Was the King James Bible ordered by a black magician?, page 1

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:53 AM

link

Recently I became aware that some protestant evangelical Christians believe they are ahistorical and non-denominational. There one connecting script is the KJV Bible. Questions arose about Leviticus 11, which says rabbits chew the cud, bats are birds, and some birds and the insects have four legs. Apparently rabbits do eat their waste, but it is not cud or rumination, and the original Hebrew said something akin to simply "moving" food. (Not that modern Christians use any of these divisions between "clean" and "unclean" animals. Just kill it, fry it and scoff it). So, it cannot be denied from any position that the KJV is badly mistranslated.
However, the more controversial verse is Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". This over-threw the Roman-era words that distinguished between white and black witchcraft. James 1st made it all satanic and evil. And yet, King James was apparently himself a black magician, who loved rolling in blood especially spilt for him, and used the spells extracted under his personal tortures.
The worst is that thousands of kids in Africa are tortured as witches by pastors who use the KJV. How sad what the US fundamentalists export, and then wash their hands of the "dark continent" and the harm they cause it. How sad when the KJV is taken literally! Well, is it just hearsay, or was James 1st an occultist?
www.huffingtonpost.com...

halfoldman

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:04 AM

link

Apologies, the last e-mail link is wrong. I hope and trust this is correct:

African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors www.huffingtonpost.com...

spellbound

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:08 AM

link

reply to post by halfoldman

I believe the Bible was written by liars - just go to Jesus.

Or if you don't want to go to Jesus - I don't know.

halfoldman

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:59 AM

link

reply to post by spellbound

That depends how we read bibles like KJV. Everything has multiple meanings. The problem is that while Jesus is the main figure in Christianity, all denominations are in agreement that He did certainly not write the Bible.

halfoldman

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:55 AM

link

reply to post by halfoldman

I suppose this begs the question, who did compile it? My memory says something like St. Jerome under Pope Damascus, over 380 years after the supposed Jesus went to heaven on a cloud.

shamhat

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:56 AM

link

I don’t know whether he was an occultist, though like many of his Royal peers, it is likely that he dabbled in Alchemy, but that is not really the same thing. Witchcraft was feared by rulers because those that practised it were seen as a threat to the homogeny of ‘state’ religion. I don’t believe that James cared one toot about the ‘common people’ and what they did or did not practice, just so long as they behaved themselves and paid whatever taxes were imposed upon them. A case in point, he often spoke out against the ‘sin’ of sodomy, didn’t stop him from indulging in it with great frequency himself. One law for us, quite another for them.

Whether James rolled around in blood or not, is doubtful, and sounds like Roman Church propaganda to me, but it is possible, but if true was more likely an expression of hedonism than any practice of craft. He was an odd sort though and very inbred, he had difficulty with solid food due to his ‘Hapsburg chin’ and in later years locked himself in his quarters due to extreme paranoia and fear of assassination.

In terms of the Bible itself, I believe that one of the chief problems is that at the time it was first translated into the Northern European languages, there were fundamental differences in the way in which languages ‘expressed’, meaning a direct translation was impossible, some words had to be translated to the closest possible meaning. This has led to numerous confusions for scholars. The King James Bible, in my opinion, was translated from an earlier Gothic (Swedish) version which only adds further to the confusion.

Amanuel

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:43 AM

link

in my opinion yes. it took out a lot of knowledge, and hid even more in esoteric teachings parabalitically stated in an attempt to gain leverage over people. the lessons were paraballitic but not as much as they are given credit for today. more literal if you will.... mere ants, sheep, goats, wolves. thats all we are to God!

shamhat

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:42 AM

link

Originally posted by Amanuel
in my opinion yes. it took out a lot of knowledge, and hid even more in esoteric teachings parabalitically stated in an attempt to gain leverage over people. the lessons were paraballitic but not as much as they are given credit for today. more literal if you will.... mere ants, sheep, goats, wolves. thats all we are to God!

