[alwayslearning]

Thank you for taking the time to post at length NFNL. I appreciate your effort. I made some direct comments on some of your post and then some more general comments at the end.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

First: About King James, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...To this I would offer:
"King James ascended the throne upon the death of his brother, Charles II. Members of Britain's political and religious elite increasingly opposed him for being pro-French and pro-Catholic, and for his designs on becoming an absolute monarch. James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings. James's time in France had exposed him to the beliefs and ceremonies of Catholicism; he and his wife, Anne, became drawn to that faith. James took Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church in 1668 or 1669, although his conversion was kept secret for some time and he continued to attend Anglican services until 1676." (courtesy of Wikipedia).

As Ohio has already pointed out this quote is referring to King James II not King James I.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Of King James Bible Translation:

"King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

But further down you write/quote this:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1611: "

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Despite his treatment of the non-conformists, King James authorized the translation of the Bible we know as the King James Version. The work had begun in 1604, urged by John Rainolds, a Puritan, and accomplished by 54 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster."

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1607:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

After secretly boarding a ship and paying "the large expenditure," the Separatists discovered that they had been betrayed. "King James' local sheriff with his bailiffs appeared on the scene to arrest them." They "stripped them of their money, books and other goods before they were presented to the magistrates." Many of the men were jailed -- including William Brewster and the 17- year-old William Bradford.The Pilgrims
Meanwhile, the Jamestown Colony is founded in Virginia.

Yes meanwhile the Jamestown Colony was founded in VA by a group of businessmen in search of gold and other assets under a charter from King James 1. William Brewster eventually came over to MA on the Mayflower 13 years later.

I think we should perhaps go back a little further to grasp the situation in England more clearly:

What you have described regarding the religious and political turmoil in England in the 1600s actually started under the reign of King Henry VIII in the mid 1500s when he took over the Church of England (Anglican) because the Pope wouldn't give him a divorce from his wife. With this move he and future kings and queens became the head of the Church of England and this Church was the established church/religion. And this word "established" is quite important as it turns up again in early American history. So the Church was Catholic and became Protestant as King Henry was influenced by the Protestant Reformation that had come to England from the Continent. But some Catholic influences remained in terms of practices i.e. level of formality, litgury, etc. BTW the functioning head i.e. in charge of day-to-day operations, theological issues etc. was/is the Archbishop of Canterbury. As is evident the religious and political were tightly intertwined in England (and on the Continent).

I mentioned in a previous post the Church of England/King or Queen/ Archbishop of Canterbury persecuted Dissenters and had the political power to do so. The Church under King James 1 was no exception. And this included Catholics (who's property was confiscated) not just Separatists, Puritans, etc. when the King or Queen was Protestant. Now when an actual Puritan gained power in England i.e Oliver Cromwell he not only killed the King he also committed what some consider to be at the level of genocide against Catholics - especially in Ireland. And when the Separatists and Puritans had the political power in the colonies they in turn persecuted "Dissenters" e.g the Quakers, Baptists, etc. You will believe what we believe and do church how we do church or you'll be persecuted. (BTW I think understanding power will help you understand this history.)

This whole dynamic is what I previously described as Christians persecuting Christians. It was infighting. In other words the Hindus in India weren't arguing about Bible translations, church practices, etc. Neither were the Buddhists in China or the animist Cherokees in the "New World". (And putting things in perspective I like how Winston Churchill describes the American Revolution in his work A History of English-Speaking Peoples as "The Quarrel with America".)

Now since you seem to be perturbed by the concept of the divine rights of kings please let me reiterate: this idea and practice was common in Europe and Britain for centuries. This was not some random idea that popped into a king's head in the 1600s. And the Bible was used as a justification for their position on this issue:

Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

2 Peter 2:1: "Submit yourself for the Lord's sake to every human institution whether to a king..."

Mark 12:17: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars."

So the reasonable argument could be made that the Founding Fathers instead of starting an armed Revolution should have submitted to King George III. I'm not making that argument because I know the Judeo-Christian tradition was not their only influence. The idea of democracy came from Greece and separation of powers from Rome, etc.