139 thoughts on “Worshiping the King”

    1. That’s what I thought. It sounds like an old fashioned King James is speaking, like they are going to have a King James impersonator or something.

        1. This is a disgusting diversion. The KJV only folks are participating in a bibliolatry which drags sincere folks into the depths of radical religiosity.

    2. Please, people…these KJV only heretics are not worthy of attention. They belong in the same camp as Harold Camping and Joel Osteen…that is where they belong.

        1. I like smilin’ J-O. Sure, theologically not very profound and problematic at times, but at least he has a positive message. As a proponent of positive psychology, I can take him.

  1. If they insist on posting that sign they should at least write King James Bible preaching so that the sign would make a bit of sense to the unsaved or those who are uninitiated into the mysteries of Fundystan.

  2. Wonder how many fundies realize King James is… to put it mildly, he took the idea of Man Loving His Fellow Man rather literally. πŸ˜€ πŸ˜›
    Just asking, what DOES make the 1611 KJV version the one written in words of flame penned with the feathers plucked from angels? I used to know or think I did, but not really sure. ❓

    1. Depends on who you ask. I’ve heard it range from,
      -“God approves monarchies only (see: OT), so a bible backed by a righteous monarchy is the only good bible”
      -“English at the turn of the 17th century is the greatest language known to man” (if it was good enough for shakespeare, it’s good enough for me)
      -“Translated from the majority text” (fundies treading in textual criticism they don’t understand)

      … and more.

        1. Someone once told me, with a straight face, that this is why it is a sin for American Christians to drink alcohol, but it’s okay for European Christians. You see, since “We the people” are the source of governmental power in the United States (no comments from the peanut gallery please), we are all kings. This is in line with the verse in the Bible that says God has made us kings!!!! And, Proverbs says, “it is not for kings to drink wine.”

          THEREFORE, it is a sin for American Christians to drink alcohol. (But since wine actually means grape juice, then does that mean it’s a sin for us to take communion too? Hmmmm.)

        2. DS – Once again you have opened my eyes. I am now convicted that drinking is not only a sin but it undermines the very fabric of the United States.

          To all of our US readers, I am sorry and hope that you can forgive me for the Sam Adams Summer Ale I drank last night.

        3. You sort of have to love a theory that it’s OK for subjects of a monarchy to drink alcohol, but not for citizens of a republic– even though thinking about it makes my head hurt.

          What about people who live in military dictatorships?
          Or places like Somalia, with no functioning government?

        4. I think Proverbs 31:6-7 apply to them: “Let beer be for those who are perishing,wine for those who are in anguish! Let them drink and forget their poverty
          and remember their misery no more.”

      1. I’ll go with the Shakespeare one, who could deny the Bard of Avon’s genius?
        If Bacon wrote Shakespeare, did Shakespeare ever write him back? πŸ˜€

      2. Interesting; I’ve never heard the “God approves monarchies” statement.

        I have heard the English language being at its peak at the time the KJV was written.

        I have heard the third item, or variations of it; that, at least, seems reasonable, since I have heard much preached about this and how that many of the people behind the textual criticism movement were heretics or outright unbelievers. I don’t believe that the Bible should be treated as any other ancient text; I do believe God has preserved it; I do not think that God allowed His word to be “lost” for hundreds of years, only to be recovered by the hocus-pocus of textual critics.

        But I don’t believe that God wrote the KJV, or inspired the men who wrote it.

        1. The Bible nowhere says that Jesus and his disciples were celibate.
          The default assumption was that any able-bodied adult Jewish man was married, so it probably would have been mentioned if Jesus were single, because it would have been so unusual.

        2. Married: Yes, probably.
          Royal bloodline: The genealogy in Matthew says that Joseph was descended from David and Solomon. Of course, if you hold to a literal virgin birth for Jesus, a genealogy through the paternal line is perhaps irrelevant. Also, Jewishness is supposedly passed on only through mothers.
          If you mean royal descent FROM Jesus, there’s no credible record of him having any descendants, so your guess is as good as mine about who, if anyone, are Jesus’ descendants.

