It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who Really Was King James?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:42 AM

Who Really Was King James?

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched.

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.
Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious

1. Roman Catholicism

2. Silence

3. The Inquisition

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous.

England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:

1. The Anglican Church

2. Silence

3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.

Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.

This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary ascended to the throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake - about 300 people in all. She intended to burn a lot more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country. A tremendous number of those intended victims settled in Geneva.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:54 AM
King James didn't share copies of his bible with the world to help people live better lives. He wanted to control them by getting them to read & believe in all of the lies his false-scribes added to scriptures. They didn't only add to scriptures, they took out the sacred name of "YHWH" and his prophets' names, in addition to adding false-doctrine to replace the sacred-doctrine in the ancient prophets' writings.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:36 AM
Divine Right of Kings!!???? Your kidding me right Chad Andrew??

You do know what happened in England by 1649 Correct. It appears that the English People had enough of Divine Right of Kings.
With the Beheading of Charles 1st in 1649 Divine Right of Kings was an issue laid to rest. After that even no Monarch of England dared to declare themselves divine or assume the rights of Divinity as was the case on the continent.

By the way...the Beheading of Charles 1st was the first time that a people themselves had ever killed or executed a king. This was very bad news for the king club.
Mind you you clearly posted ...royalty had many times killed schemes, plots, machinations etc etc. But for a ordinary people to put thier hands on their king had never been done.

THe question for the English people and Oliver Cromwell...was that when a king had broken the law...the Magna instituting his own tax in violation of said Magna Carta..did a people have right and duty to turn on thier king. The Magna Carta said that only Parliment had the right to levy a tax. The kings position was that as divine right king, I cannot be held to the standard of the Magna Carta. I am above the Magna Carta and above the people. My authority comes directly from God.

With their King James Bible and the knowlege of the Magna Carta...the English people under the Roundheads deteremined differently.
The English Civil War settled this issue for all time.;

With the King James Bible marked the first time that a Bible was available to the ordinary people in any quantity. What you find amongst the English people is that many of them in this tiime period and noticably so...began to think read and write in the King James style. It swept a nation as did no other book.
What else happened which did not happen in other countrys was that the people as a whole began to realize that their King was in Heaven..not on the throne of England. This was a huge threat to those pushing the position of Divine Right of Kings.
By the time of King Charles 1st, steps were made to change this status.
All prayers were to be read from the Common Book of Prayer of the Anglican Church. Many peoples resented this. And many of these peoples were in Parliment. And Parliment resented what the King was attempting to do. So when the King attempted to levy his own tax ..the figtht was on.

And furthermore..Chad Andrew...the issue here in the Americas was...when the king had broken the law...Levied his own tax to help fight a war on continental Europe...did the colonists have a historical precident to turn on their king.

The answer was the example of the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell.

We know this as "Taxation without representation." But the policy of England was up until this time that taxes levied in a colony were used for the purposes of the colony...not sent back to the mother country.
Up until that continental war England had maintainted this policy...that taxes levied in a colony were used for the purposes of that colony.

When a government/leader has violated the law do a people have a right and duty to turn on their government. Is there such a precident in history.

It is little wonder to those who know...why Divine Right of Kings is not taught in public schools for what it is and what history records about it.
The public is never to know much about this history.
If King James had any idea what would happen as a result of the publishing of his Bible...he never would have done it.
Remember ..they already had anEnglish Bible in the Great English Bible. This is the Bible brought to Jamestown, about 30 miles up the road from me, by the early settlers in 1607.

The King James Bible comes from a different source than does the Great English Bible.
In the Olde Testamet the King James is Masoretic Hebrew and in the New Testament it is Koine Greek...or common Greek..the Greek of the streets. Not so with the Great English or other bibles...they are from Classical Greek such as the Vaticanus Codex B or the Alieph From Alexandria, etc.
This is a very unusual contrast for a Catholic Monarch to do. But nevertheless ...King James did it.
Had he known what would happen to the monarchy...he never would have published his King James Version.


[edit on 24-4-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:49 AM
Here is a good link

James I was born in 1566 to Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. He descended from the Tudors through Margaret, daughter of Henry VII : both Mary Queen of Scots and Henry Stewart were grandchildren of Margaret Tudor. James ascended the Scottish throne upon the abdication of his mother in 1567, but Scotland was ruled by regent untilJames reached his majority. He married Anne of Denmark in 1589, who bore him three sons and four daughters: Henry, Elizabeth, Margaret, Charles, Robert, Mary and Sophia. He was named successor to the English throne by his cousin, Elizabeth I and ascended that throne in 1603. James died of a stroke in 1625 after ruling Scotland for 58 years and England for 22 years.

