Was the King James Version of the Bible divinely inspired or a political gambit?

Looking at the history of the rise of the Church of England, were the Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version of the Bible divinely inspired or were they political gambits to try to institutionalize power?This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-04-2004 10:24 PM

Minor spelling defects fixed. Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-04-2004 10:26 PM

Politically in both cases. I don't believe in divine inspiration.The political influence on the bible translators (the Hampton Court scholars) was not too overbearing. James I believed in a divine right of kings and he insisted on interpretations of certain passages dealing with kings that were less ambigious in support of this supposed right than earlier English translations had been. Beyond that I believe the political influence was minimal.The Prayer Book might have suffered more direct political influence, I don't know. I believe I've read that some of the prayers from the old Roman liturgy were revised to reflect the fact that the Church of England was headed by a King and not a Pope, but most of that work would have been done in the 1530s and 40s, many decades before King James came to the English throne.

Actually, the BCP was under Henry so it was considerably before James.I think that it's interesting to look at the period, you had Henry that was dealing with two clocks, one transportation but the other biological. One of the outcomes was the BCP.By the time James came to the throne the situation was even worse and he had very good reasons to install HIS priests into the churches. But that meant that many did not read Latin and so an English Bible was definitely needed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar says:

quote:

---

Actually, the BCP was under Henry so it was considerably before James.

---

Indeed, which is why I earlier said (about the BCP):

quote:

---

But that meant that many did not read Latin and so an English Bible was definitely needed.

---

English translations were already available, but as I mentioned before they were not very concrete on issues related to the supposed divine right of kings. It was this fact, more than any other, that was responsible for James' ordering a new translation of the bible.

I agree, wasn't disputing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You kinda have to feel for Guttenberg, after all the effort to get the textus receptus (God's Word) text printed in german, developing the printing press, to print the recieved texts restored in his native German language, they immediately called in the loan but not until he perfected the press and started printing the preserved word of God in German, etc...P.S. With the printing press able to make massive copies, it caused the Catholic Church to come out of the closet, and the British to print the textus receptus, not in German this time, but English, and the Catholics to print the douay rheim so their laity wouldn't read the soon to come kjv, etc...It appears though its like the Catholic Church said, that Erasamus (a catholic believer) was the egg that hatched Luther and the reformation, but God used Gutenberg to develop the printing press, the Waldenses preserved the new testament from the Catholic Church and the Catholic church preserved the book of revelations, Erasamus was used by God and interestingly included the book of revelations into the restored believers texts, giving believers the preserved Words of God, King James was protected by God from the Spanish Armada, to serve God's greater purpose of preserving his Word, interestingly some say, its the only bible version thats not copywrighted, all others appear to be profiting by man's rewordings, etc...

k. You're right, the stories of the KJV and BCP are interesting. The influence of each of these books on our culture has been incalculable.

whatever writes:

quote:

---

King James was protected by God from the Spanish Armada

---

The Spanish Armada attempted to invade England in 1588 during the reign of Elizabeth I. James didn't come to the throne of England until 1604.EDIT: corrected form error.This message has been edited by berberry, 05-04-2004 11:44 PM

It is indeed interesting that King James would have been chosen by God to preserve his word. James I was a reprobate, an exceedingly vain individual with a convenient belief in the supposed divine right of kings but no regard for the rights of anyone other than himself. He had a highly inflated ego and carried on numerous extra-marital affairs. He had scads of illegitimate children and was well-known to have a homosexual weakness for attractive young men. He wrote numerous worthless polemics and sermons. Many of those sermons were forced upon the clergy and read at COE Sunday Services.As a king he was no less inferior. His reign was an utter failure. He exploited rivalries that festered for decades, ultimately breaking out in the civil war of the 1640s.Of course, James wasn't singularly responsible for that war. He simply played one side against the other in the political and religious conflicts that existed in his time. Had he been more diplomatic and sincere in trying to unite the country, that civil war might well have been avoided.