        3. Its possible, BG, but I kind of doubt it.
          1) He was homeless, and marriage at the time required men to prove they could take care of a wife.
          2) You would think she would merit a mention at least once given that so many women are listed in Jesus’ ministry.
          3) Its odd that at the cross he would make sure his mother was taken care of, but not his wife.
          4) The whole law about a brother taking his deceased brother’s wife would get really weird for James 😎

        4. I was always taught that this is why Mary’s genealogy is given in Luke in addition to Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew – both parents were descended from King David.

        5. Jesus showed such concern for women, I think it would be horrible if he had married a woman knowing he would leave her alone at 33. But then he knew everything, so could honestly have chosen to marry a woman he knew would die before 30 so that he was widowed by the time he went on his ministry.

          I always thought with his father’s death and younger siblings to raise, he was probably busy working the family business and seeing his siblings well married/apprenticed up till 30, when he was free to start his own ministry.

        6. We don’t know that his father died before Jesus, either, although Joseph is not mentioned in the Gospels after Jesus reached adulthood.

        7. The fact that his mother, brothers, and sisters are mentioned and Joseph isn’t is telling, as is the fact that Jesus asked John to look after his mother (which wouldn’t be necessary if she had a living husband). No, I’m not going to preach from the pulpit that this definitely happened, but I do believe it did.

        8. That’s fascinating, Theodore.
          Thanks for link.
          So more or less all Middle Easterners of the time were likely descendants of King David.

    1. By someone that doesn’t understand the text he’s yelling from, and prefers to fit his personal vendettas & hobby horses into God’s plan for the audience.

        1. Yeah, I think “King James Preaching” means preaching in the same room as a King James version of the Bible.

    1. Hmm. Well, the dress styles have changed, but the arrangement of the people is suggestive of an IFB church: managawd on the throne surrounded by his lackeys before a reverent congregation.

        1. Dear heavenly Father, we just pray Lord that you bless the hands that made our tater tots and we just ask that You allow these tots to nurish our bodies. Amen.

    2. I’m sure glad photography has improved over the years. Those old portraits make it look like the men are in tights, little skirts, and lacy collared shirts. That just goes completely against all of that King Jameses Preachin’

  3. Old Fashioned King James. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…
    Since he was James VI of Scotland, that means there were five before him. Wouldn’t true Old Fashioned King James worship mean we worship the first one of them? James I was often at odds with the Church (Catholic) so he would be a better object of Old Fashioned worship than a later model James who used the church to further his own ends.

    Oh. That makes James VI a Fundy. Dang history!

  4. Old Fashioned King James Preaching:

    This means that the pastor will read a text out of his King James that may or may not have anything to do with the topic he actually preaches on. More often than not, it will be a string of proof texts taken out of context that he found in his concordance when looking up a single word or topic. The text in question will be read in a minute or less and the “King James” preacher will spend the next 45-60 minutes telling you what he thinks that passage says about why the his personal standards are superior to everyone else’s and should be immediately adopted by all “within the sound of his voice.”

  5. Two things I know about King James:
    1) sponsored the King James Bible (which takes most of its text from Tyndale, anyways).
    2) super, super gay.

    I seriously do not know how Fundies manage to forget or dismiss that second part. I think homosexuality is totally a-okay with God, but Fundies, ah, typically don’t. Do they think that the book somehow transcends the person who sponsored it? If so, why that particular book? Why not the Revised Standard Version or something?
    AUGH SOMETHING BEING OLD DOESN’T NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER AUGH.

    1. I have seen/heard/read KJVO-ists say that King James was not gay. Problem solved.

      They ignore historical facts with the Trail of Blood, why not ignore other historical facts to suit their fancy?

