|
Contents
Report of Open Air Preaching……………………………………….2
The Integrity of the Bible……………………………………………..4
Mtt. 25: 46, Lk. 9: 31, Phil.3: 21,1 Thes. 5: 22,1 Tim. 3: 1, 6:
10,
Death and Hell…………………………………………………………6
Inspiration and Preservation of Scriptures are Plenary……………7
A Dictionary of the English Bible and its Origins…………………...9
TBS Claims the AV Bible is not Perfect……………………………11
The Real Story of King James 1……………………………………12
“Luke 11: 36” ……………………………………………………….20
2
Report
of Open air Preaching
21st August LUTON
TOWN CENTRE. A good number sat listening to the gospel today. Two ladies came
over to express their joy at hearing the gospel preached in public. Several
others nodded their approval as they passed by. Luton is not totally devoid of
believers. There were the usual hecklers of course. I need them to make my
spirit rise. Salvadori, an Italian believer, stood nearby listening. Then a man
came over to explain his religious system to me. It was a dark and hopeless
system that depended entirely on him. Eventually he told me that the Lord too
was a sinner. He was severely rebuked for his wicked blasphemy and repentance
was urged upon him. After some twenty minutes I concluded that his main
objective was to stop me preaching. He wasn’t too worried about the debate. He
never turned a hair when I warned him of the everlasting flames of hell. I
began to preach again to the crowd and he quickly moved away.
3rd September HITCHIN MARKET
SQUARE. Once again there were a lot of people sitting in the square. One man sat down
near me evidently wishing to listen, so on this occasion I preached a
structured sermon. Two other men stood heckling—supplying me with preaching
points—“why can’t we all follow our own religion? Mine’s beer!” the answer
given was that anything not Christ centred will damn you when it is finished. A
group of seven or eight teen-age boys came over. They had all the usual stock
questions ranging from Adam and Eve, evolution, etc. It was all conducted in an
amicable manner. But someone called the police who told me that a caller said I
was being harassed. This was untrue and the call was plainly malicious,
probably with the intention of stopping me preaching. As it was, the PC
remained chatting for a while with the boys and myself, giving me further
opportunity to witness. They asked him if I was breaking the law by preaching
on the square and he assured them that I was not breaking any law.
10th September HITCHIN
M S. I thought after the incident here last
week that the police would descend on me from all sides today. But I was able
to preach unhindered, with but minor heckling from the exhibition bus crew and
a good crowd in the square listening. I had my text banner with me today
(actually, it’s an A3 flip-chart which I hang on my walking stick.) in case I
should be prevented from preaching. In which case I had intended to stand for
an hour, changing the text every few minutes.
When I had finished preaching I
sat on a bench and waited for any enquirers to approach me as they occasionally
do. A mocker came instead. He objected to there being a righteous God who would
punish the unrepentant sinner at the Great White Throne. I told him that all
his sins could be forgiven, as mine were. He told me that my God is a
psychopath. I asked him if it was his adultery that kept him from the cross, to
which he gave no answer and walked off.
3
18th September LUTON T C. As I began to preach I noticed two men carrying out some kind of survey. A woman was being asked to complete a questionnaire. I then saw the questionnaire was headed HOPE CHURCH. This is a new suddenly sprung up church in Luton, coming fully equipped with apostles and charismatic gifts.
The leader waited for an
opportune moment to approach me, i.e. after I had disposed of a drunk who was
begging for money. I asked him why Luton needed a new church. He didn’t know.
Nobody had asked him that before. But he did not wish to be judgmental, he
assured me. One more church must be a
good thing. If he is not judgmental then, I asked him what he thought of
churches that deny fundamental Bible doctrines and hold to heresies. He didn’t
wish to answer that. I reminded him that we had a big black Pentecostal church,
hot from Memphis, USA, that set up shop in Luton last year. What about them? Oh
yes, he knew about them. They’re doing a good work. I asked him if he believed
in Baptismal Regeneration, as they do, along with the Anglicans and a few other
cults. He did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration but felt it was time for
him to go. This left me free to get on with the preaching.
P— wanted to talk. She went to
school with my daughter. She had suffered mental illness some years ago and in
the hospital gave my name as her pastor. (She is a RC.) I was able to visit her
therefore several times and later she came to our meeting once or twice. She is
still not saved. Pray for her. She is very open to the gospel but has yet to
respond to it.
The drunken beggar had asked for
money. I told him I would not give him any because he would immediately waste
it on drink. Then he said he was hungry so I tried to strike a bargain with
him. If he would sit on the bench for half an hour and listen to the gospel
being preached, I would buy him a meal. I have made such an offer to others in
the past and have not yet been taken up on it. This man too, suddenly
remembered he had urgent business to attend to and was off. Yet before he left
he told me he wished he could be saved, and accepted a tract.
I believe the Hope Church man is
a con-man. I believe his organisation has been set up to make money out of
gullible souls who expect some miracle cure for whatever disease they may have.
A “healing” session was conducted in this church recently by a converted Hindu,
who, according to the report in the local paper (front page!), is able to work
magic. Believers are not taken in by this kind of trickery.
16th October LUTON T C. The OAM people were just finishing
as I arrived. They told me some one else had been preaching when they arrived.
