The Geneva Bible (an English translation published in 1560) had marginal notes which were not favourable to dictators. That disturbed James. So, he ordered a new translation to be made, one where the marginal notes were acceptable to him.
Among the dogmas which James arranged to be written into the translation he had ordered, was the concept of a supposed divine right of kings. He had some truly incredible claims about himself. In a speech to the parliament (which he regarded as nothing), he claimed that
"kings are iustly called Gods", and that "they haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death: Iudges ouer all their subiects, and in all causes, and yet accomptable [accountable] to none but God onely", and even, "I conclude then this point touching the power of Kings, with this Axiome of Diuinitie, That as to dispute what God may doe, is Blasphemie; but quid vult Deus [what God wants], that Diuines may lawfully, and doe ordinarily dispute and discusse; for to dispute A Posse ad Esse [from 'may be' to 'is'] is both against Logicke and Diuinitie: So is it sedition in Subiects, to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power".
The translators whom James put to work - and perhaps more the final editor who revised their work - saw to it that support for his claims about a "divine right" was written into that new translation. Later translations have then copied those things. Thus, even though there is no biblical basis for the "divine right" dogma, it is in some ways found in many translations of the Bible (even in ones that were produced before the KJV-1611).
Now, understanding these things in full is not possible without knowing some things about the Knight-Templars and Freemasonry. (Again, it is said that James was a Knight-Templar.) But, that is a subject too large to be included here. May it be enough to say that some Knight-Templars and Freemasons have claimed that a "kingly lineage" with a "heavenly right" has been continued from ancient times - even from times before the Flood. (That is an occult claim that refers to certain beings, or a special kindred, who lived here on Earth before the Flood.) Again, Freemasonry is a Satan-worshipping religion. The essay ew04d.htm has more on that matter.
As a part of those claims regarding "divine right" and "lineage", there is also the Knight-Templar relic stone above which James sat when he was coronated. That stone is connected to occult things too sinister to be mentioned here, but in short, the story is that a stone of some kind "came down from heaven" (from the stars), and that it somehow is connected to a "heavenly bloodline". That seems to be the origin of the concept of "blue blood"; blue was not the colour of the blood but rather the colour of heaven. That story has it that that "divine bloodline" came from "the gods who came down from heaven, mating with human women". These things might sound strange, but that is nevertheless the actual story around that Knight-Templar (Freemason) mystery-stone upon which even James I was coronated. The essay ey14b.htm more on that "stone" matter.
Many claim, echoing wordings written into the KJV and many other versions, that the rulers of this world supposedly are "appointed by God" and "continually in his service". Is that so? Was Genghis Khan "appointed by God" and "in his service"? Or Mao Tse Tung? Or Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, or any of the other great tyrants and butchers? Or - other rulers of this world? No, of course not. It is only that bible-translations which have been created at the order and under the control of the worldly rulers, make it seem so. The essay ew02c.htm has more on the rulers of this age (worldly rulers).
A note: The dogma about a supposed "divine right of kings" seems
to originate with old "sun-god" religions such as Mithraism. Often,
mystery-stones are important symbols in those religions.
Another note: The KJ version makes it seem that people should "follow
preachers". That is based on a twisted way of translating the apostle
Paul's words. What Paul really said (in the Greek text) was not "follow
me", but instead, "imitate my example". Most churches and
preachers do not want people to know what Paul's example really was. The essay em03b.htm
explains that matter in detail.
Most Bible Readers Do
not know that a Version is not
totally a Translation-- it someone’s Version are their beliefs.
For More open (1)-KingJamesVersionAndOthers.htm & (2)-KingJamesNewerVersions & BibleTranslationsTypes.htm