I watched the movie Elizabeth and it prompted me to look up the history of the monarchy. What surprised me is how they (the royalty) married up with so many other countries, including Germany and France.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by interestedalways


I do not understand whay you would be surprised at royalty marrying other royalty.

If you look back in history as a record fo the bible...King Solomon had some 400 wives.

Many of us in our ignorance assume he was some kind of sexual deviate or superman. This was not so.

Such marriages to other royalty were often for the purposes of securing more stable commerce and preventing war between these two nations.
If one can pull this off ...getting ones royal relatives married off to another means overall stability. THis was considered a small price to be paid for such an advantage.
This still happens today.


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:11 AM
A further note to my post on Divine Right of Kings.

When Charles 1st was brought to the block and his head chopped off...thiis marks the first recorded Execution of a Kng by an ordinary people. As I stated this is very bad news for the King Club.

What is also not taught much in history that this also marks the beginings of attempts at Seperation of Church and State. This principle..Seperation of Church and State was to be taken further by the founders of this nation...America. For these founders understood the danger of the connection of religion to the throne or seat of power going back all the way to Ancient Egypt and beyond. They knew that for a people to have Liberty the power must be seperated from the natural mischief of men.

However contrast to this...note what happened historically in England once again when natural men took over and did what men do naturally.

After the restoration of the Kings when the Son of Charles 1st was returned to the throne....all of the leaders from the time of Cromwell were removed or had to run for thier lives. Many were put in jail.
By the early 1700s the English discovered Gin. In time out of every five buisness establishments became sellers and purveyors of spirits. The whole nation went on a national drunk., The writings fo this period and Parliment reflect this chaos. You can find this history but like Divine Right of Kings you have to dig for it. It is not so much out in the open.
It was some time before the English were able to pull out of this mess. The roots of this still exist today...most Englishmen can be found in the pubs..more than anywhere else.

Quite a contrast from Cromwell to the later Kings.

Just some History to consider,

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:16 AM
Do you mean Queen James ? (no offense to homosexual folks reading - that's just the title that has been given to him)

He was a bi-sexual. His brother was gay. I find is soooooo funny that fundamentalist christians insist on the 'King James Bible' .. and at the same time condemn homosexuality. They are using a book that came to them first from the Catholic Church (whom they also hate) and then through a bi-sexual.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:16 AM
I guess I am a hopeless romantic.

I thought you married because you loved someone, not for material or territorial gain.

Silly Me!

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:10 PM
Interesting thread!

And thanks to Orangetom for his informed discourse.


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:50 PM

posted on 24-4-2008 at 11:16 AM
I guess I am a hopeless romantic.

I thought you married because you loved someone, not for material or territorial gain.

Silly Me!

marriage due to love is a nice luxury and possible in times of more economic affluence. We live in a very economically affluent social structure here in the States as compared to other nations.
Marriages in many nations are still arranged affairs and that is thier custom. I hold no grief for this.

Contrast this with how many marriages here..for "love" dont work out because of some kind of delusion about the actual status of

Nonetheless..this is how marriages in history ..especially among royalty worked out. Hence ...many often had discrete affairs on the side particularly among royalty and the affluent. Is this not what was happening with Prince Charles though he was married to Diana? Not all of us have the luxury of love and romance...but it does sell alot of magazine space and books.

Flyers Fan,

The Catholic Church was never in favor of the Bible being commonly available in the public hands. For centurys the bible was read in Latin for which only a handful of the Laity were fluent.

If King James was for the Catholic Position ..why and how did the King James bible come into the hands of the ordinary people?

Remember also...many people could not in fact read..even in this country the early days. Those who were read the those who could read..were eventually read from out of the King James. This is the pattern of how it came to be known by the common man.
England Became King James. They spoke and read and worte King James. This is not a pattern or fingerprint desired by the Catholic Church. No matter what Romes feudal or Royal Ambitions.
Remember too..what Olliver Cromwell was...He was staunchly anti Popery..anti Roman. Yet you see him or his people declaring little to nothing about the King James Version.
YOu can say alot of things about Cromwell but uneducated is not one of them. He knew the history of Kings and of Rome.
What is also known about Royalty and the Royal houses of England was that on occasion...just like the Caesars is that they often carried out much debauchery. This is known history in certain circles..even unto the Duke of Windsor..who married Wallace Simpson..a commoner and gave up the throne of England for her. In certain circles thier debauchery is known.
Nonetheless this did not effect the writing of the King James Bible as an Educated Group was commissioned and did their work. King James was to go on to read and approve the text. The rest is history.
Once again had he known what he was turning loose on the English Peoples he would probably not have commissioned the writing of his version.