What a God-blessed town this is, to have the gospel of Christ preached
continuously in the town centre. Yet what indifference there is to God’s mercy
and long-suffering.
Three young gypsy girls stopped
to talk to me. They told me they were Catholic and not Christian. One of them
told me her mother had given her heart to Jesus, but she had taken it back
again and had returned to the Catholic Church. I tried to explain to them that
being saved was permanent and not something that could be given up.
4
18th October LUTON T C. There were two of us preaching
today. My good friend Ken Wilkins joined me for the afternoon. We received
abuse as soon as we started. One
man stood nearby listening and
Ken went to give him a tract but he proved to be quite hostile to the gospel.
Then a group of Muslim youths came up. They attempted to thrust the Islamic
error on us under the guise of wanting to debate. One of them was very
contemptuous in his attitude. There is little point trying to reason with these
fellows because their mind-set is opposed to reason.
We note that Paul disputed in
Athens with those who challenged him, but we do not believe that Paul entered
into a “dialogue” with them over the pros and cons of Epicurianism and
Stoicism. He told them bluntly that they were superstitious and preached Jesus
and the resurrection to them. This is all we could do with these young men who
have been brainwashed into accepting the doctrines of Hell.
As Ken remarked at the end, it
was far better speaking to these than with the unbeliever who comes into the
gospel meeting and thanks one for a “lovely message”.
11th November LUTON
T. C. Khalid listened to the preaching and then had a lot of questions to ask.
He had visited one or two evangelical churches and I came to the conclusion he
was seeking God’s way of salvation. We were able to show him several verses
showing the deity of Christ and he accepted some tracts. We showed him the
error of claiming the Bible had been changed, according to Islamic dogma. We
could not have done this if had been preaching from some modern version of
course. He told us he had a King James Bible. We conversed for about an hour
during which he made no attempt to defend Islam. Pray for him.
*****
The Integrity of the AV Bible
Matt. 25: 46
And these shall go
away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It is evident that the AV translators did not regard the
words everlasting and eternal as having the same meaning and are interchangeable.
The two words in the same sentence are sufficient proof of this. We do not
believe that English words were used indiscriminately by the translators, as
some suggest. They were well aware, of course, that they were translating one
Greek word, aionios. We learn as we
read our Bible with a believing mind, that aionios
has two meanings which are not identical and cannot be interchanged. The Spirit
of God led our translators to see this. (I am not implying that the AV was a
newly inspired book).
God is eternal; without beginning and without end. We are in him that is true, even in his Son
Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (1 John 5:20). The gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord. The believer, being in Christ,
5
receives that eternal life which is the life of Christ
imparted. From the moment of conversion one’s new life begins and it is
therefore everlasting life.
Underneath are the everlasting arms. God doesn’t have
eternal arms, but from the time men needed them they were there.
Luke 9: 31
Who appeared in glory, and spoke of his
decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
The RSV replaces decease with departure. This is
unnecessary as the word decease originally included the sense of departure.
This is another word, which has been redefined to mean death only—and by
implication, extinction.
The AV translators might have left the word in an
anglicised form—exodus, but they
didn’t. The Lord was speaking of his death at Jerusalem. The verse tells us so.
But believers know that Christ rose again and will reign in glory in His
kingdom.
Peter used the same word concerning himself (2 Peter 1: 15).
Phil. 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may
be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
The
word vile has lost its primary meaning of being of small account, and now
refers to things disgusting. It is language itself that has become debased. We
do not rely on modern dictionaries for definitions of Bible words, nor are we
compelled to turn to Greek lexicons. Scripture is its own interpreter. We learn
what is meant by vile when we read Luke 1: 48, For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. We read of
the discreet definition of the humanity of Christ in Acts 8: 33, In his humiliation his judgment was taken
away. So we do not need to change the word in our Bible. We understand it,
even though the word humiliation has come to mean something shameful; injurious
to self respect. In the seventeenth century humiliation meant the abasement of
pride. The only other place this word is used is in James 1: 10. But the rich in that he is made low.
Of
course, we do not despise Greek lexicons. The Greek word used in the above four
verses is tapeinosis.
1 Thes. 5: 22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Modern versions read, “abstain from every form of evil”. While we
should certainly do this, it is not what the Scripture says here. There are
several Greek words translated “form” in the AV Bible and eidos (appearance) is not one of them. It is not merely abstaining
from all different types of evil. It is that which has the external show or
semblance of evil that must be avoided.
6
1
Timothy 3: 1
This is a true saying, if a man desireth the office of a bishop, he
desireth a good work.
W E Vine assures us “there is no
mention of an office in the original….Literally the phrase is ‘seeketh
overseership’”. But this IS the office —overseership. “Office of a bishop”
represents just one Greek word; episkopee.
It is twice translated “visitation” (Luke 19: 44, 1 Peter 2: 12), and once
“bishopric”.
This phrase is the stumbling block
of the Brethren, who are fearful of anything connected with eccliasticism. It
is one of the reasons why our leading brethren reject the Authorized Version of
Holy Scripture.
Their rejection is based on two
misunderstandings,
1.The AV translators had to
preserve all eccliastical terms. They did not do so in Acts 20:28, the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers. The
translators went for accuracy.
2. The word “office” is taken to
mean rank or position. But the primary meaning of the word is anything done for another; service.
(Webster) which is what we have in this verse.
1
Timothy 6: 10
For the love of money is the root of all evil.
The ESV makes it indefinite and
plural: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils”. The NKJV (which we are assured merely updates
the language of the AV) changes the meaning also by reading, “For the love of
money is a root of all kinds of evil”. Darby also wasn’t able to see evil as a
single entity, for he made it read, “For the love of money is [the] root of
every evil”. He bracketed “the” because he thought there were other roots (of
evil). His footnote reads “There is no article in the Greek. It is not that
there is no other root, but the love of money is characterised by being such”.
If there are other roots of evil, the Scripture doesn’t tell us of them.
Evil is the generic term for all that is not good ( see Ecc.12:14,
Rom.7:19, 9: 11). There are not different kinds of evils.
*****
Death and Hell
A writer (H Barnes; Believers
Magazine; Oct.2002, p.302) tells us,
The word “grave” in the New Testament is
usually a translation of the Greek
word hades, the unseen world,
the present residence of departed souls. It is thus
“being with Christ” for
believers (Phil 1.23), or else being in torment in hell for unbelievers (Lk.
16.28).
This is regurgitated Scofieldism, namely the old fable of
hades having two compartments, one
for believers and the other for unbelievers.
“Grave” is the translation of hades only ONCE in the whole of Scripture. It is found in 1 Cor.
15: 55, O grave, where is thy victory? There
is no victory for the grave where the believer is concerned. But for the
unbeliever the grave declares that his soul is in hell. The usual word
translated “grave” in the New Testament is mnemeion
as found in John 11: 17 …he had lain
in the grave four days already. Mneema
is translated “graves” in Rev. 11:9.
No believer goes down into hades. Ps. 9: 17 tells us The
wicked shall be turned into hell ( sheol). That is, those who go down into
hell are without exception, wicked. Amos
spoke of Sheol as being beneath, and
heaven as being above (9: 3). David spoke of the ungodly as like sheep, they are laid in the grave (sheol),
but that was not his expectation. But
God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me. (Ps.
49: 14). The power of the grave (hell) is to hold its prey in torments for
eternity. David expected God to receive his soul at death, and not sheol.
Sheol in the Old Testament equates
precisely with hades in the New
Testament. This will assure us that Christ did not descend into hell.
Attempts to tone down the awfulness of hell must be
viewed with the deepest suspicion. The suggestion that believers go down into hades (which is hell) is a heretical
distortion of the truth.
*****
Inspiration
and Preservation of Scripture is Plenary
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness."
2 Tim. 3: 16
Dr R L Hymers Jun. writes that “Dr. J. Vernon McGee gives
the correct meaning of this verse:
When
Paul says, "all Scripture," he means all of it, from Genesis
to Revelation…Through these men (the writers of the Bible) God has given us His
Word. He has nothing more to say to us today.
(J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, Volume V, p. 473).”
(J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, Volume V, p. 473).”
“This” says Dr Hymers Jun. “describes the plenary
verbal inspiration of the Bible. ‘Plenary’ means that all of the Bible, from
Genesis to Revelation, is from God.
8
‘Verbal’
means that the very words (in Hebrew and Greek) are from God. ‘Inspiration’
means ‘God-breathed.’ The very Hebrew and Greek words were given to
the writers.”
Plenary means complete;
full; nothing missing.
We understand from Dr
McGee that plenary inspiration applies to all of the Bible. It is complete from
Genesis to Revelation. It is the complete word of God. There is nothing of
God’s words missing. He did not say that plenary inspiration applies only to
the received text or the critical text. My Bible is the Authorized Version.
There is nothing missing from it that God has ever spoken. Thus there is
nothing that can be added to it—no manuscript will be discovered that calls for
a revision. The AV Bible is the full word of God therefore there is not a word
that can be removed.
If we have today a Bible
that is the complete word of God, then it has obviously been preserved for us
from the beginning and we can call it a plenary preservation. If the Bible has
suffered corruption through the centuries, then plenary inspiration as well as
plenary preservation is meaningless. Such a thought reflects on the sovereignty
and omnipotence of God.
Dr Hymers, Jr. states that in his opinion “the
KJV….is the best translation, based on the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.”
But the Bible believer who believes his Authorized Bible is perfect and sees no
value in examining the Hebrew and Greek text is a Ruckmanite, according to our
Doctor. He says, concerning such people, “They should be rejected from our
pulpits and from our churches [Dear Doctor, you will never find me in one of your churches, in the first place]. They
will be rejected at the Rapture, and
left to experience the horrors of the Tribulation, if they are unconverted men
(Revelation 22:18)”
This appeal to Rev. 22: 18
shows how twisted this man is. Unconverted men will be rejected whatever they
believe. But those who hold to the AV Bible are the very ones who DO NOT add or
remove words from the word of God.
Dr Hymers Jr. quotes Ps.
68: 11, The Lord gave the word: great
was the company of those that published it as being fulfilled in the
multiplicity of translations now found round the word. The verse actually
refers to the conquest of Canaan. He tells us, “Faithful translators take the
Hebrew and Greek Bible [what Bible is this, we ask], given by God, and
translate it into the languages of the people”.
We are thankful that this
is what happened for English speaking people in 1611! But a man may be a
“faithful” translator, while translating from a false text.
Do we need the Greek and
Hebrew texts today? Hymers reports that “one well-known Bible College uses my
book each semester to teach that the KJV is the best translation, but that we
should refer to the Hebrew and Greek text to clarify the meaning of words”.
When the AV translators
did their work, they considered very carefully which words most accurately
translated the Hebrew and the Greek. Those Bible students who look
9
into their Hebrew and
Greek lexicons today read only alternative English words, many of which the AV
translators had already rejected.
We suggest that the Bible
student will get a better understanding of Scripture if he reads the English
Bible and waits upon the Holy Spirit to clarify the meaning. Hymers’s words are
a rank denial of 1 John 2:20,27. But ye
have an unction from the Holy One and ye know all things. But the anointing
which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man
teach you: but the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and
is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God raises up Bible
teachers who expound the Scriptures
to us. We do not need men to tell us what words ought or ought not to be on the
pages of our Bible. Such Bible critics deny the unction from the Holy One. They
think they can improve on the work of the Holy Spirit.
*****
A Dictionary of the English Bible and its Origins
The back cover of A Dictionary of the English Bible and its
Origins explains satisfactorily the purpose of the book, —
This
dictionary is designed to increase awareness of the Bible origins; to introduce
readers to the variety of versions and manuscripts that lie behind the familiar
English translation(s); to provide, in alphabetical order ‘students notes’ on
texts, versions, manuscripts, persons, places and terminology, covering the
origins of Hebrew Bible, the New testament and the English bible, including
recent translations…..Entries are factual, not evaluative, and reflect contemporary
biblical scholarship.
To this end the author has largely
accomplished what he set out to do. We do not agree however with every entry.
Under the heading Textus Receptus we
read, “….Printed regularly through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
when better mss. were discovered, ….” This is hardly a factual statement. It is
subjective and also untrue. The “better mss”, so-called, have been shown up as
seriously depraved. Three are mentioned under the above heading, viz., Codex
Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.
Another evaluative, and
erroneous, statement appears under the heading Authorized Version, 1611.
Its
weaknesses were the translator’s limited knowledge of ancient languages and of
more recently discovered and reliable manuscripts, the growth of textual
criticsm,
and
the way in which many English words have changed their meaning, some no longer
even in use.
A scholar, putting
together a dictionary of this nature, has no excuse for ignorance. We regard it
as a wilful lie to suggest that the translators had limited knowledge of
ancient languages. I quote what was written about one of the translators,
“Lancelot Andrewes was an outstanding scholar who served
as chairman on the translation committee for the AV Bible. It is said of him,
There was his proficiency in
languages, fifteen modern and six ancient (Lain, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee,
Syriac, and Arabic), which led Fuller to remark that he was ‘so skilled in all
(especially Oriental) languages, that some conceived that he might, if then
living, almost have served as an INTERPRETER-GENERAL in the confusion of Tongues.’ There was his
encyclopedic knowledge of the Greek and Latin classics, of the Fathers¾both
Eastern and Western¾of
the Ancient Church, of the Canonists and Schoolmen. There was his detailed
historical scholarship....” — Waymarks
No.24. p.15.
Reference to more recently discovered and reliable
manuscripts implies that there was no pure Bible for some 1800 years until the
real bible was found in a popish dustbin by Tischendorf at Sinai. The AV
translators had access to all reliable and faithful manuscripts.
Do we owe a true bible to the growth of Textual Criticsm.
I have not read of one modern textual critic who was not also an
apostate—denying fundamental Bible doctrines.
The author’s motive in
producing this book is found in the introduction.
Several
factors have contributed to this book. ….a firm rejection of anything
approaching bibliolatry or fundamentalism, both of which I associated with
people whom had either got on the wrong bus or not been sharp enough to alight
in time and strike off in a different direction.
Some
[people] were the product of very conservative environments from which they
longed intellectually to escape. Some were in congregations finding new light
and interpretation and wondering whether they could safely believe what they
were being told.
A
fourth factor undoubtedly was a change of climate…. After the war new
translations caught on. J. B. Phillips, William Barclay, Ronald Knox and a few
others saw to that.
This book was written to
fan an interest in versionism. The author regards fundamentalism, bibliolatry, and conservatism as the
antithesis of modern biblical scholarship. These stand in the way of bible
development.
Fundamentalism is strict
adherence to traditional religious beliefs. For the Christian it simply means
continuing in the Apostles’ docrine; believing it and practising it. It is
11
seen therefore to be the
opposite of liberalism which involves worldliness and carnality.
Bibliolatry is a derisory
term used by liberals to describe the love of the word of God given in the AV
Bible. It is used against those believers who will not be fobbed off with a
modern perversion or parody of the word of God.
Conservatism is the opposition
to change. Those who continue to hold on
to the faith once delivered are such.
What has change brought?
Do we have a deeper reverence for God? Is there greater holiness among us,
brought in by these so-called better translations? Modern versionism has
contributed very much to liberalism, neo-evangelicalism, and the burgeoning
apostasy.
