(The question arises, "...was King James Catholic or Protestant?")

"King James was sympathetic to the Roman Catholic institution, his mother's official religion," I respond.  Others affirm the same. 

"But wasn't he the first of the reformed monarchs?"

I reply,  "Protestant in form; Catholic in theory."  [1]

Do any of you know which Bible was the one the pilgrims came here with?  It was not the 1611 King James Version but the 1560 Geneva Bible--a lesser known translation by John Calvin and a host of Greek and Latin scholars, from earliest available manuscripts--distinguished from other translations by its copious margin notations--rare insight into the translators' findings--a translation King James thought to be far too anti-Roman Catholic in design.  (NOTE: The Geneva Bible was also the first Bible to add verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible".)  In fact, James 1's Aunt, Queen Elizabeth I, had even commissioned a translation called the Bishops' Bible. John Wycliffe did the first English translation of the New Testament around 1380-1384. In 1530 (revised 1534), William Tyndale (known as the father of the English Bible) printed his English New Testament, plus the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the book of Jonah. The first English translation of the complete Bible was done by Myles Coverdale in 1535, who revised Tyndale's work and translated the rest of the Old Testament from Latin and German versions.

So why did King James need yet another version of the Bible to be translated? 

King James (1566-1625) was known as King James I of England from 1603-1625, and known as King James VI of Scotland from 1567-1625. He was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, the Roman Catholic Queen forced to abdicate her throne and eventually executed by Elizabeth I of England in 1587 for sedition. As King of Scotland, James was head of the Kirk (Church) of Scotland (Presbyterian--Calvinism). After the death of the heirless Elizabeth in England (the one who had executed his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots--once Roman Catholic, later "convert" to Scottish Protestantism), he became King James I of England and as such the head of the Church of England (same Church of England today--offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Episcopal Church in America). This is the same King James who so persecuted the Puritans that the separatist Pilgrims (carrying the Geneva Bible) eventually fled to America in 1620.

The Geneva Bible with its profuse notations and study helps made it possible for everyday folks to learn God's will.  Such footnoting highlighted the sovereign imperative of God (removing necessity of church or human intercession in salvation); illuminated the reality of His "election" of His people, His free gift of grace, and the price for "sin" having been paid in full on the cross, resulting in salvation obtainable as God's own gift to those who "turned' (repented) toward Him and trusted His finished work on the cross--a gift of eternal life which could not be obtained by mere human effeort; aka, "works"... 

What a blow such a translation must have dealt imperial heads!  A "sovereign personal God" kind of theology could supplant tyrannical systems and churches that suggested one must rely on a system of "works" (self-improvement or self-abuse), established by the church in order to improve one's standing before God, in order to be considered for His Kingdom.  And it certainly threatened existing political and religious systems which claimed the church to be God's own authority concerning such qualification. And since the church was God's authority on earth and the pope was the head of the Roman church, he was to be considered blameless or infallible as such, answerable only to God.  Papal Infallibility was ultimately to be defined by the First Vatican Council of 1870 as "the dogma that the Pope, when he solemnly defines a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra (that is, officially and as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church), does not have the possibility of error. "

Likewise, King James proclaimed himself answerable to no one, the rest be damned.  The King James translators knew too well what they were up against:
"A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that 'there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue.' The translators expressed that they were 'poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known' while at the same time recognizing that 'Popish persons' sought to keep the people 'in ignorance and darkness.' "
                 -- http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

After all, any translation which illuminated "freedom, liberty, and life in Christ Jesus" (Geneva), could potentially damage a ruler's total control over kingdoms and countrymen (and their wallets) on earth, and for King James and the Church the potential for such liberty from tyrannical oppression proved to be one more filter through which his own divine power might otherwise become diluted, and the Church's spiritual authority destroyed. 

Hence, King James ordered HIS translation absent of all sidebar notes previously found in the Geneva translation, except for minimal translational aids re: Greek and Latin.

"But if he truly was a reformed (in the tradition of John Calvin and Luther) Protestant monarch, why would he seek to undermine that translation proffered by the very originator of the reformed faith King James himself claimed?" 

I believe it was because he desired to send his translation, and not the copious Geneva Study Bible, to the New World--i.e., Jamestown--lest he lose control of the colonists.

