Is the King James version of the bible political propaganda

[dfnj]

It seems to me the King James bible is political propaganda of its time. In King James book, "The True Law of Free Monarchies" he talks about the divine right of kings. Isn't slightly suspicious the exact form of divine government in the bible matches the one King James was promoting at the time his bible was created?

You would think an omnipotent God having no limitations would be slightly more egalitarian in His chosen form of divine government. It's not like God is going to die if not enough people make it into Heaven. You can't have a Lord without Slaves. You can't have a King without Subjects.

Again, you would think an omnipotent God would be more like a selfless caregiver or steward as opposed to an authoritative overlord, that is, a King James type king. I think King James was using his bible as a way to legitimize his form of government. In King James world, the most important thing was loyalty to the king. And the king is God on earth. This is why loyalty and subservience God is the most important aspect of King James' religion.

I would go even further and argue the reason why Jesus was crucified was not because of the splitting of hairs over Jewish doctrine. Jesus was crucified because he advocated divine authority comes from within and a person did not have to buy their absolution from the temple as in the Beatitudes for example. This was a direct threat to the cash flow of the Pharisees. In other words, what Jesus was advocating was a more egalitarian type God as opposed to a centralized figure in authority requiring absolute obedience as portrayed in King James's political propaganda.

 

[1213]

It seems to me the King James bible is political propaganda of its time. In King James book, "The True Law of Free Monarchies" he talks about the divine right of kings. Isn't slightly suspicious the exact form of divine government in the bible matches the one King James was promoting at the time his bible was created?

You would think an omnipotent God having no limitations would be slightly more egalitarian in His chosen form of divine government. It's not like God is going to die if not enough people make it into Heaven. You can't have a Lord without Slaves. You can't have a King without Subjects.
...

Also King James Bible says:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matt. 23:4-12

Many kings probably don't want people to know that, but Bible is against the idea of Christians trying to become higher than others.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is the King James version of the bible political propaganda

It definitely doesn't, one must say, belong to (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is the King James version of the bible political propaganda

It definitely doesn't, one must say, belong to (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?
It definitely was religiously divisive, I get to know, and had political repercussions, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is the King James version of the bible political propaganda

It definitely doesn't, one must say, belong to (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?
It definitely was religiously divisive, I get to know, and had political repercussions as well, please, right?

Regards

 

[McBell]

Also King James Bible says:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matt. 23:4-12

Many kings probably don't want people to know that, but Bible is against the idea of Christians trying to become higher than others.

What version does NOT have those verses?

 

[RabbiO]

@dfnj -

What exactly is the cash flow from the Temple you reference the Pharisees were benefiting from, given that basically the Pharisees were not in control of the Temple?

 

[Muffled]

I believe propaganda is falsehoods and nothing in the Bible is there to deceive.

 

[dfnj]

I believe propaganda is falsehoods and nothing in the Bible is there to deceive.

I doubt very much our omnipotent God believes in monarchy as the chosen form of divine government. Explain to me why? Being omnipotent means without having any needs or wants.

 

[dfnj]

@dfnj -

What exactly is the cash flow from the Temple you reference the Pharisees were benefiting from, given that basically the Pharisees were not in control of the Temple?

In ancient times, temple goers had to buy their absolution.

 

[dfnj]

Is the King James version of the bible political propaganda

It definitely doesn't, one must say, belong to (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?
It definitely was religiously divisive, I get to know, and had political repercussions as well, please, right?

Regards

The Bible is more about obedience to the Lord in authority than it is about Jesus. Jesus is just a hook to get people to buy into the political indoctrination of having submission and complete obedience to someone who is in charge.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe propaganda is falsehoods and nothing in the Bible is there to deceive.

The Bible does condone lying and deception in its texts.

 

[oldbadger]

In King James book, "The True Law of Free Monarchies" he talks about the divine right of kings......

That was in the foreword, and not the bible....true?

You would think an omnipotent God having no limitations would be slightly more egalitarian ..........

If you had started with 'You might think....' then that would have been more balanced, No?

Again, you would think .......

....might think?

...... Jesus was crucified because he advocated divine authority comes from within and a person did not have to buy their absolution from the temple as in the Beatitudes for example.

Nah...... Jesus was executed because he trashed the temple money-exchange and picketed the Temple Courts, and tried to do it all the next day as well.

 

[McBell]

That was in the foreword, and not the bible....true?

No.
It is a completely separate book not associated with the King James Bible other than both bear his name.

 

[Glaurung]

It seems to me the King James bible is political propaganda of its time. In King James book, "The True Law of Free Monarchies" he talks about the divine right of kings. Isn't slightly suspicious the exact form of divine government in the bible matches the one King James was promoting at the time his bible was created?

I don't see what this is supposed to mean. It's not at all suspicious that European monarchies claimed divine legitimacy. Of course they did. Pagan monarchies often claimed to be divine in and of themselves which makes the European Christian claims of rule by divine right rather tame by comparison.

You would think an omnipotent God having no limitations would be slightly more egalitarian in His chosen form of divine government. It's not like God is going to die if not enough people make it into Heaven. You can't have a Lord without Slaves. You can't have a King without Subjects.

No, I wouldn't think that. If Christianity is in at least the ballpark of being true then God is more concerned with the state of each person's soul. How you have lived your life. The core message of Christianity is that good standing with God is obtained by faith in Christ. It has never been a promise of utopia here on Earth.

Again, you would think an omnipotent God would be more like a selfless caregiver or steward as opposed to an authoritative overlord, that is, a King James type king. I think King James was using his bible as a way to legitimize his form of government. In King James world, the most important thing was loyalty to the king. And the king is God on earth. This is why loyalty and subservience God is the most important aspect of King James' religion.

Well, no. Christian kings never claimed to be gods on Earth. (That's more of a pagan thing). But Christian teaching does affirm that earthly authority is necessary and as such (in a sense) divinely ordained. If anything is ever to get done then someone at some point has to be able to make enforceable decisions. The idea that you can have a complex society without an authority structure (a government) is a childish fantasy.

I would go even further and argue the reason why Jesus was crucified was not because of the splitting of hairs over Jewish doctrine. Jesus was crucified because he advocated divine authority comes from within and a person did not have to buy their absolution from the temple as in the Beatitudes for example. This was a direct threat to the cash flow of the Pharisees. In other words, what Jesus was advocating was a more egalitarian type God as opposed to a centralized figure in authority requiring absolute obedience as portrayed in King James's political propaganda.

Jesus was crucified because he claimed divine honours for himself. In the eyes of the Pharisees that was blasphemy. Have you actually read the New Testament?

 

[oldbadger]

No.
It is a completely separate book not associated with the King James Bible other than both bear his name.

Thank you for that.
So it is completely separate from the KJV. That looks as if it was being waved as a false flag by the poster.
Some folks think that the bible is a single work, rather than a collection of books...that's a big mistake.