      1. Well, I’m guessing that their logic is that James did go on to father Charles the 1st, so the fact that James did IT at least once with a woman seems to negate the rest. πŸ˜‰

        1. Yes, because we all know that homosexuals NEVER marry someone of the opposite sex or have children. πŸ™„

        2. Somewhat more than once, I think. According to the BBC, James I and Anne of Denmark produced seven children, three of whom survived to adulthood. She also had three miscarriages. There were some early rumors about her fidelity, but nothing substantial, so all the children were likely fathered by James. Although today’s sexual categories didn’t exist then, James seems to have been what today would be called bi-sexual.

  6. I have a pet peeve regarding church signs that only someone with some church background would understand. How should we expect the community to feel welcome if our sign is so confusing or condemning? For instance, an IFBKJO church in my community currently has a sign that reads, “Are you a Christian atheist?” What does that even mean?!

    1. I knew some people that believed that sinners and the unsaved shouldn’t even show their faces in the church. It is God’s house after all. Any exposure to the message should be on their own time…

      1. I don’t believe that they shouldn’t come, but I do believe that the church services are not primarily for them. Which is why I deplore the “come forward and get saved” invitations that prolong every single IFB service.

    2. We have a fundy church here that puts up weird signs. Usually they are pretty confusing, even to believers. What gets me most is the guy who makes the sigh actually thinks he is reaching “the lost”

  7. To ALL the idiots that somehow bought into the Roman Catholic spawned lie and deception that King James was a queer. WAKE UP, he was not even close.

    He had 9 children from the SAME WIFE. Queers do not reproduce, they RECUIT…YOUR children!

    Try reading his actual writings sometime and you would KNOW he was not a queer. So, if you insist on promoting this LIE out of hell, you are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father ye will do! (John 8:44)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHDiV4EB0Ns

    1. This commenter is in for a long hard life of trying to convince everyone he/she knows to stop believing history and start believing the IFB fairy tales.

        1. One last comment. John 8:44 was much more applicable to the kind of rage & adhesion to a perceived spiritual father (like Abraham or King James) that this commenter is an example of than it is to historically pointing out evidence of sexual behavior of a king.

    2. They don’t recruit my children. I don’t have any. And no, I am not a “queer.” I am a heterosexually married man. I do, however, know several homosexual individuals who do have children. And yet somehow they manage to be homosexuals nonetheless.

      I know, I know, your sacred cow of condemnation of homosexuality rests in part on the “gays cant procreate so they are evil” argument. Unfortunately for you, that’s just not true.

      Nice parody and/or Poe’s law.

      Most people’s actions do not precisely mirror their words. Just because King James occasionally condemned homosexuality in his writings doesn’t mean that he never engaged in same-sex conduct.

      Also, even if the Roman Catholic Church was the source of the “King James was a homosexual” rumor (NB: it wasn’t), that doesn’t mean that the rumor was false.

      1. Well . . . one thing that dum & dumah has achieved through this post is to prompt me to find out more about good old Mrs. King James. I never really looked into the sexuality issue before today that closely. My conclusion: the man was gay as a three dollar bill. In fact, some of his letters suggest that he believed in gay marriage, at least in a theoretical sense.

        1. Interesting; all that I can find and have read indicates that the change of homosexuality was made by his enemies.

        2. I don’t know GR, but that would have no bearing on the veracity of the claim. I don’t imagine friends of monarchs in the 17th century would go around claiming he had trysts with male courtiers – even if true.

    3. I’m not convinced you’re a real Fundy. Not enough CAPSLOCK & too coherent. If you are real & want to be seen as a serious Fundy, you must learn to ignore proper spelling & punctuation while simultaneously abusing the capslock function.

    4. Oh Dumah, you’re funny and weird. He was gay… Or, as you put it, queer. Therefore, you’re both “funny” and “weird”. It’s okay though, I am sure your wife and many children will still love you.