Alec Gilmore, A Dictionary of the English Bible and its
Origins (Sheffield Academic Press 2000)
*****
TBS
claims AV Bible is not Perfect
Mr D P Rowland, general secretary
of the Trinitarian Bible Society, declares in the Quarterly Review issue 561,
Issue 14 of
the CRN Journal….lumps together as
fanatics all who have a practical, high
regard for the Authorized Version and its underlying texts, with those who hold
doctrinally extreme and untenable
positions, including the claim that the Authorized Version translators were
inspired and that their resultant work was therefore perfect. These positions
have never been advocated by the
Society.
Mr Rowland confuses issues. He appears to reject the
perfection of the AV Bible on the ground that a handful of extremists (usually
referred to as Ruckmanites) allege that the AV translators were inspired. I
haven’t come across this in any of Dr Ruckman’s writings. In any case it isn’t
a view held by the majority of those who
acknowledge the perfection of the AV Bible.
We are aware that some within the TBS are agitating for a
revision of the AV Bible. It may be when the time comes we shall discover it
has a different underlying text. No longer will it be the Received Text, but
that of Robinson and Pierpoint, this being a majority text.
What the other doctrinally extreme and untenable views
are, Mr Rowland doesn’t tell us. We do know he holds to the evil doctrines of
Calvinism.
12
The
Real Story of King James I
by Dr. Phil Stringer
by Dr. Phil Stringer
Presented in
Brampton, Ontario, Canada at the GraceWay Bible Society 33rd.
Annual Meeting & Conference, October 27th. 2001. Copyrighted by GBS. Published here by kind permission of Graceway Bible Society, Canada.
Annual Meeting & Conference, October 27th. 2001. Copyrighted by GBS. Published here by kind permission of Graceway Bible Society, Canada.
WAS
KING JAMES REALLY THE UNGODLY MAN THAT HIS MODERN CRITICS PROCLAIM HIM TO BE?
By Dr. Phil Stringer
Landmark Baptist College Press 810 East Hinson Avenue, Haines City, FL
33844
INTRODUCTION
"I never with God's grace shall do anything in private which I may
not without shame proclaim upon the tops of houses." King James I, 1603
"And there must go much more to the making of a guilty man, than
rumor." Ben Johnson, 1605
"USING THE
PERSON OF KING JAMES TO ATTACK THE KING JAMES BIBLE."
"King James was a fag. How can you advocate a Bible that was
translated by a faggot?" (From an Internet chat room)
"King James was a homosexual. . . Was a bitter persecutor of our
forefathers . . . King James chose the King James translators, instructed the
King James translators, approved and disapproved portions of the
translation." Baptist evangelist J.H. Melton
Many critics of the King James Bible are deeply condescending towards
the defenders of the King James Bible. This is seen in the statement by James
White in his book, The King James Only Controversy:
"The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among
Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible.
Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for
induction into the KJV Only camp" (White, Introduction, p.v)
But, the truth is that the defenders of the King James are often far
more educated on this subject then their critics. Many books have been
published on the issue over the last few years. Many King James Bible defenders
are easily able to shatter the often shallow attacks on the King James Bible.
It is not unusual for those who have just
found their pet arguments shattered to retreat to an argument like
this. "Well, after all King James was a homosexual you know!"
But was he? Is this just a very historically shallow, unsound
repetition of gossip and rumor or is it a historical fact? It must be admitted
that many historians report that King
13
James was a homosexual. But what is the evidence for such a charge? If
King James was not a homosexual, his memory has been done a great injustice.
The real King James was a very different man than the one described by
the critics of the King James Bible.
A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF KING JAMES
James was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, on June 19.1566. He was the only
son of Mary, Queen of Scots. His father, Lord Darnley was killed in an
explosion when James was only eight months old. When James was one year old,
his mother abdicated the throne of Scotland and James officially became king.
She never saw her son again.
James was supervised during his childhood by several Scottish lords. He
had several tutors, all evangelical Protestants. He became fluent in Greek,
French, and Latin and received classical instruction in all three of these
languages as well as English. He was kept fairly isolated until age 14. He
developed a great fondness for books. Even as a teenager he was recognized as a
serious scholar.
James was slender and of average height. He enjoyed horseback riding
and hunting. His thin legs and narrow jaw prompted some to mock his appearance.
James opposed the attempts of the Presbyterian preachers of Scotland to
control the royal government. However, he remained in sympathy with their
doctrine and publicly supported many of their efforts.
In 1589 James was married to Anne, the daughter of Frederick II king of
Denmark. They had eight children together. When Queen Elizabeth (his mother's
cousin) died, James was next in line for the throne of England. In 1603 he was
crowned King of England. He was officially King James VI of Scotland and King
James I of England. He quickly ended the English war with Spain and England was
to live in peace during his reign.
James survived four assassination attempts, the most famous of which
was the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. A Roman Catholic agent, Guy Fawkes, had planted
several barrels of gunpowder in the basement of Parliament. He planned to blow
up the Parliament building while James was addressing the Parliament. His plot
was disclosed and defeated. The English still celebrate the survival of James
and the Parliament with a national holiday - Guy Fawkes Day.
Even though James had many opponents among the nobility and the clergy,
he remained popular among the English people. England experienced both peace
and prosperity during his rule
James was a strong advocate of the doctrine of the divine right of
kings. Many Protestants felt that he took this concept much farther in his
teaching and in his pronouncements than the Scripture warranted. However he
ruled in a generally kind
and benevolent manner rather than as a royal despot His many enemies
were never able to generate any grassroots support among the people of England
for their criticism of James.
