This has not been clearly demonstrated to be a factual statement. There is a lot of biased historical documentation concerning King James sexuality. Interestingly enough, King James was never accused of being a homosexual until nearly 25 years after his death. There are three issues that are important to understand when critically researching whether or not King James was actually a homosexual:
The language and customs of the day
King James's critics ask: isn't it true that King James publicly kissed men on the cheek and called men affectionate names like darling and sweetheart? Didn't men routinely sleep at night in his bed? Didn't King James often lean on male members of the royal household? These allegations are true. Similar evidence is also used by modern homosexual activists to assert that William Shakespeare (a contemporary of King James) was a homosexual. But this is all a misreading of the customs of the time.
Assassination of royalty was a common event and it was a customary thing for kings to have bodyguards sleep in their bed. No one accuses the promiscuous, womanizer, Henry VIII of being anything but a heterosexual. Yet he routinely slept with bodyguards in the royal bed. King James survived two kidnappings and four violent attempts on his life. Such experiences did nothing to cause King James to break with the normal procedure of always keeping his bodyguards close at hand. In sharing his bed with royal bodyguards, King James was only following the normal practice of the royalty of his time.
Terms of affection like "sweetheart" and "darling" were normal terms used between men in the seventeenth century in England. In Psalm 22:20, God the Father calls Christ the Son "My Darling." He does so again in Psalm 35:17. In the 1990's African - American women routinely called each other "girlfriend." This is not a homosexual term but a normal expression of the time. Anyone who presents the use of terms like "sweetheart" and "darling" as proof of homosexuality in seventeenth century England is a very shallow historian (or has a very vulgar mind). King James (or for that matter William Shakespeare) does not deserve such treatment.
The gay community's vested interest in King James being a homosexual
Homosexual activists have been determined to claim King James as one of their own. These are the same activists who claim that Abraham Lincoln, William Shakespeare, the Biblical King David and Jonathan and even Jesus Christ were really homosexuals. Historical facts means nothing to these people. They care only about their political and social agenda. It is a travesty when evangelicals quote their books as credible sources.
The rabid (and unfortunate) infighting among Christians (who, while challenging KJV onlyists) would utilize this propoganda in their argumentation
Despite the lack of evidence (and in spite of the evidence to the contrary) some evangelicals are quick to use the baseless accusations against King James to bolster their attacks on the King James Bible. But facts are contrary things! King James never claimed to be a homosexual. He was never accused of being one during his life time. No one ever claimed to see James in a homosexual situation. The accusations against him, past and present, stem from bias and not from fact.
- How can the Bible be authorized by a homosexual when it teaches against it?
See number one. Based upon a careful observation of the historical record, I don't accept the premise that King James was/is demonstrated to be a homosexual.
- Because versions of the Bible exist then it cannot be considered a holy document
By who's standards? Where was this rule written down? Who came up with it? The original manuscripts were indeed inspired by God. Versions of the bible are necessary in order for people to be able to understand the word of God in their own/native language. The definition of holy/holiness:
Usually translations of words derived from a Hebrew root qadash and Greek hag-. The basic meaning of qadash is “separateness, withdrawal.” Greek hag-is an equivalent of qadash, and its history is similar.[2]The bible as a document is considered holy by Christians and has always been acknowledged as such during the time of its translation. Scribes and copyists were very careful in how they transmitted God's word.
Furthermore, the bible can also be considered as a document that is separate and unique from other works of history. Refer to this article to learn more about the nature of a translation and a chart comparing the superiority of the bible versus other documents that are accepted (the origin of these works are without question).
- Dr. Phil Stringer, online reference: The Real Story of King James I [Note: according to the author, his work is derived solely from an important work by Stephen Coston entitled: King James the IV of Scotland and the I of England Unjustly Accused this title is no longer available via amazon, but at the end of Dr. Phil Stringer's article, he provides a way you can write and request a personal copy - according to Dr. Stringer, this work has so far been UNREFUTABLE]
- J. D. Douglas & Merrill C. Tenney, NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible(Zondervan Publishing House) Academic and Professional Books Grand Rapids, Michigan
Related Articles:
Was King James queer?
Samuel C. Gipp Answer Book Excerpt
Send YOUR email question to: questions@blackapologetics.com
©Black Apologetics Ministry 2001-2003
home