What King James did was to publish a Bible under the most favorable conditions possible up to that day. Tynsdale and Wycliffe wrote bibles but under very dangerous conditions...often under durress or threat from the Church at Rome.
This is not the case with King James. He had the best translators of Greek, Hebrew and other languages. His people were also able to import and study the best texts available.
This was a first in a non Catholic Country.

The Church at Rome has written Bibles. Duray Rhemes, and other versions...but they have never written a King James..and they most certainly have the moneys and the skills..knowlegable peoples. This abscence is very telling when contrasted with the history of events of these times..what happened and did not happen.

Eric D,

You are most certainly welcome.
I was taught by Elders in an Olde School Church. I hope that what these Elders taught to me is of some help in showing and teaching some history of the times and events.
Historical perspective as taught today is horrible, very lacking. It is very difficult for us to connect the dots to a larger and pertinant picture to see how events long ago still affect us today. How his history is actually important to our knowlege and thinking process.
I hope it helped you and some of the others out here.


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by ChadAndrewATS

All religion is mistrue today.

King James was a lame that thought he could control minds by justifying his version of the way churches should be portrayed.

The only way the bible can be read is in the aramaic texts. I thought you all already knew this.

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by TheRealYoda7
reply to post by ChadAndrewATS

All religion is mistrue today.

King James was a lame that thought he could control minds by justifying his version of the way churches should be portrayed.

The only way the bible can be read is in the aramaic texts. I thought you all already knew this.

YOu know....history is a very intresting phenomonon to observe once you know certain indexes by which to measure certain concepts and thoughts.

For example in my ignorance I assumed that in the so called Biblical times that when Rome ruled this area...the language used daily would be Latin.
Not my surprise. The language of commerce in this area was Greek. And not any olde Greek...but Koine Greek or common Greek..the Greek of the streets....verses classical Greek of the Schools of philosophy and learningt at Alexandria,Egypt.

Scholars know that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek..not Classical Greek nor Aramaic.

Think about this..If it was in Aramaic...what good would it be to non hebrews...or Gentiles as they were called??

The New Testament was to go to the Jews first then the rest of the world. It would not do any good to have it in Aramaic.

I was not aware that the Spirit of God was limited by a language barrier.

More food for thought,

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:50 AM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The roots of this still exist today...most Englishmen can be found in the pubs..more than anywhere else.

You need to read the history of beer to determine why the British like their pubs. Way back when water was dirty (and would kill you) the cleanest drinkable water was in the form of beer. Not strong beer that would dehydrate you but "session" beer. This is also the reason why it's served at room temperature and not chilled.

Nothing to do with a bible written in English !

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by TheRealYoda7

Thanks for sharing the truth. I appreciate the scriptures written by prophets, but not false-scribes & government-agents, such as the false-scribes of the late-King James.

reply to post by orangetom1999

The topic is the late-King James. If you have a problem with the "Divine Right of Kings" or anything else the author of that article (Who Really Was King James) wrote, then deal with that person.

You can not debunk the facts: the late-King James mislead his people, murdered, stole from his people, and lied to his people, as all rulers of the governments of this world do on a daily basis. No "holy man" in his right mind would add false-doctrine to scriptures or take away sacred doctrine from scriptures. Only a heathen like the late-King James would do that.

James I of England and religious issues

The Gunpowder Plot reinforced James' oppression of non-conforming English Catholics; and he sanctioned harsh measures for controlling them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which would require every citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, incorporating a denial of the Pope's authority over the king. James was conciliatory towards Catholics who took the Oath of Allegiance, and he tolerated crypto-Catholicism even at court. However, in practice he enacted even harsher measures against Catholics than were laid upon them by Elizabeth. Towards the Puritan clergy, with whom he debated at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, James was at first strict in enforcing conformity, inducing a sense of persecution amongst many Puritans; but ejections and suspensions from livings became fewer as the reign wore on. A notable success of the Hampton Court Conference was the commissioning of a new translation of the Bible, completed in 1611, which became known as the King James Bible, considered a masterpiece of Jacobean prose. In Scotland, James attempted to bring the Scottish kirk "so neir as can be" to the English church and reestablish the episcopacy, a policy which met with strong opposition. In 1618, James's bishops forced his Five Articles of Perth through a General Assembly; but the rulings were widely resisted. James was to leave the church in Scotland divided at his death, a source of future problems for his son.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by ChadAndrewATS

LOL LOL ChatAndrews,

You are using Divine Right of Kings in the quoted suporting article of your position on King James and the point cannot be debated?? Think on this one a bit more.

