jasoncran
Member
It stinks, before these newer versions the King James is what you got, if its good for a king its good enough for me. why now in the final generation we can't understand the KJV, If all we had was a Chinese version you would scream bloody murder. God reveals himself to a true seeker in His time.. these newer versions leave off the divinity of Christ.
It Stinks
turnorburn
lee, you should read up on who king james was as i he thought he was made better then other men(kings)
glad we dont have those guys around.
In 1597–98, James wrote two works, The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron (Royal Gift), in which he established an ideological base for monarchy. In the True Law, he sets out the divine right of kings, explaining that for Biblical reasons kings are higher beings than other men, though "the highest bench is the sliddriest to sit upon".[46] The document proposes an absolutist theory of monarchy, by which a king may impose new laws by royal prerogative but must also pay heed to tradition and to God, who would "stirre up such scourges as pleaseth him, for punishment of wicked kings".[47] Basilikon Doron, written as a book of instruction for the four-year-old Prince Henry, provides a more practical guide to kingship.[48] Despite banalities and sanctimonious advice,[49] the work is well written, perhaps the best example of James's prose.[50] James's advice concerning parliaments, which he understood as merely the king's "head court", foreshadows his difficulties with the English Commons: "Hold no Parliaments," he tells Henry, "but for the necesitie of new Lawes, which would be but seldome".[51] In the True Law James maintains that the king owns his realm as a feudal lord owns his fief, because kings arose "before any estates or ranks of men, before any parliaments were holden, or laws made, and by them was the land distributed, which at first was wholly theirs. And so it follows of necessity that kings were the authors and makers of the laws, and not the laws of the kings."[52]