Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You're really reaching here!
I'm not a fan of the KJV, for our time and our culture, but when it was done, it was the finest example of putting the Bible into the venacular, i.e. the common, everyday langauge of the peolpe. The Roman church wanted the Bible only in Latin so that the priests had to "interpret" it for the masses of people and therefore the priests had both ecclesiastical, AND politicial power.

When the Reformation made it to England, of course the King favored it, because it freed him from the power of the Pope. But beside this, the Reformation caused the people to clamor for God's wrtten Word in their own langague. King James was responding to the wants of people; it was not his aim to use it as a means to subjugate his people. As his subjects, they were already that. Who else but the king had the financial ability to bring together the scholars, scribes, and theologians required? It was published unfer his authority, of course it bears his name.

One more thing... Among the problems I have with the KJV is that the langauge is dated. When it was first printed, "Thee", and "Thou" and the verb forms used were the common langauge of the people. There was NOT a serparate "God-Langauge" as it appears today.

I have no argument with anyone saying that civilian leaders have used the Bible to justify their actions, and to keep the people "in their place", but to use the "King" in KJV as proof is over-reaching. Actually, its a case of jumping to a conclusion, and then looking for evidence to support it rather than examining the evidence and looking for a conclusion.