14
The English program to colonize the Atlantic seaboard, begun under
Queen Elizabeth, was strengthened under the influence of King James. Jamestown,
the first enduring English settlement in the new world, was named after King
James. King James's most
conspicuous claims to fame were the formation of Great Britain
(England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland under one throne) and the sponsorship of
the King James translation of the Bible.
Even King James's most loyal supporters acknowledged that he was
sometimes unwise in his selection of advisors and cabinet ministers. Historian
George McCauely wrote:".... . he could never tell a good man from a rogue
or a wise man from a fool." As a result, he was surrounded by plots and
intrigues, especially the last few years of his life.
In 1625 King James passed away peacefully at his country estate in
Hertfordshire.
THE ORIGINS OF THE ATTACK ON KING JAMES
There is no record of anyone accusing King James of homosexual behavior
during his lifetime. If you read most modern historians, you would believe that
King James's homosexuality was open and widely recognized but this is far from
the truth. There are absolutely no contemporary accounts alleging homosexuality
on King James's part though there are contemporary accounts praising him for
his moral virtue.
Sir Anthony Welden was an officer in the royal household of King James.
He was knighted by King James in 1617. He was eventually dismissed from the
royal court by King James. He vowed to get revenge!
He supported the anti-monarchy forces during the English Civil War.
Twenty-five years after the death of King James, (one year after the execution
of Charles I, King James's son) Welden made the first accusations of
homosexuality against King James. His statements were widely rejected at the
time because there were still too many living people who had known King James
personally and who dismissed the allegations as ridiculous.
Disgruntled courtiers and political opponents picked up the allegations
against King James and began to use innuendo to hurt his reputation. While not
accusing him directly of homosexuality, they tried to create questions about
his loyalties to his close friends and associates. These seventeenth century
critics seem to fall into two groups. Some had their political and personal
ambitions thwarted by King James. Others opposed his policy of uniting Scotland
and England into one kingdom. All of these allegations come from people with a
strong bias against James and they all were made a long time after his death.
Some historians began to repeat these attacks against King James
without investigation. Soon vague allegations, rumor, innuendo and speculations
were reported as historical
fact. While some historians have sifted through the rumors to get the
facts, many just repeated the statements of previous historians without any
examination.
In the eighteenth century the primary reporters of King James's
homosexuality, were those who opposed the union of Great Britain and also Roman
Catholics who resented
15
the support that James gave Protestants. In the twentieth century two
different groups have clung to the allegations about King James and propagated
them in defiance of the facts.
Homosexual activists have been determined to claim King James as one of
their own. These are the same activists who claim that Abraham Lincoln, William
Shakespeare, the Biblical King David and Jonathan and even Jesus Christ were
really homosexuals. Historical facts means nothing to these people. They care
only about their political and social agenda. It is a travesty when
evangelicals quote their books as credible sources. The second group which
refuses to be persuaded by the facts about King James are those who wish to use
King James's supposed homosexuality to discredit the King James Bible.
In 1985, Moody Monthly magazine alerted the evangelical world to the
allegations that King James was a homosexual. These charges came in an article
entitled The Real King James by Karen Ann Wojahn. No evidence was provided. The
article was accompanied by The Bible That Bears His Name by Leslie Keylock,
This article was an attack on the King James Bible. Numerous attempts have been
made to get Moody Monthly to either document or withdraw the charges made in
these articles but fourteen years later neither has been done.
Despite the lack of evidence (and in spite of the evidence to the
contrary) some evangelicals are quick to use the baseless accusations against
King James to bolster their attacks on the King James Bible. But facts are
contrary things! King James never claimed to be a homosexual. He was never
accused of being one during his life time. No one ever claimed to see James in
a homosexual situation. The accusations against him, past and present, stem
from bias and not from fact.
The character and record of King James clearly refutes the charges of
homosexuality against King James.
CONTEMPORARY
REFERENCES TO THE MORAL CHARACTER OF KING JAMES
In 1602, Sir Henry Wotton wrote of King James, "... Among his good
qualities none shines more brightly than the chasteness of his life, which he
has preserved without stain down to the present time contrary to the example of
almost all his ancestors. ."
Sir Edward Coke, the famous English jurist was a contemporary of King
James. He was often a political opponent of King James. Historian Jasper Ridley
called Sir Edward the leader of the "lawyers opposition" to the king.
He had been appointed by James as the chief justice of the Court of the King's
Bench. A number of his judicial rulings went against the king. He considered himself
the defender of the English
common law against the doctrine of the divine right of kings. James
eventually had him dismissed from the English high court.
In his legal commentary, Coke maintained the common law position about
homosexuality, "Buggery is a detestable and abominable sin, ... Against
the ordinances of the Creator and the order of nature." Coke was no friend
of homosexuality and no
16
political ally of the king. Yet in reference to the personal character
of King James he wrote "and I knowing the sincerity of his (James's)
justice, (for which he is the most renowned king in the Christian
world)..."
