King james was gay!

[The Irish Ram]

Yep. What Chuck said.

 

[The Irish Ram]

aahhh I made a mistake.
Those modifications don't exist is what I meant to type. I corrected the original post, but can't in Chuck's quote of the post. ( If I was a scribe, they would have taken my post, scored the omission and then buried the page.)

 

[thebrucebeat]

I checked and the 1611 King James Bible mentions Homosexuality as a sin.

Show some evidence because I don't believe you.

That's the Bible you read today. That Bible was modified in 1792 and in the mid 1800's to more closely align with the prudent culture of the days, and again in the mid 20th century, yet still has the date of 1611.

Here's another good read:

Clobbering "Biblical" Gay Bashing - The God Article

If that were true then whomever did all of that modifying, also had to:
Discover the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not tell anybody.
Modify them also, using ancient ink and parchment.
Then re-hide them.
Twice.

Nebuchadnezzar was nuts, but he still played a role in God's plan. God is Lord over all people, not just those who are inclined toward Him. He uses them for His pleasure. The King James is the closest of all Bibles to the original writings. Compare it to the Dead Sea Scrolls and then compare them to the original writings, and those modifications don't exist.
So while James was snuggling with his boyfriends, the very best of scribes were translating God's word with amazing accuracy. They did a good job. It is a trustworthy Bible.

side note:
If you take God's name and produce no Godly behavior, you have taken His name in vain.

Vain- Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt. 2. Lacking substance or worth:

This is quite hilarious if you know the history of the KJV and what it is actually based on.
I know your devotion to it would never let you study that, but it would be eye-opening for you.
Do you understand we don't have the original manuscripts? They don't exist. Your commentary that the KJV "is the closest of all Bibles to the original writings" is a preposterous statement that kind of reveals where you got your "larnin'" from.
Did you know the very oldest text manuscripts we have, both partial and complete, do not include the famous "let he who is without sin..." story? The most used study bible in mainstream seminaries is the Harper Collins, and it includes notes on those verses saying they can not be confirmed as authentic. The Oxford Study Bible takes it further, cutting the story altogether, considering it a later scribal addition to scripture.
You don't know anything about that, do you? Your preacher guru told you "1611 or nothing" and he said it was the best, so that pretty much ended the research into it, I'll bet.
There is much to learn about how the KJV was assembled and what it is based on. Many of the oldest manuscripts, generally considered to be closest to whatever the originals might have looked like, were not discovered until long after the KJV was produced. Much of it was translated from previous translations into Koin Greek, a slang form of shorthand Greek, from the original Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament.
Oh, well.
I know you won't care. God fixed it all and made 1611 his coming out year.

 

[Chuckt]

That's the Bible you read today. That Bible was modified in 1792 and in the mid 1800's to more closely align with the prudent culture of the days, and again in the mid 20th century, yet still has the date of 1611.

Here's another good read:

Clobbering "Biblical" Gay Bashing - The God Article

If that were true then whomever did all of that modifying, also had to:
Discover the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not tell anybody.
Modify them also, using ancient ink and parchment.
Then re-hide them.
Twice.

Nebuchadnezzar was nuts, but he still played a role in God's plan. God is Lord over all people, not just those who are inclined toward Him. He uses them for His pleasure. The King James is the closest of all Bibles to the original writings. Compare it to the Dead Sea Scrolls and then compare them to the original writings, and those modifications don't exist.
So while James was snuggling with his boyfriends, the very best of scribes were translating God's word with amazing accuracy. They did a good job. It is a trustworthy Bible.

side note:
If you take God's name and produce no Godly behavior, you have taken His name in vain.

Vain- Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt. 2. Lacking substance or worth:

This is quite hilarious if you know the history of the KJV and what it is actually based on.
I know your devotion to it would never let you study that, but it would be eye-opening for you.
Do you understand we don't have the original manuscripts? They don't exist. Your commentary that the KJV "is the closest of all Bibles to the original writings" is a preposterous statement that kind of reveals where you got your "larnin'" from.
Did you know the very oldest text manuscripts we have, both partial and complete, do not include the famous "let he who is without sin..." story? The most used study bible in mainstream seminaries is the Harper Collins, and it includes notes on those verses saying they can not be confirmed as authentic. The Oxford Study Bible takes it further, cutting the story altogether, considering it a later scribal addition to scripture.
You don't know anything about that, do you? Your preacher guru told you "1611 or nothing" and he said it was the best, so that pretty much ended the research into it, I'll bet.
There is much to learn about how the KJV was assembled and what it is based on. Many of the oldest manuscripts, generally considered to be closest to whatever the originals might have looked like, were not discovered until long after the KJV was produced. Much of it was translated from previous translations into Koin Greek, a slang form of shorthand Greek, from the original Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament.
Oh, well.
I know you won't care. God fixed it all and made 1611 his coming out year.

Bruce,

The KJ Only position is an unproven assumtion that the Catholics knew what the original line of manuscripts were because they were burning it.

I am KJ preferred because the evidence supports it.

There are problems with the Alexandrian manuscript because it was left in a trash heep and it is where your cults come from.

I don't know why you bring up the points you do.

Chuck

 

[thebrucebeat]

If that were true then whomever did all of that modifying, also had to:
Discover the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not tell anybody.
Modify them also, using ancient ink and parchment.
Then re-hide them.
Twice.

