Wow! What happens if you read only Fundy lierature. And that’s not a 1611 King James – I have a facsimile from 1911 that’s kind of fun.
While to say “King James was a practising homosexual” is probably a little far-fetched, he was certainly involved in some wild parties. His father-in-law, the King of Denmark, was famed for being able to drink any monarch in Europe under the table, and did that with James. Is it not rather interesting, though, that the AV replaces the simple old word “buggerers” in 1 Cor. 6 with “abusers of themselves with mankind”? Furthermore, one King James translator was a verified drunk. Oh, and contra Gail Riplinger, the AV 1611 was published with the Apocrypha!
@Highland Host
Have you heard of the surviving love letters between James and the Duke of Buckingham? Fairly enthusiastic and frequent ‘practice’, by the sound of it. I wonder what would happen if you started reciting the one that contains the bit about ‘longing to hold your legs in my hands again’ to the average KJV only-er?
Poor kid’s been brainwashed.
This is proof positive of the idiocy of King James Only-ism!
I’m thinking this young man is aspiring to fill Peter Ruckman’s shoes sometime soon (that old fart’s still alive, isn’t he?). Or perhaps he desires to be Fred Phelps’ successor as pastor of Westboro Baptist Church?
First of all, unless if he has about $95 USD to fork out on a Bible, I doubt that he has the 1611 KJV. Second of all, although the KJV is a good translation of the Bible for the time period, I personally think that the Bible should be written in the language of the people (as did the Bible translators of the 16th and 17th century believed). If people can read and understand the KJV, fine, let them use it. However, the credibility of a Bible is linked to a comparison of the manuscripts in the original languages instead of who published it.
Has no one told this young man that the KJV is copyrighted in the UK? I often wonder do those who really believe this argument think that this mean in the UK the uncopyrighted RV of 1885 or ASV of 1901 are the Word of God?
Comments are closed.
A silly blog dedicated to Independent Fundamental Baptists, their standards, their beliefs, and their craziness.
Wow! What happens if you read only Fundy lierature. And that’s not a 1611 King James – I have a facsimile from 1911 that’s kind of fun.
While to say “King James was a practising homosexual” is probably a little far-fetched, he was certainly involved in some wild parties. His father-in-law, the King of Denmark, was famed for being able to drink any monarch in Europe under the table, and did that with James. Is it not rather interesting, though, that the AV replaces the simple old word “buggerers” in 1 Cor. 6 with “abusers of themselves with mankind”? Furthermore, one King James translator was a verified drunk. Oh, and contra Gail Riplinger, the AV 1611 was published with the Apocrypha!
@Highland Host
Have you heard of the surviving love letters between James and the Duke of Buckingham? Fairly enthusiastic and frequent ‘practice’, by the sound of it. I wonder what would happen if you started reciting the one that contains the bit about ‘longing to hold your legs in my hands again’ to the average KJV only-er?
Poor kid’s been brainwashed.
This is proof positive of the idiocy of King James Only-ism!
I’m thinking this young man is aspiring to fill Peter Ruckman’s shoes sometime soon (that old fart’s still alive, isn’t he?). Or perhaps he desires to be Fred Phelps’ successor as pastor of Westboro Baptist Church?
First of all, unless if he has about $95 USD to fork out on a Bible, I doubt that he has the 1611 KJV. Second of all, although the KJV is a good translation of the Bible for the time period, I personally think that the Bible should be written in the language of the people (as did the Bible translators of the 16th and 17th century believed). If people can read and understand the KJV, fine, let them use it. However, the credibility of a Bible is linked to a comparison of the manuscripts in the original languages instead of who published it.
Has no one told this young man that the KJV is copyrighted in the UK? I often wonder do those who really believe this argument think that this mean in the UK the uncopyrighted RV of 1885 or ASV of 1901 are the Word of God?