To: SunkenCiv
With all due respect, two Muslims diminishing the man who effectively had the King James Bible published is suspect.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
13 posted on
03/06/2016 6:20:47 PM PST by
mabelkitty
(Trump 2016!)
To: mabelkitty
It doesn't. Regardless, it's well known that Henry VIII died of syphyllis.
15 posted on
03/06/2016 6:24:48 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
To: mabelkitty
Henry died 63 years before it was published.
16 posted on
03/06/2016 6:25:05 PM PST by
jimmyray
(there is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse)
To: mabelkitty
"......two Muslims diminishing the man who effectively had the King James Bible published is suspect."Henry VIII is the wrong King. That would be King James. Hence the King James Bible.
23 posted on
03/06/2016 6:40:37 PM PST by
Spunky
(Trump: "I am GREEDY! GREEDY! GREEDY! and I want to be GREEDY for our Country. What a statement.)
To: mabelkitty
King James 1 was the son of Mary Queen of Scots ( beheaded by Queen Elizabeth, her cousin)
When Elizabeth died ...childless.....James ( of Scotland) became King.
James wasn’t keen on the Presbyterian influence in Scotland nor of the Puritans, who were.
Calling for a new Bible ( he rejected the Geneva Bible) he ordained the making of the King James Bible.
25 posted on
03/06/2016 6:50:36 PM PST by
Guenevere
(YoIf.the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do....)
To: mabelkitty
There is a reason they don't call it the King Henry Bible...he had made such a muddle of things, James wanted "That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
more at sourceIn a way, the muddle made by Henry was responsible for that, but that would be like thanking the landslide for your new home.
26 posted on
03/06/2016 6:52:09 PM PST by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: mabelkitty
Not a history scholar, are you.
To: mabelkitty
With all due respect, two Muslims diminishing the man who effectively had the King James Bible published is suspect.And mighty big of him to name it after another king!
35 posted on
03/06/2016 7:14:30 PM PST by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: mabelkitty
With all due respect, two Muslims diminishing the man who effectively had the King James Bible published is suspect.
That would be James I of England (James VI of Scotland), who was the successor of Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth I.
To: mabelkitty
Believe it or not, but the King James Bible was printed under the auspices of .... drum roll .... King James I (James VI of Scotland). Henry considered himself a better Catholic than the Pope. It was his son Edward and daughter Elizabeth who moved England into the Protestant corner and E's successor James of Scotland who formalized things with a fully approved English translation of the Bible.
43 posted on
03/06/2016 9:25:15 PM PST by
katana
(Just my opinion)
To: mabelkitty
With all due respect, a doofus on a message board who doesn’t know King James Bible was published is suspect.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson