jack: one ofthe objections we get, and this can comefrom higher-ups also, is about king james himself,about him being a homosexual. david: okay, well, first of all,the guy who created that rumor waited till over 15 yearsafter james died. and there was nobody thereto raise an objection. so that's kind of sillyto begin with. but there are a couple of booksabout it (king james unjustly accused by stephen a coston).
but what you need to knoware a few things. 1) if someone says,"yes, james did his big deals from his bedroom,"well, for a king of any culture, the most secure placehas to be your bedroom. the place where yougive all your secrets has to be your bedroom.because that's where the king sleeps.so the guards are around it. they have walls around it.it has to be the most secure place.if you kill the king,
you can take over the kingdom.so when they had business affairs of statethat were so important that other peoplecould not be around, that's where they held them.[see 2 kings 6:12.] second of all,he had a couple of physical problemsthat happened to him, causing him to lean onpeople and stuff, that's one, that this guymade up to say, "oh, he's all-into these guys,"or whatever.
and third,there are vocabulary, ways of talking about things,about loving a person or being close to somebody,that were reinterpreted and made into something sexual,which is really filthy. and filthy-minded peoplelove that kind of stuff. but it wasn't james.he was a very happily married man,who loved his wife. in fact, he even,at the conference that created the king james,talked about how
he thought it was perfectly okayto say he "worshipped" his wife --he lifted up the worth--of his wife. jack: interesting. david: yeah.so he really loved his wife and his kids.[see david cloud's "was king james a homosexual?"] no, he wasnot a homosexual. but let's take itone step further. who cares?at this one level.
if you get to this issue andsomebody tries to yell at you andberate you for "being so stupid asto believe he wasn't a homosexual,"let's pretend the worst of the worst,and that he was just a devil. okay, guess what?he had nothing to with the king james bible.they gave that name, "king james's bible,"in the early 1800s, when they startedcontemplating making
other bibles. and thenlater they called it "the king james bible,"as they published different bibles. it wasn't king james' bible.in fact, it was one of the most open processesof translating known to mankind.it has been talked about for centuries. in fact,the niv people tried to make themselvessound like they had done the same thing for their 2011,which they did not. it was an open process.anybody could have seen
all these scholars.the scholars were brought from all over the place.the churches brought the people in.and the process was open to be examined.there were over 54 people involved.this was not a closed-door, closed-session thing. and the king hadnothing to do with it. except he wanted it doneby these people, set apart, and thatit would be the version
used in the church,and no other. sounds pretty"authorized," to me. jack: which iswhat it was known as, the authorized version,and it still is. david: or the common bible,or the english bible. it was just "the" bible.