– bolding mine.
You’re funny.
What’s “accurate” and “truth” varies from believer to believer no matter what source they use.
That was truly a thing of beauty.
Credit where due, and it’s due big-time.
Righty-O, then! Two rum, two sodomy, forty lashes. Coming up!
Then it’s a good thing he doesn’t depend on it.
Thankth.
Regardth,
Thodan
Kansas was just a gleam in his lover’s eyes.
You could even say it was dust in the wind.
Very weak pitting.
First, because, as has been said, King James had nothing at all to do with the contents of the AV.
Second, and most important, Americans hate all kings anyway, whether they authorized a great Bible translation or not. It’s the book these people revere, not the monarch whose name is attached to it.
I’m pretty sure you’ve been wooshed. I’m not thinking the point of the pitting was the tight and solid logical argument which it was presenting.
(I wonder if I’ve just been wooshed? There’s reason to think so…)
I’ve never really seen any good evidence that James VI was a homosexual. There were some rumors floating around that he wasn’t very manly or virile but that was because he had yet to sire a son and he did not have a great amount of control over Scotland. He went to go get his bride-to-be, Anne of Denmark, on a sea voyage when the weather was generally thought of as bad in an effort to do something about the people’s perception about him.
Come on, you really don’t think that letters from James to another man addressing the other man as his “sweet child and wife” and saying that he wants nothing more in life than to be with the other man is good evidence that he was gay?
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have phrased my post in the form of a simple question:
Which version of the Bible provides ‘accurate’ and ‘truthful theology’?
Agreed. Nicely done Shodan
Sounds painful. You might be better off having an old man play knick knack on your door.
What I want to know is how he went from James VI to James I. How does that work?
Because he was both King of Scotland AND England. He was sixth King James of Scotland, but the first King James of England. This was prior to the unification of Scotland and England into Great Britain.
So when Elizabeth I died in 1603, England and Ireland just said “fuck it, let’s join Scotland?” Forgive my ignorance here I’m just wondering how they all got unified without some sort of bloody war.
The Virgin Queen left no heir. James was available, appropriately male and blooded, and not a fanatic about religion. That he was also legitimately King of Scotland was a bonus.
Just because a poet said it doesn’t make it verse, any more than just because a plumber posts here makes his posts into pipes.
Well, no. I did suggest that "whooshes’ be against the rules in GQ. But GQ is a specialized place and sometimes a “whoosh” comes across as a real answer. It has happened several time, once with a medical answer, sending our QtM into a mild fit. Then the asshole said “whooosh”. QtM is a real benefit to this board, that wasn’t nice.
Being against the rules does not mean automatic banning, of course.
He was also the legitimate heir by primogeniture to the throne of England at the death of Elizabeth, his mother’s paternal grandmother having been the elder daughter of Henry VII, Elizabeth’s own grandfather. That he’d been King of Scots for 30 years when he inherited the English throne was a bonus – the two realms shared a monarch. (They didn’t formally merge for another 104 years, in 1707.)
Rack-a-Bones, Here’s an explanation of how James VI came to be heir to the throne of England.
Later on, the King of Hanover would inherit the throne of Great Britain – George I. And the monarch of England would also rule Hanover until Queen Victoria inherited the British throne – Hanover had the Salic law, which prohibited a female monarch. So her uncle, Ernest, the Duke of Cumberland, became King there.
Fascinating, really – royalty.