Although I don't disagree with you I think much of that work had been done prior to the KJV, about 1300 years prior in fact. There was a conference, hosted by James and held at Hampton Court to decide how the 'state religion' should be presented and some of those discussions relate to how the bible should reflect that. However, as with everything in Britain, it had more to do with our trade relations and the worry that any concession may lead to the Roman Church requesting that it's lands and property (removed from them during the reformation and dissolution of the monasteries) be returned to their rightful owners. In fact, the bulk of the debate was taken up by church governance, the puritans of course wanted none, the Anglo-catholics wanted it more old-school and heirarchal.

halfoldman

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:56 AM

link

Originally posted by shamhat
I don’t know whether he was an occultist, though like many of his Royal peers, it is likely that he dabbled in Alchemy, but that is not really the same thing. Witchcraft was feared by rulers because those that practised it were seen as a threat to the homogeny of ‘state’ religion. I don’t believe that James cared one toot about the ‘common people’ and what they did or did not practice, just so long as they behaved themselves and paid whatever taxes were imposed upon them. A case in point, he often spoke out against the ‘sin’ of sodomy, didn’t stop him from indulging in it with great frequency himself. One law for us, quite another for them.

Whether one defines practices like alchemy or those of John Dee as black magic is a up to the individual. The irony is that KJV waving modern Christians regards all these occult practices as demonic and satanic. It's really a bit like the Nazis who persecuted occultists, Freemasons and mediums, but they were deeply involved with the occult and even Jewish mystecism themselves. I think where-ever one finds witchhunts against the occult or gay people, one can be sure that a lot of it is going. on.

Frogs

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 11:13 AM

link

Originally posted by halfoldman
And yet, King James was apparently himself a black magician, who loved rolling in blood especially spilt for him, and used the spells extracted under his personal tortures.

Do you have a source for the above I quoted from your poste please?

The article you linked does talk about what is going on in Africa - but I saw no mention of the claims about King James.

shamhat

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 11:42 AM

link

Originally posted by halfoldman
Whether one defines practices like alchemy or those of John Dee as black magic is a up to the individual.

Yes and no. Both were still practiced in secrecy, and both were generally done so in the realms of nobility. Good honest, 'white magic' was generally what poor or common people did, which is why it was frowned upon, if they followed the tribal ways, they were less willing to fork out for taxes and less likely to fall for the fire and brimstone tactics that got them to fight wars against each other.

TheRedneck

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:11 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Exodus 22:18

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

I am familiar with this verse, because it has been brought to my attention many times.

The meaning seems clear enough:

Suffer - to allow, to let
Witch - someone who practices witchcraft
Live - exist, be alive

Put it all together and you have:

You shall not let a witchcraft user exist.

So we kill all the witches.

The problem is that there have actually been at least two translations to get this verse. The first was intentional: the translation form the original Hebrew into Old English. The second was unintentional: the changing of words and connotations from Old English into Modern English with time. If we go back to the original Hebrew and re-translate into Modern English, the meaning changes a bit:

Suffer - assist, aid, help*
Witch - kashaph, to whisper a spell or incant
Live - chayah, to live, to revive, to thrive, to quicken

Putting all this together, we have a different meaning:

You shall not help one who uses spells to thrive.

In other words, we have gone from the (improper) translation of being told to kill all who practice sorcery to being told to not call the Psychic Hotline. In the time context when this book was written, it was simply a commandment to not spend their wealth and time dealing with those who were (or claimed to be) able to consult with spirits (the reason one used spells). God was (is) the only spirit that needed to be consulted with.

I have found that whenever a verse seems to mean something that it shouldn't mean, it usually doesn't. All it takes is a little research and an open mind to discover what the true meaning really is.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is my understanding that King James was actually trying to destroy Christianity by demanding the King James Version be written. At the time, the story goes, there were several different churches operating in England, each one with their own translation of the Bible. King James (a devout atheist) believed that by decreeing that one standard Bible be used, he could cause enough disarray between the churches due to the inconsistencies he saw between their different Bibles, to cause the churches to simply lose favor with and the respect of the people. Ironically, his King James version not only united the churches in England, but has become the most well-known Bible in the Western world.

Now, if this story is true, it would not surprise me to learn that perhaps King James did dabble in black magic. It will be interesting to find out what others have to say from different perspectives on this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Strong's Exhaustive Concordance links are from www.htmlbible.com...