Sir Arthur Wilson was a historian during the time of James. He opposed
James and the concept of the monarchy. He wrote harshly about James in some
areas. However, in his Dictionary of National Biography he has these references
to King James. He states that James's life was "decidedly pure" and
"his own life was pure." He also stated that James did not "come
into conflict with the Presbyterian clergy" in the area of
"morality." The Presbyterian preachers had opposed his mother, Mary
Queen of Scots, on the grounds of her adulteries. They found no reason to
oppose King James on moral grounds.
Bishop Godfrey Goodman lived during the time of King James. He publicly
preached against moral sins. He opposed King James and was denied opportunities
for advancement by King James. James suspected him of sympathy towards Roman
Catholicism. However, when Anthony Welden began to question James' morality,
Bishop Goodman refuted him. According to English historian Charles Williams,
Goodman wrote, "the king himself was a very chaste man."
It is a rare political leader whose morality and virtue is praised even
by his contemporary opponents.
Dr. Miles Smith
was chosen by the King James translators to write the preface to the King James
Bible. "The Translators to the Readers." In this preface he says very
complimentary things about King James. Some have suggested that this was simply
the custom of the times and other have questioned the sincerity of the
translators because of these comments. In reality these were devout Bible
believing men who were not afraid to disagree with the king. Many of them spoke
publicly against King James's position on the divine right of kings. Had there
been any reason to believe that he was a homosexual they would have openly
condemned him for it. Yet their estimate of his spiritual character and moral
leadership is reflected in statements such as these. From the preface to the
King James Bible:
"Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread sovereign which
Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of
England, when he first sent your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over
us." The preface also praises King James for "maintaining the truth
of Christ, and propagating it far and near is that which hath so bound and
firmly knit the hearts of all your majesty's loyal and religious people unto
you, that your very name is precious among them. Their eye doth behold you with
comfort, and they bless you in their hearts, as that sanctified Person, who,
under God is the immediate author of their true happiness."
The Puritans were not frightened, helpless preachers who were scared
into praising a wicked monarch When James's son, Charles I, became king, the
Puritans thundered against his perceived immoralities like John the Baptist
against Herod. Yet they had nothing but praise for King James's moral and
spiritual character.
Not all historians have blindly repeated the slander against King
James. Isaac Disraeli (1863) wrote:
17
"Perhaps no sovereign has suffered more by that art, which is
described by an old Irish proverb of killing a man by lies, the surmises and
the insinuations of one party, dissatisfied with the established government...
the misconceptions of more modern
writers... And the anonymous libels ... vilify the Stuarts. These
cannot be treasured as authorities of history." Much can be substantiated
in favor of the domestic affections and habits of this pacific monarch: and
those who are more intimately acquainted with the secret history of the times
will perceive how erroneously the personal character of this sovereign is
exhibited in our popular historians, and often even among the few who, with
better information, have re-echoed their preconceived opinions.
In 1891, F.A. Inderwick wrote (Side Lights on the Stuarts) about King
James:
"I think only justice to say, that much of scurrilous abuse to
which he has been subjected appears to be without warrant, and that he was personally
a man of good moral character, a quality which he was probably much indebted to
the strict and careful training he received from his Presbyterian tutors.
Historian Robert Chambers (1830) published two volumes on the life of
King James. Chambers calls him "greatly loved and greeted", and
"very much beloved by his people." He also calls him a "monarch
whose character was good." He also says that his "conduct was every
thing that could be expected of a good Christian."
Historian Samuel Rawson Gardiner wrote of King James, "His own
life was virtuous and upright."
KING JAMES OWN STATEMENTS ON HOMOSEXUALITY
King James book Basilicon Doron (the Kingly Gift) was written in 1599.
It contained instructions to his son about how to properly carry out the responsibilities
of the king. Included among his instructions is this statement: "there are
some horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience never to forgive: such as
witchcraft, wilful murder, incest and sodomy..."
In July of 1610 James was asked to pardon a number of criminals. He did
pardon several on the list but refused to pardon those convicted of sodomy. He
advised his son to stay away from "effeminate ones." James repeatedly
referred to homosexuality as the "horrible crime!" These are indeed
strange statements from someone given to homosexuality. James routinely listed
homosexuality with witchcraft and murder just as the Bible does).
The King James Version translation of the Bible, which was sponsored by
King James, does not in any way weaken the Biblical statements about
homosexuality. Modem English translations like the RSV and the NIV weaken or
delete Biblical statements
condemning homosexuality. The King James Bible is clear in reflecting
the Bibles' strong statements condemning homosexuality.
KING JAMES MARRIAGE AND MORAL TEACHING ABOUT MARRIAGE
18
King James was married to Anne of Denmark in 1589. They remained
married until her death in 1619. King James's modern critics say that this
means nothing since homosexual rulers have often maintained wives for public
appearance's sake.
However, King James spent much time with his wife (more than most
monarchs), was openly affectionate to her in public and wrote her many love
poems and sonnets. He greatly mourned her passing. More significantly James and
Anne had eight children together.
The unmarried Puritan preacher John Rainolds questioned the use of the
phrase "with my body I thee worship" in the standard English wedding
ceremony. King James openly teased him about this. He said, "Many a man
speaks of Robin Hood who never shot his bow; if you had a good wife yourself,
you would think that all the honor and worship you could do her would be well
bestowed." He then spoke of his queen as "our dearest
bedfellow."
