Main article: James I of England and religious issues

The Gunpowder Plot forced James to reconsider his tolerant policy towards English Catholics; and for a while he sanctioned stricter measures to control them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, incorporating a denial of the pope's authority over the king.[84] In practice, James proved lenient towards Catholic laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[85] and he tolerated Catholicism and crypto-Catholicism even at court.[86] Towards the Puritan clergy, with whom he debated at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604,[87] James was at first strict in enforcing conformity, inducing a sense of persecution amongst many Puritans;[88] 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.[89] 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.[90] In 1618, James's bishops forced his Five Articles of Perth through a General Assembly; but the rulings were widely resisted.[91] James was to leave the church in Scotland divided at his death, a source of future problems for his son.[92] Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

So was this just a power hungry king?? He makes changes to the bible to suit himself,,to be the head of the church of England...and bingo new version of the bible is born

Killer question -- What If Jesus, had of came around the time of James the 1st.........and Jesus claimed to be king of the english, what would James have done to Jesus??
Your thoughts...........

The same as if he just appeared today, the head of the church would have him silenced.

great post....very thought provoking....i believe James would have Jesus killed asap....i do not know what he may have tried to do to the Bible but you can always go back to the greek and hebrew and translate any part for yourself if you feel there are parts that have been changed....so far, i have not found anything of any consequence but i am still looking....

randomhit10

Yup, if he'd showed up old kingy would have done away with him. You can't have the son of god turning up willy-nilly and putting a spanner in the works.

You are correct, James would have had Jesus killed..........cuz going by the history written, James was power hungry, hence the reason to have his OWN bible....ect...ohh he would have had Jesus killed, only it would look at lot worse than a crucified killing..a hell of a lot worse.............in those days, it was off with your head....hey just like James's mother Mary Queen of Scots LMAO...OUCHIE!!!

not sure he changed the bible....yeah he had a new translation done, but not to increase his power....more to decrease the power and influence of the papacy in britain. there are a number of reasons for his wanting a new and more accurate translation.....he wasnt such a bad egg, and he was already King!

but he may well have had jesus killed....if he proved a political threat. on the other hand he may have welcomed his comming, if there was no doubt of his identity.
if he was thought to just be some nutter, he would have been seen as an oddity, an amusement. he may have been thrown in prison if he became a problem.

if he had to be killed, james would not have thought twice....if he was to be made an example of there were far more horrible ways to do it than lopping his head off (which was usually reserved for 'merciful' executions.)
he could have been hung drawn and quartered....like mel gibson in that film...
or he could have had a red hot poker inserted where the sun dont shine....it really happened!

medieval forms of torture and killing display great imagination and inventiveness

edit: sorry i forgot to ask, what changes did he make? were there many?

But he was power hungry...........from my OP --> Parliament passed an act which could require any citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, incorporating a denial of the pope's authority over the king.[84] back in those days, the pope was considered more powerful in religion than the king was...so he wnted to control cathiolics his WAY and get them to follow him and not the pope..............so he made changes and out came his version of the bible!!!

sis, I hadn't heard of this i recently read of King henry the viii starting the church of england becasue the catholic church wouln't grant him a divorce so one of his ocnsultants told him to start his own church do what you want.... i would assume that yes they were power huingry, not much has changed IMO....

didn't they behead in those days so i would say jesus would of had a similar death....

not sure it was power grabbin more wanting security for his country...
henry 8th set up church of england and set himself as its head, for reasons too long for me to bother, lots of troubles started because of this...when his daughter lizzy 1st finally came to the throne there was trouble aplenty...but she tried to be quite moderate...then the spanish armarda thing happened, and james1st mum mary was behedded because she was a catholic who plotted to replace dear liz. james came to the throne as head of the church of england and was forced to address the troubles...the later guy fawks gunpowder plot illustrates the danger that radical catholics posed to the protestant church.
james was quite a moderate bloke, this parliment act was a way of addressing a political problem....

most folk didnt really care...when henry 8th instituted the church they were like, ok now were protestant, nodding off to services in our own language, no more indulgences and church taxes etc....yay....
then when mary (bloody mary) changed it back to catholic, they were like, ok were catholic again...falling asleep in services in latin ...the songs are nice tho....
then lizzie came to the thone....ok now protestants again, who cares... i go to work most of the week, the pub, play footie on a saturday...life is too good to get all serious about it....
then james comes and formalizes it in an oath....ok, why not, its just some words....
ofcourse there were some folk who were staunchly set in their religious rituals and who would not convert one way or the other, good for them for sticking to their guns....some were forced to convert, some lost property and imprisoned, some killed...some of them were a threat.
through all of this there were catholics about who were tolerated, some had to hide and worship clandestinely...but it swung both ways, under mary lots of proddies died, hence her nickname...

this is a completely inadequate attempt to describe what was a rather complex and difficult period in british history....but the point is most folk were happy to toe the line and switch back and forth as they were told....
taking james's oath didnt really confer more power to him, it just attempted to get people to stop catholic plots, and encouraging spanish and french invasions.
oaths of allegiance to a king.....not the first time its ever happened, folk do it today....swearing allegiance to the queen...like cops, army dudes and such like.
is she an evil mastermind too?

still not sure what you mean by changes to the bible? apart from the fact it was translated....

I find the KJV , Tyndale and Geneva bibles to be very similar in comparison. I believe that King James had more of an issue with the marginal notes in those early bibles. But no doubt he wanted one bible to be authorized by none other than himself.