The King James Authoritarian Conspiracy And The Political Legitimacy of Monarchy

originally posted by: dfnj2015
You make it sound so definitive. It's not. Yes, if everyone translated from the same Greek text all over Europe all the versions will be very similar. But where did that particular Greek translation come from.

That point has no relevance to the question in hand, unless you are claiming that King James himself chose the Greek text that everybody else in Europe was using.
They were in print, incidentally, before he was born.

I still think there's some kind of insidious Satanic authority worshiping evil in the Bible.

But that is not the issue.
The issue is whether King James was personally responsible for putting it there.
I am still waiting for evidence of that.

The Lord, The CREATOR, The King of Kings! God. Did not need a "King James" to spread his truth. You need to understand, that Catholicism is not "Christian" and never has been. It was a hijacked, useful tool for Roman politicians.

What/which "monarchy" are you fixed on?

a reply to: dfnj2015

God forbid your tribe was ever labeled "heathens" or "pagan" by the state! Then killing the enemies of the state can be done without any moral consequence.

Not exactly a new technique though, is it?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It just seems to me if the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, that it would have a more egalitarian form of government. It seems to me the Bible is written with a particular type of government as its agenda.

I agree. There was some genius a couple of weeks ago arguing that the United States was in violation of God's will because of the Revolution and disobeying King George III.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about our Declaration of Independence and the idea that many of founder fathers were deists precisely because of King Jame's idea of the Divine right of kings.

Except the founding fathers transferred the will of God as something expressed by the people and removed it from monarchs and government. At least that's how it reads to me.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: dfnj2015

Seriously have you ever picked up the bible
You just committed a stupid

The OT teaches that the Kings ( literally a book in the OT) teaches that the Kings, including David, we're all an unjust, horrible lot of rulers

How do you arrive at such complete ludicrous statement

I can not believe you have made that statement, it's just flat out wrong

Please show me in the KJV where what you are describing actually happened, where King James changed things, wrote things, doctored up the bible
Please show me what you think supports your theory, seriously I am at a loss to how you have come up with this seriously flawed theory
What evidence can you provide

That's because it's convenient to you to think or argue that way about the bible as a whole and not just the KJV (make it appear more vague and unreliable; as if one can't figure out what it originally said anyway, selective agnosticism, willful convenient ignorance, promotion of the philosophy of vagueness that you can't figure it out with certainty anyway, allowing for spin and twisting things to your liking as well as encouraging the wallowing in ignorance demonstrated by those who pretend to be openminded, enlightened, more knowledgeable and less gullible by arguing for such things, as if they can see this while others can't; how knowledgeable is one for not knowing and encouraging not knowing or not making any effort to figure it out cause that would supposedly be fruitless anyway?). Viewing it that way tickles your ears (2 Timothy 4:3,4) as well as many others' ears.

KJV

Your way of arguing is not much different than the ones promoting KJ-Onlyism (in or out of the closet, since ChesterJohn is still in the closet regarding this, not sure about Raggedyman) that are in denial of what's mentioned below (the certainty/truth/factuality/truthfulness of it, and only those parts of the video where they are acknowledging some facts/truths/certainties regarding 1 John 5:7 in the KJV):

Acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of. (source: google dictionary)

Some people continue to quote 1 John 5:7 from the KJV with authority (while pretending these are God's words) in spite of being well aware of the acknowledgements and facts mentioned in the video above. That's not just blatant willful ignorance anymore, it's plain dishonest and hypocritical (when claiming to be a Christian, who should be honest and make some effort to "make sure of all things" and "hold fast to what is fine", not hold fast to what is false in spite of the clear and unambiguous evidence because of conditioning and brainwashing with KJ-Onlyism).

a reply to: DISRAELI

You are still missing the point. In that event, ALL THE OTHER TRANSLATIONS would have been showing the unchanged original text.

Absolutely correct. Thank you for that explanation.

King James was also the 6th of Scotland and 1st of England and Ireland and in being so had limited authority in the church without revolution. The Geneva bible comes into play here and the main difference between it and the AV were the marginal notes. James was offended by the marginal notes of the Geneva bible which did not agree with his life style. They were politically removed as being opinions.