because the Queen did not want to share old James at least that is what I think. Cheated me out of all that help to keep the house clean, and someone to take the heat on the days I have a headache. I think I would have liked it better if I had wife in laws.

    Well it is just an opinion and we all know how opinions are. Right? Well let me know how what I say goes along with what you think. I hate to argue but I love to converse. tUFFY :toast:
     
  4. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    LOL wife in laws! squirrels looking for you. girl. Of course as with everything there are pros and cons to this idea of a reinstitution of herems. For instance going shopping "Oh girl, you should buy that, then we can share it." Not. Then again, it would totally eliminate the heartache of finding out your man is cheating on you.

    I have had to ask God to help me understand many things in the KJV especially in the history books of the old testiment. The greatest peace I've found was the realization that if the whole book were proven to be false that would not change my relationship with the Lord or His love for me.

    The Jews asked Jesus why Moses said it was okay to get a divorce. Jesus told them it was because of the hardness of their hearts but in the beginning it was not so. So the way God created things from the beginning is the measure of how they should be. Now did He create Adam and Eve? Or did He create Adam and Angie and Barbata and Cathy and Donna and Edna and Frances and Gina and and and...

    Was Catholicism the first form that Christianity took when it was introduced to Europe? What are you using for your sources of information about biblical history?
     
  5. yaphet al-wynn

    yaphet al-wynn Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4
    river, it is not in the fact that he lied-it was that the experts that he hired MAY have mistranslated some passages from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin to English. Some Greek and Aramaic words are nuanced in BOTH languages, some the same and some different. Aramaic would be MORE in line with ancient Hebrew because Israel was conquered by Babylon and is based on their language and for large empires in business or trade-a common language had to be used. Aramaic is still spoken in a lot of countries including Ethiopia.
     
  6. Sekhemu

    Sekhemu Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    priest
    Location:
    new jersey
    Ratings:
    +1,064
    Not only was King James a liar, but a paedophile
     
  7. yaphet al-wynn

    yaphet al-wynn Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4
    I've heard some say-a homosexual. But maybe I'm wrong, king James really did not care a whit about the holy word, just was persuaded to finance the intellectuals to do THEIR work of translating the scriptures from ancient text to English(the version spoken at that time). Was it at the time of the Crusades or not that much afterward?
     
  8. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Yes, and history tells us he did. For over 300 years Protestants – from whom Black people got their Christian religion – have romanticized about being the successors of the Reformation that spawned the Puritans, Pilgrims and Calvinists. This is a massive historical irony. Many of today’s Protestants, under the title "Christians" of the various denominations, religiously use the King James Version of the Bible, or a Bible that is a mere revision of it...

    The irony is that the Pilgrims, Puritans and Calvinists would not have been caught dead with a King James Version of the Bible in their time. They, as well as so-called luminaries like Shakespeare and Milton, used the 1644 Geneva Bible, as did King James himself prior to authorizing a version that bears his name.

    After quoting the Geneva Bible in his own writings, King James later endeavored to disavow any knowledge of it whatsoever. This was a clumsy attempt to disassociate himself with his earlier Scottish beliefs in order to win the favor of his English churchmen.

    Notwithstanding the commonly-held notion that King James authorized his version of the Bible to enlighten the common people, his sole intention was to further his capacity to exploit them – courtesy of what was known as the “King’s Rights.”

    The “King’s Rights” was actually known as “The Divine Right of Kings.” This philosophy held that the King’s power was a grant of God. This grant of power meant that the King had no one to answer to but God. This overwhelming lack of accountability even applied to evil kings because of the rationale that “if a king was evil it was a punishment sent on the subjects from God.” In this case the people were expected to suffer in silence...

    The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible, which King James and his subjects had used up until the point of the King’s version, did not conform to the philosophy of “Divine Right of Kings.” By supplanting the Geneva Bible with his own version, King James effectively denied the populace those marginal notes, and, by doing so, denied them their inalienable rights as human beings...
    Marginal notes such as: “When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage...” in the popular Geneva Bible – placed there by people such as John Calvin – really upset and disturbed King James. The irony goes further...

    King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people; his sole purpose was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes were what made it so popular with the common people. Thus, for all intents and purposes: The King James Version of the Bible was a government-sanctioned publication...

    King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. King James was as gay as the days of summer are long! The very people who use the King James Version of the Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of their congregations!...

    The depravity of King James didn’t end with sodomy. The King enjoyed killing animals. He called it “hunting.” Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying...

    King James was a sadist as well as a sodomite. He enjoyed torturing people. When he was King of Scotland, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of that country. The King would even suggest new tortures to the examiners...

    Once a certain so-called “witch” was acquitted. That event so-angered the King that he wrote personally to the court, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing – and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict...

    History has it that King James was also a great coward. Once, when the King was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth, an entourage followed that included noted Dukes and Lords. An argument ensued for some reason and they pulled their swords. The King looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge, which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There – to his shame – he “fouled his breeches in fear”...

    In summary, King James I was the kind of loathsome creature honorable men despised, real Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing the truth about King James, any intelligent person can easily discern motivation behind his machinations regarding “his Bible.”

    When he ascended the English throne, he wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common peoples the marginal notes they so-valued in the Geneva Bible. The fact that King James wasn’t going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record.

    In an account corrected with his own hand he ordained:

    “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and this is to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.”

    King James even ordained that “if a word should be translated a certain way, let’s deliberately mistranslate it to make the people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church – exclusively.”

    Today's gullible Christians who believe that men have not tampered with the Bible need to research this for themselves...
     
  9. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    We seem to have come full circle. It seems that the king failed to take full advantage of his power to mistranslate the Bible for his personal benefit. He could have done his ilk a big favor by leaving out the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, not to mention that little quote by Yeshua that if anyone causes a child who believes in Him to stumble it would be better for him if a millstone were tied around his neck and he were cast into the sea. The king had to find that extremely problematic. So I guess you can add one more item to the list--he was not bright. Or maybe he was such a Machiavelliian schemer that he managed to get these biblical passages to work for him even while they seemed to condemn him. Maybe he wore his depravity like the emperors new clothes--naked but no one dared to say anything. Or maybe he was like Clinton--an ***hole but we love him. The irony is that homosexuals today view the Bible as hate material. Clearly King James did a half job.

    If you read my original post in its entirety you may see that it's not really about King James. That question just came up as a spinoff from another thread that started going in that direction and someone suggested that the new topic belonged in a new thread. But I am not going on record as defending King James about whom I know nothing. But you have inspired me to do some research and for that I thank you.

    river
     
  10. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    You're quite welcome, sister river...
     
Loading...