Like Your Bible? Thank A Homosexual.

Like Your Bible? Thank A Homosexual.

by Liv | Published on October 3rd, 2008, 7:44 pm | Religion

: kingjames.gif (24.06 KiB) Viewed 9041 times

The Bible, most popularly known by it's King James Translation was ordered into the English language during the 1500s. The interesting part is King James was 100% certified homosexual. Nicknamed affectionately: "Queen James", by his closest subjects. In fact most of the verses that Christians attribute in the bible to be anti-homosexual didn't appear until 1946 when someone came along and revised the King James Version of the bible into modern English.

In fact there are no condemnations of homosexuality in the original Greek or Hebrew texts. It wasn't until about 100 years after the church stopped performing gay marriages that "English" translations deliberately mistranslated the text to condemn homosexuality.

VIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

"The evidence of his correspondence and contemporary accounts have led some historians to conclude that the king was homosexual or bisexual. In fact, the issue is murky."

Let's not label speculation as fact.

That's mostly true. Sodomy i.e. anal intercourse, was considered a serious sin, and he wrote in Basilikon Doron that it was a 'terrible sin' and 'unforgivable', but other homosexual acts were not considered particularly sinful. It is reliably recorded that he publicly kissed Boswell.

He seems to have been bi-sexual rather than homosexual though. There is a lot of evidence that he loved his wife.

Oh yeah, Wikipedia is always factually....

King James was a known homosexual.

Liv wrote:Oh yeah, Wikipedia is always factually....

King James was a known homosexual.

You knew him? I suppose your train of thought is that misery loves company.

In fact most of the verses that Christians attribute in the bible to be anti-homosexual didn't appear until 1946 when someone came along and revised the King James Version of the bible into modern English

Hogwash.

Liv wrote:Oh yeah, Wikipedia is always factually....

King James was a known homosexual.

what, because it was written on the internet? It's speculation, for or against, at best.

It's inferred from contemporary documents Matt. There are letters and court documents. These are referenced by several historians - and yes some are even 'written on the Internet' - which doesn't automatically disqualify it as false.

A Person wrote:It's inferred from contemporary documents Matt. There are letters and court documents. These are referenced by several historians - and yes some are even 'written on the Internet' - which doesn't automatically disqualify it as false.

loose references to what might have been. Kinda like your belief in the bible.

Obviously we can know nothing about the past in that case. History is bunk.

There is a difference between a book which was written decades after the events, is self referential and unsupported by contemporary documents, compared with English history in the 1600's.

Not surprisingly the history of Tudor England is very well documented as contemporary Court documents are carefully preserved and are supported by masses of private and civic documents.

the civic court records about this are where?

What 'civic' court are you talking about Matt?

The crown maintains archives of official documents, other levels of government archive their records too. Other documents and letters are in libraries, museums and collections.

The Tower of London was the official Royal administrative center and archive library until 1850, many documents are still stored there. You can view most of them by appointment. Contact: The Curator, The Library, Royal Armouries, HM Tower of London, EC3N 4AB

They have confirmed info about King James being gay?

A Person wrote:It's inferred from contemporary documents Matt.

inferred? bible infers much you say to be false. Cherry picking your truths?

Matt wrote:They have confirmed info about King James being gay?

Go and read them Matt, and then come back and show me where they don't say say he's not gay.

Or skunks don't breed with salesmen, or whatever.

I don't care enough either way to verify it.

I just have fun poking holes in your 6-degrees-of-separation logic.

Whatever Matt. If you can suggest something historical is BS just because you want too, then by all means the Bible is the biggest historical BS ever.

the sources of the story are weak. October 4th, 2008, 3:12 pm Reply with quote

the sources of the story are weak.

Weak? you're too lazy to even look.

James 1, addressing the Privy Council wrote:I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.

James, letter to Buckingham wrote:I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had, that were not only all your people but all the world besides set together on one side and you alone on the other, I should to obey and please you displease, nay, despise them all.

James, letter to Buckignham wrote:I desire only to live in the world for your sake, and I had rather live banished in any part of the world with you, than live a sorrowful widow-life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.

Francis Osborne, Peer wrote:

In wanton looks and wanton gestures they [James and Buckingham] exceeded any part of womankind. The kissing them after so lascivious a mode in public and upon the theatre, as it were, of the world prompted many to imagine some things done in the tyring house [i.e. attiring or dressing room] that exceed my expression no less than they do my experience.

Théophile de Viau 1623 French courtier wrote:"Au marquis du Boukinquan,"

Apollo with his songs
Debauched young Hyacinthus
Just as Corydon cracked Amyntas,
So Caesar did not spurn boys.

One man frecks Monsieur le Grand de Bellegarde
Another frecks the Comte de Tonnerre.
And it is well known that the King of England
frecks the Duke of Buckingham.

you conspicuously left off any links.

OMG Matt, now you're being silly. I'm guessing Ann Boleyn ran free in England and invented Fish and Chips rather than being beheaded too... because we can't trust anyone.

ok then, indulge me.

1) What if this was true?
2) Then what?
3) It would matter how?

You say you don't believe in God. But you sure work pretty hard to make any gay connection in the Bible.

5) Why put so much effort and passion into an organization/belief that you say is false? These people obviously don't want you around so long as you go against their ideals.

6)Why even bother with them?

7) Are you hoping they'll change how they feel about gays and whatever other belief you think the world should change just for you?

8.) If they did, would you suddenly believe in God again?

9)Or perhaps you're not as atheist as you say you are?

There you go. Numbered one by one. Easy.

Your sources are still questionable because other sources complete say the opposite.

Matt wrote:ok then, indulge me.

1) What if this was true?

Then Alanis Morrisette has new lyrics for "Isn't it Ironic?"

2) Then what?

Then Biblical homophobic beliefs would seem somewhat stupider than they already do.

3) It would matter how?

The word hypocritical comes to mind.

You say you don't believe in God. But you sure work pretty hard to make any gay connection in the Bible.

I enjoy reading, and writing... I enjoy talking, discussing, even learning about new things.

5) Why put so much effort and passion into an organization/belief that you say is false? These people obviously don't want you around so long as you go against their ideals.

I don't put a lot of effort into it.

6)Why even bother with them?

Who, Christians? I'm not. I am a writer, writing about something I feel is interesting.... people can agree or disagree, it matters not to I.

7) Are you hoping they'll change how they feel about gays and whatever other belief you think the world should change just for you?

It would be nice, but no. However, if some young mind comes along and reads my writings and it makes them think for a moment, maybe even question things... I can't say I'd hate the self-satisfaction that would come with such an occurrence

8.) If they did, would you suddenly believe in God again?

I've always said I'd be willing to believe in God again, if you can convince me that he's real.

9)Or perhaps you're not as atheist as you say you are?

I'm whatever label you want to put on me. If God doesn't exists then can atheism really exist? Perhaps it's better to say I'm just a person who stands upon this earth for a moment in time hoping to contribute something to some idea greater than myself alone.

There you go. Numbered one by one. Easy.

Oh were you talking to me?

Your sources are still questionable because other sources complete say the opposite.

Matt wrote:you conspicuously left off any links.

That was left as an exercise for the student, but study never was your strong point.

A sample:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=SVQ1AAA ... 2-PA511,M1

FYI, 's' was written as 'f' in those days.

“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. ( The King James version is honest.) It premiered in a 1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.

Just saw this on another group. Seems that King James -- the fellow who commissioned THE King James Version of the Bible -- was gayer than Truman Capote.

How's THAT for your daily dose of irony? :twisted: