I have been reading your comments on the writers of the King James Bible.  

You say that the Pilgrims and Puritans used the Geneva Bible, avoiding the King James.  

I have not read the Geneva Bible, but I know it's preferred even today by some Christians, over the King James.  Could you tell me what the

main difference is, or are there so many differences that it would be hard to describe them all--in which case, please do not over-exert yourselves

to explain these differences.  I'm just curious.

Was it some reference to the King of England being the ultimate authority in the land, taking due credit from God the Omnipotent?

I'm always interested in something poor James did.  He and I share some common ancestors, so I do some desultory research on these ancestors,

to try to discern, at this far distance in time, what they were like.  We are all "new creatures" in Christ, not dependent

on what our forebears were like, but one still tries to understand the forebears, just as we try to 'psych out" our ancestors Adam and Eve.

My question really is:  did King James (and his Court) set himself up as an authority superceding God, and was this why the Pilgrims preferred the Geneva Bible?

I am really whacked at what the modern Anglican Church, James' Church, has dared to do, setting up homosexual marriage and the possibility of homosexual

priests and bishops.  The present Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that it is high time this was done, making me slightly sick to my stomach that this very

learned man would say such a thing.  In the past, there were of course homosexuals present in the Anglican Church, but the Church did not have the effrontery to

officially legitimize this sin.  I am not a theologian but I believe there is a difference between including and loving homosexuals in the church as fellow sinners,

and legitimizing their sins beyond what God has ordained.  

Whacked, aren't we all?