    5. Jimmy meet Jack, Jack… Jimmy
      Duke of Buckingham meet Jennie, Jennie… The Duke of Buckingham. Seem you all have something in common….

      Restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken in 2004–08, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers.[129]

    6. This clown worshipped King James! Really? Your worship of King James is your foundation of the perfection of the KJV 1611? You are the fools…you are the fools indeed.

    7. Given the punishments for sodomy in James’ day, it is very unlikely he would have overtly confessed in his writings to any sexuality other than the norm. He certainly had a number of male favourites to whom he was very affectionate but whether it was anything more than that is difficult to ascertain.
      Furthermore, if he was to preach it would be difficult for most of you to follow him gin he speirt in guid braid Scots.

    8. “Queers don’t reproduce, they recruit…”

      LOLOLOL!!!!!

      That’s the most awesome thing I’ve heard in a long time.

      Oh my…

      I needed that.

      Oh…of course it’s bunk, but you got to admit that a LOT of bigots can be quite witty.

  8. funny how we can rave about the beauties of American democracy, freedom to tote guns, freedom to elect our own officials, etc. . . . and then out of the other side of our mouth, we can deify a king (just to clarify, kings are in charge of kindgoms, NOT democracies) in a culture where there was NOT religious freedom.
    But the real question is, did King James go to Wednesday night church? Did the translators of the KJV go soulwinning on Saturday mornings? Someone should really research these things.

      1. Reminds me of part of a great Keith Green song,

        Moses is rather idle,
        He just sits around
        And writes the Bible.
        Moses, put down your pen!
        What? Manna again?

        Which further reminds me of the time I just couldn’t take it any longer and played a Keith Green tape in the BJU dorm. Got caught, got 50 Ds which put me over the “socialed” threshold, which meant I couldn’t talk to females. That was the very day that social restrictions were lifted campuswide in prep for final exams and the end of the semester. I was socialed for all of about 6 hours. I made a sign that said “Sorry, I can’t talk to you until 4:30.” which all the chicks thought was funny since I had been unrestricted the day before. Fun times. I really hope they continue to lighten up.

        1. Yeah, I’m another of the Mikes around here.

          I got socialed once, after they chased us down from October until December. They finally got us three days before Christmas break. So stinkin’ stern, they were!

          I never talked to so many girls as I did during the days I was socialed. They wouldn’t stay away!

  9. One thing I’ll never figure out. How is it that IFB members (predominantly all American) can manage to hold both the Pilgrims who came to the New World for religious freedom AND the man who ran them out of England because they wouldn’t join the Church of England for doctrinal reasons BOTH in high esteem at the same time? ❓

  10. I can’t say for sure, but this looks like a sign that you can design on line to say anything. The website is: http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/
    You can try out various wording on the signs then save the image. Here’s my prescription for depressed or discouraged fundamentalists: Drink 2 beers. Go to that website. Make phony signs for what you wished your ex-church sign said. Enjoy!

    1. In the forums you can see a link to where this picture was posted on Christianity Today’s website in 2011. You can also see the link to the missionary who originally submitted the picture.

  11. I wonder why our old fashioned King James preaching is only drawing a crowd of ten on Sunday mornings and half of them are my kids? I can’t make a livin this way unless I get some tithers in here, haymen??!!! I must have set up my church in one of Satan’s NIV stronghold communities, somebody schedule a Gale Riplinger conference right away, we gots heathens to reach!!!

  12. As an Englishman who has had to swear an oath of allegiance to his monarch as part of his employment requirement (guess what I do for a living), I’d like to make two brief points;
    1. The KJV was based (intentionally) on earlier English language versions of the Bible. As such its English was already archaic by the time it was first published. KJV English and Shakespearean English are quite different.
    2. 1 Samuel 8. Viva la Republique!

  13. I find it sadly comical that they will read this archaic language at little mountain churches where people are barely literate. With the syntax and word endings it might as well be Latin for some of those people. Where do those two things meet?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.