In 1603 James wrote the following to Anne:
"...I thank God I carry that love and respect unto you which, by
the law of God and nature, I ought to do to my wife and mother of my children.
. . For the respect of your honorable earth and descent I married you; but the
love and respect I now bear you for that ye are my married wife and so partaker
of my honour, as of all my other fortunes... Where ye were a king's or cook's
daughter ye must be all alike to me being one my wife."
D.H. Wilson wrote the following about King James's love poems to his
wife:
"He remained infatuated with his bride, whose
praises he sang in sonnets and in other verse. Her beauty, he wrote, has caused
his love,
'Long smouldering as fire hidden among coals, to
burst into sudden blaze.'
She inspires his verse, and her approbation spurs
him to preserve, though government brings stormy cares. But she is a sweet
physician who can soothe and cure his ills."
In fact, James did something almost unique for a royal monarch. He
taught that the king should be a moral person, faithful to his wife and should
set a moral example for his people. It was common for kings to have a number of
mistresses. In France the king's mistress was considered an official member of
the royal court. In fact the lack of mistresses in King James's Court is often used
as proof that he was a homosexual. However a lack of mistresses is also a sign
of a godly man leading a clean moral life.
James further writes:
"Marriage is one of the greatest actions that a man does all his
time." "When you are married, keep inviolably your promise made to
God in your marriage, which all stands in doing of one thing. And abstaining
from another, to treat her in all things as your wife and the half of yourself,
and to make your body (which then is no more yours but property hers) common
with none other. I trust I need not to insist there to dissuade you from filthy
vice of adultery remember only what solemn promise you made to God at
19
your marriage." And for your behavior to your wife, the Scripture
can best give you counsel therein. Treat her as your own flesh, command her as
her lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupil, please her in all
things reasonable, but teach her not
to be curious in things that belong not to her. You are the head, she
is your body, it is your office to command and hers to obey, but yet with such
a sweet harmony as she should be as ready to obey as you to command, as willing
to follow as you to go before, your love being wholly knit unto her, and all
her affections lovingly bent to follow your will."
James repeatedly taught the importance of morality and marriage. James
wrote in Basilicon Doron:
"But the principal blessing that you can get of good company will
stand, in your marrying of a godly and virtuous wife. . . being flesh of your
flesh and bone of your bone. . . Marriage is the greatest earthly felicity. ..
without the blessing of God you cannot look for a happy marriage."
James instructed his son:
"Keep your body clean and unpolluted while you give it to your
wife whom to only it belongs for how can you justly crave to be joined with a
Virgin if your body be polluted? Why should the one half be clean, and other
defiled? And suppose I know, fornication is thought but a venial sin by the
most part of the world, yet remember well what I said to you in my first book
regarding conscience, and count every sin and breach of God's law, not
according as the vain world esteems of it, but as God judge and maker of the
law accounts of the same: hear God commanding by the mouth of Paul to abstain
from fornication, declaring that the fornicator shall not inherit the kingdom
of heaven, and by the mouth of John reckoning out fornication among other
grievous sins that declares the commiters among dogs and swine." James
notes the end thereof is a "man given over to his own filthy
affections."
Because of King James's strong moral teaching and personal example,
Disraeli wrote: "James had formed the most elevated conception of the
virtues and duties of a monarch." Few English monarchs used the moral
authority of the throne to teach morality and demonstrate it by example. Those
who did, like King James and Queen Victoria, generated great resentment from
those who were convicted by their moral teachings. In both cases, after their
death, their enemies attacked them with vicious moral slanders. The real King
James was an outstanding moral example and a clear moral teacher. In neither
case was there any evidence to back up their accusations.
King James pointed out how many civil wars were started by the
illegitimate sons of kings. He pointed out how many innocent lives could have
been saved if kings had been moral people.
(to be continued).
|
|
“Luke11:36”
"I do not like
that candle-stick",
The textual critic
said.
(It was shining far
too brightly,
And t'was burning
through his head!)
"So this we'll
have in place of it,
-You'll see 'tis
rather grand—
The candle must be
taken out,
And placed upon a stand."
But still he was not
satisfied,
As he began to tamp.
"This ancient
wax must be cleaned out
And in must go a lamp!"
A lamp-stand now all
glowing fresh,
By modern man
approved
Could but highlight
this solemn fact,
-The candle-stick's
removed!
I will come quickly and remove thy candle-stick out of his place
except thou repent. (Rev.2:5)
And so the men who
tamper with
The Scripture's
shining light,
Can but expect to
find themselves
In darkness all, and
night.
(The candle hasn't
changed at all,
But burneth yet so
bright.)
R. S.
______________________________________________________________________
Waymarks is published quarterly and is sent out as a
tract. Its purpose is to encourage open-air preaching and also to establish the
confidence of the Lord's people in the Authorized Bible as being the true and
only Holy Bible in the English language.
We are sometimes accused by those of differing views
of showing a lack of love and of being critical of the saints. We love all
those who love Christ but it is not love to Christ to condone error or to
ignore it. It is also necessary to identify sources of information so that
statements made may be verified by my readers. Further copies may be obtained
upon request. This publication is a personal exercise and is made free of
charge. Waymarks may be freely copied without alteration but acknowledgements
should be given.
No comments:
Post a Comment