As you say. the Armada was during Elizabeth's reign and about a year after Elizabeth had killed James' Mother.The real value of Guttenberg to the Church was not in printing Bibles. In fact, the Church saw absolutely no advantage to the printing press over copy rooms when it came to Bibles. There was far too small a market, they thought and far to many Monk Copiests that would be put out of work.But Indulgences were another thing. Indulgences brought in Wealth which was sorely needed as well as favor, power and influence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Gail Riplinger, site mentioned that King James was Unjustly Accused, even so, the bible wasn't named after him until much later, it was called the Holy Bible. I thought it interesting that Gail noted the popular bible versions have omitted the word Holy, Its an important word, so she is saying the others are counterfiets (man's versions), she says not to be caught unawares, I thought that interesting coming from someone more knowledgeable, in the history and wording of all the other bible versions, the Authorized King James Version by her intensive studies, is still THE HOLY BIBLE, in spite that jealous new version printers renamed it, though didn't change any of the wordin, so its still The Holy Bible, etc...P.S. I suppose the reason the other versions omitted the word Holy, is its offensive to someone sinning, and if your copywriting your wording, to sell more bibles, that wouldn't be a word you would want to include in your bible version, might affect sales (the love of money a root of all evil)(money changers), etc...King James VI & I in 1610KING JAMES:
UNJUSTLY ACCUSED
By Stephen Coston
Conclusively proves false the myriad of lies propagated about King James.AVPublications - Thank you for visiting!Was the King James Bible named after King James?DO YOU HAVE A HOLY BIBLE? The King James Bible, published in A.D. 1611, was actually entitled The Holy Bible for over 300 years until after the turn of the 20th century when jealous new version printers sought to rename it.Upon checking new versions it will become apparent that it is still The Holy Bible and the others are counterfeits. (See the following Verse Comparison Chart for supporting evidence.)DON'T BE CAUGHT UNAWARE...Verse Comparison ChartNIV, NASB
(& Most Others)
Scripture Citation
KJV
Authorized
Version
men 2 Pet. 1:21 holy men
angels Matt. 25:31 holy angels
brethren I Thess. 5:27 holy brethren
prophets Rev. 22:6 holy prophets
apostles and prophets Rev. 18:20 holy apostles and prophets
Spirit John 7:39 Holy Ghost
Spirit I Cor. 2:13 Holy Ghost
Spirit Matt. 12:31 Holy Ghost
Spirit Acts 6:3 Holy Ghost
Spirit Acts 8:18 Holy Ghost"Every word of God is pure:"
Prov. 30:5This message has been edited by whatever, 05-05-2004 10:18 PM

You intend to tell me that virtually every serious historian is involved in a conspiracy to discredit King James? You fundies will believe anything so long as another fundie says it, won't you?Looks to me like you and your fellows really have your work cut out for you. Now you have not only evolution in the textbooks to deal with, you have English history to re-write as well. Better get busy!

I suppose it was a big deal in that it was called The Holy Bible, but King James never requested it be called The King James Bible, too him it was simply called The Holy Bible.P.S. I guess I kinda understand why you would have it in for King James, because he used his office, to the spreading of The Holy Bible, though his being King had no bearing on the Wordin, cause the translators used documents like the textus receptus, and converted these documents to cloth God's Word into English. The only errors I ever heard were print press spelling errors which were corrected. If you want to download a Holy bible, download The Authorized King James Bible Version for free, great free supporting software, etc... Enjoy!e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC | Downloads

I think your first point is valid; so far as I know King James didn't order the bible to be named after him.You don't "kinda understand" much else, though. I know fundies who wouldn't back you up on this crap about King James. They know that his motivation for ordering a new translation was entirely political. However, they also know that he turned the task of translation over to a group of highly capable men. Those men took their job seriously and they produced what remains one of the most important (if not THE most important) work in all of Western literature.This in spite of the fact that James most certainly did insist on particular passages being written in a certain way in order that he could cite them to back up his supposed divine right of kings. Many fundies do realize this and realize that James was not a savory character. When asked about it (as I have asked them) they quote some bible passage about how God sometimes uses the most unworthy people for his work. They don't attempt to make the ridiculous claim that all secular historians are involved in a conspiracy to smear James' name.