Nebuchadnezzar was nuts, but he still played a role in God's plan. God is Lord over all people, not just those who are inclined toward Him. He uses them for His pleasure. The King James is the closest of all Bibles to the original writings. Compare it to the Dead Sea Scrolls and then compare them to the original writings, and those modifications don't exist.
So while James was snuggling with his boyfriends, the very best of scribes were translating God's word with amazing accuracy. They did a good job. It is a trustworthy Bible.

side note:
If you take God's name and produce no Godly behavior, you have taken His name in vain.

This is quite hilarious if you know the history of the KJV and what it is actually based on.
I know your devotion to it would never let you study that, but it would be eye-opening for you.
Do you understand we don't have the original manuscripts? They don't exist. Your commentary that the KJV "is the closest of all Bibles to the original writings" is a preposterous statement that kind of reveals where you got your "larnin'" from.
Did you know the very oldest text manuscripts we have, both partial and complete, do not include the famous "let he who is without sin..." story? The most used study bible in mainstream seminaries is the Harper Collins, and it includes notes on those verses saying they can not be confirmed as authentic. The Oxford Study Bible takes it further, cutting the story altogether, considering it a later scribal addition to scripture.
You don't know anything about that, do you? Your preacher guru told you "1611 or nothing" and he said it was the best, so that pretty much ended the research into it, I'll bet.
There is much to learn about how the KJV was assembled and what it is based on. Many of the oldest manuscripts, generally considered to be closest to whatever the originals might have looked like, were not discovered until long after the KJV was produced. Much of it was translated from previous translations into Koin Greek, a slang form of shorthand Greek, from the original Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament.
Oh, well.
I know you won't care. God fixed it all and made 1611 his coming out year.

Bruce,

The KJ Only position is an unproven assumtion that the Catholics knew what the original line of manuscripts were because they were burning it.

I am KJ preferred because the evidence supports it.

There are problems with the Alexandrian manuscript because it was left in a trash heep and it is where your cults come from.

I don't know why you bring up the points you do.

Chuck

I'm quite sure you don't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How can so many historians be wrong!
.

You queers are some desperate fuckers.

That you make this kind of shit up is further proof that you're not ready for prime time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lebron James is gay? Who new!

I always suspected

I'd love for your to accuse it of him to his face, so I can post the results on YouTube.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

How can so many historians be wrong!
.

You queers are some desperate fuckers.

That you make this kind of shit up is further proof that you're not ready for prime time.

Very insightful post!
My, you must make all the Klansmen proud!

 

[koshergrl]

All men are of sinful nature. James is widely supposed to have been at least bi, if not outright homosexual.

He is also widely recognized and hailed as a very spiritual and truly dedicated man, a man of God and of the people as well. A brilliant man.

So does Howe maintain one can't be godly and gay? Or godly and brilliant? Or is he pretending that there has ever been a Christian ever, except for Christ, who has been recognized as sinless?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How can so many historians be wrong!
.

You queers are some desperate fuckers.

That you make this kind of shit up is further proof that you're not ready for prime time.

Very insightful post!
My, you must make all the Klansmen proud!

Actually, the tactic of altering historical figures to justify the positions of a movement is exactly the sort of shit the Klan did. I'll bet they had all sorts of claims that Peter and Paul hated blacks.

Desperate and small minds find refuge in this sort of idiocy.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You queers are some desperate fuckers.

That you make this kind of shit up is further proof that you're not ready for prime time.

Very insightful post!
My, you must make all the Klansmen proud!

Actually, the tactic of altering historical figures to justify the positions of a movement is exactly the sort of shit the Klan did. I'll bet they had all sorts of claims that Peter and Paul hated blacks.

Desperate and small minds find refuge in this sort of idiocy.

Do you have evidence that shows anything being altered, or do you just have a position with no basis?
Make an argument and back it up, or just put your hood back on.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you have evidence that shows anything being altered, or do you just have a position with no basis?
Make an argument and back it up, or just put your hood back on.

Are you inviting me to prove a negative?

Imagine, a lefty engaging in logical fallacy - who would have guessed...

 

[koshergrl]

I don't understand the lefty obsession with what people do in their own bedrooms.

 

[Howey]

All men are of sinful nature. James is widely supposed to have been at least bi, if not outright homosexual.

He is also widely recognized and hailed as a very spiritual and truly dedicated man, a man of God and of the people as well. A brilliant man.

So does Howe maintain one can't be godly and gay? Or godly and brilliant? Or is he pretending that there has ever been a Christian ever, except for Christ, who has been recognized as sinless?

Did I say that? (Although I believe the Christian practice of "Sin, then repent, then sin again, then repeat again" is a bit silly)

My point is that according to some nutcases like mal and Gizmo, the person for whom today's Bible is named, King James, will rot in hell for being gay.

Irony, indeed!

 

[Howey]

I don't understand the lefty obsession with what people do in their own bedrooms.

Ain't us, Angel Buns!

 

[koshergrl]

Mal doesn't maintain that gays rot in hell for being gay.

In fact, I've never heard anyone say that.

They will rot in hell for rejecting Christ, however.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't understand the lefty obsession with what people do in their own bedrooms.

It is the small mind syndrome - if someone else did it, it justifies them doing it.

The Catholic Church smeared King James as a political maneuver, including whispers of sodomite behavior - only the desperate fools today would claim this as solid evidence.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Jimmy was often known to put his scepter in places where it did not belong....

 

[koshergrl]

Not really, but it's a fun rumor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jimmy was often known to put his scepter in places where it did not belong....

Another queer making shit up to justify your own decisions...

What small minds you have.