(* the word 'suffer' is not linked in the online references I have been able to find (

), and I can't seem to lay my hands on my copy of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance right at this moment. I am, however, certain of my interpretation of the word, based on my memory of when I investigated this particular verse. I'll guess you'll have to trust me on this, unless someone can find the Strong's reference number for me.)

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

theuhstuf

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:22 PM

link

I want to share this here
www.youtube.com...

I can't ever get these things to embed, it always adds extra crap that I didn't put there, so just go to the link if you are interested in hearing about how our modern day bible is just a worthless collection (that's what I've come to understand anyway).

halfoldman

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:45 PM

link

reply to post by Frogs

Concerning sources, see:
Who Really Was King James-HiddenMysteriesSpritual Studies www.hiddenmysteries.org...
The above site is very interesting and describes his sodomy, beastiality and bloodlust. It also gives the rationale behind the KJV (as opposed to the Geneva translation) as reinforcing the divine rights of (even insane) kings.
Also see the lengthier blog:
Hermetic and Rosicrucian Timeline - David Icke's Official Forums www.davidicke.com...
This lengthy discussion gives Jame's bloodline and his connection to various occult groups, which then also formed his real rationale for the slaughter of "witches". There is also a fair Christian rebuttal to all this, although unfortunately it is strained by the continuing torture and killing in Africa, dased on the badly translated Exodus 22:18 in the KJV.

halfoldman

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:58 PM

link

reply to post by halfoldman

Oops, it appears the second link above gave an incomplete address. It is: www.davidicke.com...
Should this still fail, it can easily be Googled with David Icke Forums+
Hermetic, Rosicrucian timeline.

halfoldman

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:30 AM

link

reply to post by halfoldman

Bless them, but many people on ATS still feel some reason to call the KJV "inspired". I suppose they mean "inspired" by "good"?

halfoldman

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:53 PM

link

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman

Bless them, but many people on ATS still feel some reason to call the KJV "inspired". I suppose they mean "inspired" by "good"?

I wonder: If Henry VIII was allowed a divorce on an improper basis, would we even have a Church of England with the current monarch on top? Strangely, Henry remained the "Defender" of the (Catholic) Faith until he died.
It seems the Sunday Sabbath, the Trinity, and much more was carried right to the Protestant church.
I saw the Pope's visit to the US - most evangelists sublimated to Him. It confirms my view that the Vatican still owns all of Christianity.

Doc Holiday

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:08 PM

link

No I don't have a link......sorry...
Isn't KJ the same guy that had over 400 monks imprisoned, for the sole purpose of translation, of the original texts that also killed, murdered, beheaded many of theses same monks, simply because they did not translate the quotes, in KJ's own beliefs?
I got this from a bible college students research paper 20 years ago and have never had a reason to verify it, nor believe it true/false...
I'm just making a random statement that I remember overhearing, two students debating......

I have no opinion here "I am not a christian", but I have always suspected it "could" be true?
And just because I'm not christian does not mean that I have not studied/researched, multiple religions...
I am not christian bashing here!!!

halfoldman

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:18 PM

link

reply to post by Doc Holiday

I do believe you are right!
There is not much to choose between the "Christain" churches. Thank you for that.

shamhat

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:54 PM

link

Originally posted by halfoldman
I wonder: If Henry VIII was allowed a divorce on an improper basis, would we even have a Church of England with the current monarch on top?

It was not a question of impropriety that led to the refusal of the Pope to grant divorce, it was that the Pope had greater allegience to the family of Henry's then wife. It was a political refusal, not a religious or moral one.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Strangely, Henry remained the "Defender" of the (Catholic) Faith until he died.
It seems the Sunday Sabbath, the Trinity, and much more was carried right to the Protestant church.

The Church of England was never protestant, it has always been Catholic. The arguments that Henry used to remove himself, and England from subservience to Rome, was that the English church had it's own Apostolic succession that was equal to that claimed by Rome. His daughter, Elizabeth I, was though raised a protestant and practiced that faith, but that did not detract from her role as defender of the English Church.

Under Elizabeth's reign, the Anglican Church was repackaged, via the publication and introduction of The Common Book of Prayer, which did somewhat 'Protestantise' Anglicanism, but this was merely to appease the Lutheran Prussians whom we needed as military and trade allies.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by shamhat]