King James was gay so his bible is crap

[Ariel]

Today at my serving job I had a table of 8 Jehovah's Witnesses. They were very nice, but as we started discussing History (due to me being a history teacher during the week), the lead man started talking about King James I and his bible.

Apparently, KJ was terribly homosexual (he banged his chamber boys!) and if all the KJV only believers knew this they'd change their ways!

I've never heard this before....has anyone else?

They ended their meal by giving me a tract (in Spanish), and telling me to go to the website because there are lots of "History" videos that I would enjoy. Sigh.

[Palimpsest]

Today at my serving job I had a table of 8 Jehovah's Witnesses. They were very nice, but as we started discussing History (due to me being a history teacher during the week), the lead man started talking about King James I and his bible.

Apparently, KJ was terribly homosexual (he banged his chamber boys!) and if all the KJV only believers knew this they'd change their ways!

I've never heard this before....has anyone else?

They ended their meal by giving me a tract (in Spanish), and telling me to go to the website because there are lots of "History" videos that I would enjoy. Sigh.

Oh, yes. His relationships with men and "favorites" like Carr and George Villiers were widely discussed even during his reign. I could probably point you to a few primary sources but even Wikipedia has an entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_r ... s_VI_and_I

The irony of anti-gays and KJV Only has been discussed here many times before. :)

Interesting that the JWs are using it for proselytising.

[doggie]

Well there are well written accounts if affairs with men. But that is early overlooked when you write the only perfect bible.

[lilith]

The average fundie's understanding of history can be summed up by JimBob Duggar pointing out a Scottish castle as "the place King James translated the bible".

It's possible that the shift to the Geneva Bible in some dominionist circles is partly to get some distance from the patronage of a gay, roman catholic, monarch

[Palimpsest]

No, no, no! Wasn't the exact quote "the place King James wrote the Bible"? One of JB's most outstanding stupidities. :lol:

James I (and VI) was most certainly Protestant, not Catholic, and he was fairly conciliatory on religious differences at first. He clamped down on Catholics after the Gunpowder plot.

On the Geneva Bible, I did see recently that it was being promoted as the "by the people, for the people" Bible with no ebil government influence on its publishing.

[lilith]

Oops, was mixing him up with James II, who was a catholic convert

[emiliawasframed]

Oh, yes. His relationships with men and "favorites" like Carr and George Villiers were widely discussed even during his reign. I could probably point you to a few primary sources but even Wikipedia has an entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_r ... s_VI_and_I

The irony of anti-gays and KJV Only has been discussed here many times before. :)

Interesting that the JWs are using it for proselytising.

I'm getting a doctorate in Renaissance Lit and Gender Studies right now, so I really wish I could have responded to those people. Yes, James I had sexual relationships with other men and young boys. Pederasty was one of the Classical ideas revived as part of the English Renaissance. That doesn't mean he was gay, though, at least not in our current sense of the term. Sexual identity as we know it today did not exist in the 16th/17th centuries. Sex was something you did, sure, but who you did it with did not make you heterosexual or homosexual or anything else. If you want to read more about this, I recommend Making Sex by Thomas Laqueur.

[salex]

Well there are well written accounts if affairs with men. But that is early overlooked when you write the only perfect bible.

But I've been seeing more and more of the 1599 Geneva Bible (Patriot Edition) being quoted on facebook.

I suspect it is a way to be holier than thou. SOrt of like the Schafly "conservative bible"

[medievalist1980]

I'm getting a doctorate in Renaissance Lit and Gender Studies right now, so I really wish I could have responded to those people. Yes, James I had sexual relationships with other men and young boys. Pederasty was one of the Classical ideas revived as part of the English Renaissance. That doesn't mean he was gay, though, at least not in our current sense of the term. Sexual identity as we know it today did not exist in the 16th/17th centuries. Sex was something you did, sure, but who you did it with did not make you heterosexual or homosexual or anything else. If you want to read more about this, I recommend Making Sex by Thomas Laqueur.

Thanks for the suggested reading! My diss stops in 1536 (although it includes an overview of the English Church in the 16-19th centuries, but really brief) and while I know that terms that we have did not exist and that many stereotypes (such as homosexual male = effeminate) came in during the Enlightenment, I hadn't heard the argument for sexual identity, etc. Should be interesting reading!