Goodness come across like many politicians. I for one think politics is in fact a religion...with undefined rules...very talmudic.
This is obvious when one reads the zealousness by which the religion of Politics is practiced by its adherents of today.

THe true nature of politics is "occult" hidden ..concealed ..esoteric..known only by a chosen few initiates. This is also a definitin of feudalism. Understand now??
Religion has always been core to support feudalism. Royalty. This is historically demonstratable. It is core to Romanism. The support of the Church and Royalty in that the crowns of the Soverigns was put on their heads with the blessing of the Church. Either Westminister or Rome.

Once again what matter what the intent of the King...was that a people began to understand that their King was in Heaven..not on the throne of England..and most certainly not on a throne in Rome.

Understand?? This is why I say...if King James had any idea what would happen to the throne of England... once the bible was available to the common man..he would not have published it or commissioned it to be done.

The essence of all "occult" principles is that the core body of knowlege and wisdom is to be in the hands of the initiates alone. Not to the ordinary people. This is historically a definition of Romanism. It is also a definition of Politics today. This is true today as it was in ancient times. Nothing changed here. This is also the essence of Royalty/Feudalism.

This is also why politics is occult and royalty. Also why politics is a religion.
A religion with undefined rules which the common people often do not know or have any idea is even transpiring. This is talmud and it takes place in many nations..many cultures by different names..I merely use the term Talmud here in a broad sense...talmud..secret rules and dogmas to break the must follow certain rules to break the rules.

No matter what the objective of King James ..if control was his intent backfired.

Remember...what was happening in those times....the Muslims had overun Constantnople.and were moving into central Europe. The Eastern Orthodox Church had to flee and they took with them thier documents and Bibles. They could not flee into the Roman Catholic areas because of the long standing rift between these churchs. They fled into northern Europe ...Germany and the lowland countrys...who were anti Rome. These documents found thier way to England where, and when examined, the learned men realized that the English Bibles then available .and the Eastern Orthodox bibles and documents did not say the same thing. There was a difference in these Bibles as well as various documents.

Remember...the English already had the Romanish Documents and Bibles.

This is why a new Bible was commissioned.

And remember also that the Church at Rome could have and most certainly had the intellect and resources to commission a bible like this but did not.

As to murder, misleading, stealing,lying et al...this is still going on. Many kings and politicians carry out this religious dogma on their peoples and other nations. Remember my point about Occult religion being very close to the heart of politics and politicians/feudalism.

As to debunking the understand that this practice/control was continued under later kings..King Charles 1st for example?? In an attempt to regain political/religious power. This was one issue at his trial..whether he could be held accountable as an ordinary man or as a divine right king.
The quest for absolute power.

The English Civil war settled this issue in the western world for all time.

The quest in power..and also Occult power ..has always been absolute power over people and events..this has never changed. It is still in effect. It is just that different tools and methods are used to carry this out today. It is still feudalism..albet occult feudalism. Hidden from those it intends to control. It is also religious in nature.

I am painting a picture of religious control and the connection to politics today..through divine right of feudalism to royalty to occult religion.
I am showing that they are all connected today in a manner unperceived by the general public. These are not disconnected isolated events but related by the workings of history. They are still happening today. nature but it is still happening and still religious.

King James may have been no different from other Kings ..but he made one huge mistake against the Feudal System. He allowed the Bible to be facillitated into the hands of the Common Man. A very bad precident for the system of Royal Occult Feudalism. It was eventually to have a hand in changing the western world.


[edit on 25-4-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 02:44 PM

I've read some crazy stuff on here,,,such as, "if your annointed with oil you have the mark of the beast", "there is no hell", and "queen james".

It's really quite simple. "there is a war going on". Now I'm not an expert, but I do read alot, and granted, the church has probably been the worst of all enemies to God. False churches that is.

Bottom line is, anything goes when it comes to discrediting God/Jesus.

I've read the attacks on King James, that he was queer, and many other discredits. Yet a little research, and you will find it simply is'nt true. It it merely a smear campaigne designed to further lead you away.

Just as foretold of the "Last Days".

new topics

top topics


log in