Via his "new" translation, he was hoping for a more "the-church-as-well-the King-are-divinely-appointed-and thus-you-must-obey" kinda translation, but instead got a translation  based on the SAME Greek and Latin manuscripts the earlier translations had been based upon--the Textus Receptus (Greek manuscripts, already translated by Erasmus and Wycliff and Calvin et al) and the Latin Vulgate  (the Catholic Church's manuscripts);  he was delivered another version, somewhat translationally improved, definitely without the copious study notes.

Some examples of wording the King and the Roman Catholic Church could not get around, were:

By discouraging marginal notations referencing such passages, however, they remained buried in scripture.

One of our visitors comments--"I have a hard time believing this--the King James version of the Bible is the most widely used Bible (in all Protestantism) isn't it?  If James was sympathetic to Catholicism, how do you explain the KJV's popularity?"

I think the preferred tools for maintaining control of people have always been:

Americans today exemplify why this is effective.  As a rule, we are more knowledgeable of sports scores and top-40 countdowns than our own history or constitution--an Entertainment Tonight mentality seems to prevail nowadays.  "Do what thou wilst."  As long as we can buy beer and watch a ballgame, we won't be bothered with boring stuff like history or the Bible.  We are in so many ways rewarded for self-centeredness.  We enjoy a high degree of comfort as well as lots of choices today.  But we can only make the choice--we cannot also choose the consequences of that choice.  If we remain ignorant the wool can and will be pulled over our eyes concerning our freedom and theology.  

Four hundred years ago, everyday citizens had less choices and little comfort.  They were dependent upon the government and the church for everything, but they wanted out from under government's thumb, and many would come to want to worship as he or she saw fit.  

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church alleged itself to be the one true church via "apostolic succession."   But there is questionable Biblical scripture to support that.  Catholic apologists camp out on Matthew 16, verse 18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 

But when the original Greek words used in this passage are correctly translated, we find two relative but different words--one for Peter: petros=meaning a stone or pebble, and one for "rock": petra = large rock, bed rock, large amalgam of rock. 

So, a more correct translation seems to teeter on the distinction between those two words....You art a tiny pebble (petros), and upon this great solid rock (petra)--ME, Christ-- I will build my church..." 

Further, as we read on to verse 23, we find Jesus refers to Peter as Satan. 

Upon whom or what, then, would His church truly be built?  I believe it is built upon the Only ROCK, the Rock of Ages, Jesus Christ Himself.  Not upon a pebble or stone. 

From the beginning the Roman Catholic Church, specifically the Pope, fought to prevent the spread of individual copies of scripture.   Why?  If people were to actually READ what was contained in it, they might again revolt, fleeing from man-generated doctrines and heretical spiritual institutions intent of keeping the faithful ignorant, and ones selling salvation for $$$$ (paid indulgences: a practice mostly imposed on the poor, but still intact today). 

Having read Martin Luther's German translation in 1525, they did revolt.  100,000 peasants, priests and countrymen were subsequently slaughtered. (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/ARCHIVEF/08/daily-08-24-2001.shtml)

In removing most of the older Geneva translation's copious notes and textual explanations while utilizing the same original Greek and Latin manuscripts, King James therefore successfully obliterated the testimony of the prior translators who risked reputation and life to illuminate God's free saving GRACE (Ephesians 2:8,9) -- insured through His gift of faith -- and a salvation insured on a cross, long ago by One, in love, so that others might freely have life in Him. 

Hence, the KJV's popularity nowadays, I believe, is not so much a byproduct of its textual accuracy and authenticity, as it is a product of our fondness for the familiar and tradition, Shakespearean form, and the KJV's contribution by omission to the "salvation through works" mentality.  By eliminating study helps, King James kept control of scripture, the Pope kept control of the church, and men and women everywhere were encouraged to contribute something to their own salvation (and their relatives')! 

And while the King himself was not an outwardly card-carrying Roman Catholic as was his Mother--Mary, Queen of Scots (until she realized the value of acquiring Protestant Scottish support in order to Unite the Kingdom)--he realized the value of Roman Catholicism's totalitarianism of authority.  For he imagined himself England's divinely appointed imperial head (as did the rest of the Stewart/Stuart lineage) --  http://www.2hwy.com/eg/d/drk.htm -- ultimately God's authority on earth, as the Pope -- and further, desiring to merge religion with politics in order to acquire ULTIMATE control over minions, three countries, and parliament itself. 

For a while, anyway.

I guess the thing that bothers me personally about all of this is that when one looks into King James' desire as divine monarch one finds a good example of leaders throughout history who have tried to stake a claim to tyranny via divine right, or via bloodlines.  But in the verses of chapter 1, right here in the book of John (where we have been studying since last November), when we read in verses 12 and 13, we find that one does not become a "child of God" or "offspring of God" via bloodlines, but rather simply by just turning and "receiving Him".  The "Him" one must "receive," according to the apostle John of Zebedee in his letter to the world, has always been the catch, however--He is the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ Himself--both with God and God.  Nowhere does it say salvation comes by way of the church.  Or that religion is the way to God.  (See John 14:6)

And while we do welcome all questions and issues here at Fireside, especially those pertaining to scripture---such questions really tend to cut into our very limited "study" time depriving us all of the one thing Gene and I are dedicated to sharing----this incredible book; a book still amazingly legal today--God's love letter to humanity, our very own English versions having been enabled by the sweat, blood, and often horrifically sacrificed lives of men and women throughout the past two thousand years, who have made it their life's work to preserve it for us.  We as comfortable, privileged Americans can not fully appreciate this because we grew up either having one or at least knowing about it.   We have forgotten, or just ignored, the true price of our "free" gift. 

Let us then, before we run out of time this evening, and before this book becomes once again illegal:-), welcome all of you to our Fireside tonight, and let us conclude our study by opening our Bibles to the book of John, chapter one, and beginning with verse 29 (which is the end of our April study) read through verse 51.

There are only two times the word "Lamb" is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the Bible.  We find that both instances are in letters written by this same alleged author, John, both in his gospel and then later in Revelation. What did the apostle John know that he was trying to convey to us? 

That is correct--that this Man, whom he previously knew only as his cousin Jesus, has now been set apart (word is "sanctified") by God before John as The chosen Messiah.  Now John knew whom he had been sent to "make straight the way for."  John's baptism of water was for that purpose--to point toward a better baptism.  Water baptism would symbolize the end of the Old Covenant with God's people, Israel.  The Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, would bring a New Covenant in resurrection via "the baptism of the Spirit".  Life from death.  Up from the water.  Out of death into life. 

And yet, upon John's profound first proclamation of "Lamb", his disciples do not respond.

What do we know about any testimony given 2000 years ago--what was the importance of a testimony vs. just a really interesting story? 

That's right--it becomes valid in a court of law upon two affirming witnesses. 

Who are John's other witnesses?  God, Himself... the "One who sent me," John the Baptist states.  There's another one...h-m-m-m-m, who could that be?  That's right, John of Zebedee, who is writing this book.  (He will clarify this at the end of his letter/book. )

And what is John the Baptist's "sign" to the Pharisees and Jews (and all of us who are reading this story now) that John the Baptist is merely reflecting the true Light  not the Light himself?  That's right--the lesser (water) baptism for forgiveness (remission), and his own humility.  But John the Baptist speaks of  a better way coming--a better "baptism"; a Newer Covenant.  How is baptism of the Holy Spirit different?   By it, the Lord actually changes one's heart, one's nature.  Water has no power unto itself, it merely washes the outer man.  But Spiritual baptism changes the inner man.  It is more than forgiveness for the sins we've committed, it is life from spiritual death--a spiritual change of heart is a change only God can enable, one through which God opens us to the irrefutable truth of His scriptures, and enables us to live differently--not merely give lip service to get credit for our intentions.  It is a way bigger and better baptism than by water for remission.  Spiritual baptism is also given freely to all who turn to the Lamb of God for salvation.   Many churches do not want to turn lose of the control of God's ' free gifts (see above).

This is the second time John earmarks our Sacrifice for sin with the phrase Lamb of God.  This second time his disciples indeed turn and "follow." This is profound. They follow, no doubt full of questions and without many answers, as Jesus deigns to ask them as He asks us now, "What do you want?"  Some Bibles may translate this as "What do you seek?"

Well, I ask you what or whom do all of you seek, tonight....

Here's a real account of how the "Good News" was first spread.  True evangelism.  One family member to another, passing it on.  No speeches, no sermons--just the simple truth, "We have found the Messiah."  Messiah means "Anointed" One--Christos in Greek, Messiah in Hebrew.  Everyone present knew the meaning of the word. 

P.S. Remember "Cephas" in Aramaic is the same as "Petros" in Greek--meaning "little stone or pebble". 

In English grammar, when diagramming sentences we begin by designating a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb).  In the sentence "Follow me," we find the subject is an understood noun.  Who or what is the understood subject of this sentence?  That is correct--YOU.  If we put the "you" back into this sentence and repeat it, how does that make the words feel different?  This sentence now feels stronger than an invitation, doesn't it...with the inclusion of the understood YOU our short sentence now becomes an imperative or a command.  You follow me.  This is not an invitation.  Why?  For example, if I invite you to dinner and you decline, is there typically a penalty?   Will I be mad?  An invitation inherently connotes one's option to decline, doesn't it?  But an imperative or command inherently possesses the prospect of penalty for disobedience.  We ask ourselves, then, are Jesus' words to Andrew and Philip--"(You) Follow Me,"  invitation or imperative.  Yes, He is not aksing them, He's telling them.

And as a former hillbilly from North Carolina and current resident of the Hill Country of Texas, I must make special note of the skeptical comment by Nathanael regarding Nazareth, a town in the Hill Country of Jerusalem....

We have not discussed why the term Israelite is important.  We will talk about it more in time.  For now, let me say that those people defined as "Israelites" were Jesus' "own" people spoken of in John 1, "...He came to His own and His own received Him not...." 

Jesus informs Nathanael of his character.  He speaks of him as a true Israelite, "...in whom there is nothing FALSE".  This is an especially incisive observation.  How could Jesus know Nathanael's inner character?  How could He know anything about him at all--hadn't they had just met?  Jesus speaks of His having "seen" Nathanael "under the fig tree."  What do you suppose Nathanael was doing under the tree--what was the significance the "fig" tree?   It is where one went to pray as  good Israelite, to meditate upon the word of God.  To whom was Nathanael praying?  That is correct: God.  Jesus, who is with God, and IS God, and is also The Word (John1:1)--that Word upon whom/what Nathanael was probably meditating--reveals His knowledge of Nathanael in this most intimate way.   And He also adds that it took evidence before Nathanael moved from a state of prior skepticism, to his confession of faith. 

Jesus is also revealing to the readers through John, His own divinity, as well as His humanity. Jesus uses the phrase Son of Man, connoting His human connection and relationship to us--our kinsman the Hebrews called it--through His own body/flesh. 

Within but this first chapter of John, we have read many additional names and terms for Jesus of Nazareth--the Word, the true Light, the Life, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, God, and the Son of Man, among them.  But what is most important is who you believe He was.  That is the question just one chapter from this beloved apostle forces us to ask ourselves--who was this man, Jesus of Nazareth?  I believe He is the only One upon whom we can truly depend; He is the immovable, immortal Rock to whom we can cling, upon whose sufficient foundation His "church" was built--not a church made with hands and bricks and bolts, but one without doors--that body of believers around the world (He created)--disciples, those of us who follow Him still.  His sheep.  Those who trust in His sufficiency alone for their eternal lives, and not in the doctrines of men, nor empty promises, nor spiritual IOU's from some so-called Christian denomination or organization.  Trust Him.

Amen.

And thus chapter one of the book of John ends.  Let us now gather our belongings and any dessert you might now want, drinks and such, and proceed out to our campfire area to roast marshmallows and join the music!

EDITOR'S NOTE: The first English translations of the Bible were enabled, not by King James, however, but by Tyndale, Wycliff, and Coverdale in England, with great personal sacrifice for having translated the Word of God into the language of the people--Tyndale himself was hanged and his body burned to discourage such future endeavors. Read more about how King James' translation of the Bible was accomplished--learn about the various manuscripts used to translate our English Bibles today. You can also read about the rest of the Royal House of Stewart (and all its spellings), Merovingians and Carolingians--who they were alleged to be, and how their allegedly "divine" bloodlines have affected history throughout the ages and still influence politics and religion today.  A good place to begin to learn about all of this is your local library, as well as on the internet.  I buy newer books at Half-Price books and older ones at flea markets and shops all over Texas.  Recently I purchased an interesting one on the History of England for a quarter at Literacy Austin's annual Bookfest. [2]

Follows, however, are some internet starting points, FYI:-)
 

FOOTNOTES:
1.  "History of England," Revised Edition, by W.E. Lunt, Professor of History, Haverford College; Harper & Brothers Publishers, NY, London, 1938; pps. 387-427.
2. ibid.