[Palimpsest]

Thanks for the suggested reading! My diss stops in 1536 (although it includes an overview of the English Church in the 16-19th centuries, but really brief) and while I know that terms that we have did not exist and that many stereotypes (such as homosexual male = effeminate) came in during the Enlightenment, I hadn't heard the argument for sexual identity, etc. Should be interesting reading!

I agree, many thanks for the suggested reading. I'll be interested in what he has to say. :D

While the terms "sexual identity," heterosexual and homosexual are certainly "modern," it is also true that laws against pederasty, sodomy and buggery have existed since around 300 A.D in various European cultures. Penalties varied from burning alive, to amputation and persecution, and application of the penalties depended on your class and wealth, and current attitudes.

I'm fairly sure that the term "molly" and "molly house" were used in the 17th century as we would use "gay" and "gay bar" in an accepting way.

Which does not mean that the KJV Only crowd are not sort of stuck in a mid 19th century no-tolerance zone that would be totally shocked by James I indulging in anything other than man/woman sexuality. In the missionary position. And only with his wife!

[ThatSnark]

LOL, picturing King James sitting there in Scotland translating the Bible. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not quite, fundies!!

[FloraKitty35]

LOL, picturing King James sitting there in Scotland translating the Bible. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not quite, fundies!!

He authorized the formation of a committee to create a new translation of the bible. It was the subject of the Queen's 2010 Christmas Message.

[Janes Heir]

JimBob really said KJ wrote the KJV?! But if you want to be a happy fundie, better not to learn much history, as you'll certainly encounter a number of "gay" or "bisexual" kings.

[Ariel]

Oh, yes. His relationships with men and "favorites" like Carr and George Villiers were widely discussed even during his reign. I could probably point you to a few primary sources but even Wikipedia has an entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_r ... s_VI_and_I

The irony of anti-gays and KJV Only has been discussed here many times before. :)

Interesting that the JWs are using it for proselytising.

Their proselytizing was amazingly subtle! It was obvious that they had a lot of experience winning people over.

[Dysfundamental]

He authorized the formation of a committee to create a new translation of the bible. It was the subject of the Queen's 2010 Christmas Message.

There's a fantastic book about this called God's Secretaries.

And as others have said, King James's sexual and romantic affairs with men were well documented at the time. I'm sure the fundie response to this would be "it's all ebil lies from atheists," but no.

[docmom]

No, no, no! Wasn't the exact quote "the place King James wrote the Bible"? One of JB's most outstanding stupidities

Actually the idea that a 16th century monarch wrote the bible makes a lot more sense than the idea that a omnipotent deity handed it down intact. The contradictions, general bloodthirstiness and overall vagueness could then be easily explained.

[MrsYoungie]

Dang it - I tried to find the Youtube of the visit to Scotland and I can only find Part 1 - which ends just before JB asks the fire eater about his religion. Anybody know how to find part 2 which would include the King James wrote the bible gaffe?

[Boogalou]

Dang it - I tried to find the Youtube of the visit to Scotland and I can only find Part 1 - which ends just before JB asks the fire eater about his religion. Anybody know how to find part 2 which would include the King James wrote the bible gaffe?

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

:)

[lilith]

I wonder if JimBob and Jill were filmed in Nepal?

TLC could put together a special of JimBob being insensitive to other cultures all over the world. The only continents they're missing are Africa and Australia.

[MrsYoungie]

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

:)

I appreciate the effort, but those are all the England episode. I'm looking for Part 2/3 of the Scotland one.

[crazyforkate]

I wonder if JimBob and Jill were filmed in Nepal?

TLC could put together a special of JimBob being insensitive to other cultures all over the world. The only continents they're missing are Africa and Australia.

And Antarctica. God knows we can't have any unsaved penguins.

[uber frau]

And Antarctica. God knows we can't have any unsaved penguins.

Especially since Doug Phillips and his horde of manly men couldn't make it. (I would have loved to have seen footage of him trying to convert scientists to the gospel of young earth creationism and arguing that climate change is a myth.)